PDA

View Full Version : IJ*-samples in large study Iran



Sennevini
19-07-12, 14:02
There's a lot of news these days, it seems;
Dienekes has posted about a new study of Y-chromosomes in Iran: http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/07/huge-study-on-y-chromosome-variation-in.html

There are IJ*-samples found in it. That was not observed before anywhere, I believe.

Knovas
19-07-12, 14:59
Yes, It's the first time. Very interesting, however, I think it doesn't prove at all that IJ* originated in West Asia. Dienekes' says the finding is consistent with this, but it's too much of an assumption when checking modern samples instead of ancient ones.

Sennevini
19-07-12, 15:29
I wonder how close/far the IJ*-samples are to each other. Do they share a common ancestor as far back as I with J or only "recent" like with I1. That may tell us more.

sparkey
19-07-12, 17:15
Awesome find. The modern center of diversity of IJ can now be said to be in West Asia, rather than split between Europe and West Asia, as had been the case when I and J were the only known subclades of IJ.

I was a bit worried, based only on the table, that they hadn't tested for J SNPs, only J1 and J2, meaning that this could have actually been J*, which exists. But reading the paper itself, I see that they did test P209, meaning that this IJ* is the real deal. Although, I wonder if this IJ* shares any SNPs with the root of either I or J... that would tell us which of the 3 now known IJ subclades is the outlier.

It's possible that previous studies may have counted IJ* as F due to a lack of SNP testing. But the SNP testing in this particular study is really impressive.


I wonder how close/far the IJ*-samples are to each other. Do they share a common ancestor as far back as I with J or only "recent" like with I1. That may tell us more.

It's disappointing that their STR and age analyses only extended to J1, J2a, R1a, and R1b. IJ* would have been the most interesting, but they only wanted to look at "major" lineages.

Ah, well, I shouldn't complain too much. Great study.

Alan
28-07-12, 05:21
Yes, It's the first time. Very interesting, however, I think it doesn't prove at all that IJ* originated in West Asia. Dienekes' says the finding is consistent with this, but it's too much of an assumption when checking modern samples instead of ancient ones.
IJ was not found anywhere else, not in modern nor in ancient samples.

JFWR
28-07-12, 05:32
What does it say that they have found only IJ in modern populations in Iran, not ancient ones? One would envision that ancient Y-DNA would demonstrate IJ, but without it, does this imply that IJ came in later?

Iran has had some historical invasions. Macedonian Greeks under Alexander come to mind. Might these have brought IJ if there are no examples of ancient IJ?

Alan
28-07-12, 14:53
What does it say that they have found only IJ in modern populations in Iran, not ancient ones? One would envision that ancient Y-DNA would demonstrate IJ, but without it, does this imply that IJ came in later

Iran has had some historical invasions. Macedonian Greeks under Alexander come to mind. Might these have brought IJ if there are no examples of ancient IJ?


There isnt enough researches made on ancient DNA in Iran yet I highly doubt that the "IJ" might have come with Macedonian Greeks. if this was the case you would expect to find "IJ" in other areas conquered by them too especially where they came from. I also believe that IJ is very young and Nordvedt I think also dates I only some 2-3 thousand years back.

JFWR
29-07-12, 04:12
There isnt enough researches made on ancient DNA in Iran yet I highly doubt that the "IJ" might have come with Macedonian Greeks. if this was the case you would expect to find "IJ" in other areas conquered by them too especially where they came from. I also believe that IJ is very young and Nordvedt I think also dates I only some 2-3 thousand years back.

IJ is the source clade for I and J, so it cannot be young. I was in Europe 30,000 years ago. IJ is at least 40,000 years old.

I would very much like to see the results of early Iranian Y-DNA samples. It would be exceedingly peculiar if the absence of IJ continued.

Alan
29-07-12, 07:08
IJ is the source clade for I and J, so it cannot be young. I was in Europe 30,000 years ago. IJ is at least 40,000 years old.

I would very much like to see the results of early Iranian Y-DNA samples. It would be exceedingly peculiar if the absence of IJ continued.

sorry my fault I meant I is young not IJ. I dont know how you came to the suggestion I might be 30000 years old in Europe since this Haplogroup was only found from Neolthic times

JFWR
30-07-12, 03:31
sorry my fault I meant I is young not IJ. I dont know how you came to the suggestion I might be 30000 years old in Europe since this Haplogroup was only found from Neolthic times

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2008/04/02/gr.7172008.abstract - Estimates 22.2 k.a. With a confidence interval between 15.3-30.0 ka.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181996/?tool=pmcentrez - Estimates 23±7.7 ky.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml - Estimates 23,000 BC.

Maybe you are thinking some form of I1? I is associated with Cro-Magnon in Europe and the Gravettian culture. I is not neolithic, but paleolithic.

Nordtveldt's hypotheses, if these are his hypotheses, are wildly off other research.

sparkey
30-07-12, 18:00
Nordtveldt's hypotheses, if these are his hypotheses, are wildly off other research.

Those aren't his hypotheses, he estimates Haplogroup I at ~22,000 YBP. Alan is confusing Haplogroup I as a whole with some subclade of I (maybe I2a-Din?).

Alan
30-07-12, 18:27
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2008/04/02/gr.7172008.abstract - Estimates 22.2 k.a. With a confidence interval between 15.3-30.0 ka.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181996/?tool=pmcentrez - Estimates 23±7.7 ky.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml - Estimates 23,000 BC.

Maybe you are thinking some form of I1? I is associated with Cro-Magnon in Europe and the Gravettian culture. I is not neolithic, but paleolithic.

Nordtveldt's hypotheses, if these are his hypotheses, are wildly off other research. These are older studies and they estimated the arrivel of I in that time period while there was no real data of I found in ancient Europe. So Just estimation. While later all burials belonging to Haplogroup I where fond in Neolithic sides and always together with G2a (as far as I know).



Those aren't his hypotheses, he estimates Haplogroup I at ~22,000 YBP. Alan is confusing Haplogroup I as a whole with some subclade of I (maybe I2a-Din?).

Yes it seems I am really confusing something. I thought to have red somewhere that you mentioned Haplogroup I is believed to be 2-3000 years old. However do you think the presence of Haplogroup I can be dated back to 22000 years or did it arrive in Europe during Neolithic?

sparkey
30-07-12, 18:42
Yes it seems I am really confusing something. I thought to have red somewhere that you mentioned Haplogroup I is believed to be 2-3000 years old. However do you think the presence of Haplogroup I can be dated back to 22000 years or did it arrive in Europe during Neolithic?

I think Haplogroup I probably formed in Europe in the Paleolithic. I base that on the fact that we haven't been able to place the center of diversity of any of the ancient subclades to be outside of Europe. In fact, the highest diversity of modern Haplogroup I currently sampled falls along the Rhine and along the Atlantic Fringe, with maybe a slightly smaller diversity spike around the Elba or just east of it. The Neolithic Haplogroup I samples we've acquired from ancient DNA have been fully formed I2a1a, which STR testing of modern samples has helped confirm was the earliest subclade to expand with the arrival of the Neolithic. Unfortunately, we don't have any ancient YDNA sampled from Paleolithic or Mesolithic Europe yet.

Mkk
30-07-12, 21:04
Nordvedt wrote:

The huge European y haplogroup I1 seems to have a TMRCA of only about 4500 years. Yet, our best present knowledge is that the y tree branch line leading to the I1 founder parted ways from the rest of the haplogroup I tree over 20,000 years ago. We have no evidence right now of any intermediate branches coming off this pre-I1 ancestral line and reaching the present --- a "barren" 16,000 year interval of a branch line hovering on the edge of extinction.
The challenge is to find the haplotype today with the greatest GD or variance as measured from the modal I1 haplotype --- about as good a candidate as we have for the I1 MRCA's founding haplotype. This haplotype must be S31- but M170+; in other words I(xI2) This does not guarantee the haplotype will then be a pre-I1 branch from the ancestral line to I1, it could be an I* haplotype instead. But such a haplotype, I(xI2), could be tested for a number of the many, many snps we have right now which we know are spread randomly along that 16,000 year line. If it is positive for any of them, it qualifies.
Probably some rule is needed to exclude major mutational jumps in which some STR added or lost a large number of repeats in one process. I have not figured out yet how to state such a rule.
Since every haplotype in our databases is not snp tested (actually, most are not), I'd suggest only considering haplotypes with DYS455 = 8 (and maybe 7 and 9) at first. But look out for haplotypes from an African haplogroup which also has 8 at DYs455; I think some supplementary filter will also be needed.
Do you have a candidate haplotype for this search?”

"Edge of extinction" - this could mean hg I1 could have been carried by a small group of men anywhere in Europe or outside, but most likely the Balkans. Klyosov's data supports this too. He believes hg I originated on the Russian plain over 40 thousand years ago, but it's bearers mostly underwent a population bottleneck 6000-4000 years ago. His data shows the following for I2 sub-clades:

Haplotype trees for all three
haplogroups listed above are more uniform ones, and their “age” is 5600±620
years (I2a1), 5700±590 (I2b1) and 5000±630 (I2b2)

In another paper he writes:

The value for TSCA seen in the populations discussed
above are quite typical of other European I1 populations. For the Northwest European/Scandinavian
(Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland) combined series
of haplotypes the TSCA equals to 3375±345 ybp. For
the Central and South Europe (Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Italy, Switzerland, Spain) it equals to
3425±350 ybp, for Germany 3225±330 ybp, for the
East European countries (Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Lithuania) it is equal to 3225±360 ybp (to be
published). It is of interest that even Middle Eastern I1
haplotypes (Jordan, Lebanon, and presumably Jewish
ones) descend from a common ancestor who lived at
about the same time, 3475±480 ybp





So it seems I is indeed Paleolithic in Europe, but the Paleolithic didn't affect it's current population structure because of the bottleneck.

JFWR
31-07-12, 05:19
Nordvedt wrote:

The huge European y haplogroup I1 seems to have a TMRCA of only about 4500 years. Yet, our best present knowledge is that the y tree branch line leading to the I1 founder parted ways from the rest of the haplogroup I tree over 20,000 years ago. We have no evidence right now of any intermediate branches coming off this pre-I1 ancestral line and reaching the present --- a "barren" 16,000 year interval of a branch line hovering on the edge of extinction.
The challenge is to find the haplotype today with the greatest GD or variance as measured from the modal I1 haplotype --- about as good a candidate as we have for the I1 MRCA's founding haplotype. This haplotype must be S31- but M170+; in other words I(xI2) This does not guarantee the haplotype will then be a pre-I1 branch from the ancestral line to I1, it could be an I* haplotype instead. But such a haplotype, I(xI2), could be tested for a number of the many, many snps we have right now which we know are spread randomly along that 16,000 year line. If it is positive for any of them, it qualifies.
Probably some rule is needed to exclude major mutational jumps in which some STR added or lost a large number of repeats in one process. I have not figured out yet how to state such a rule.
Since every haplotype in our databases is not snp tested (actually, most are not), I'd suggest only considering haplotypes with DYS455 = 8 (and maybe 7 and 9) at first. But look out for haplotypes from an African haplogroup which also has 8 at DYs455; I think some supplementary filter will also be needed.
Do you have a candidate haplotype for this search?”

"Edge of extinction" - this could mean hg I1 could have been carried by a small group of men anywhere in Europe or outside, but most likely the Balkans. Klyosov's data supports this too. He believes hg I originated on the Russian plain over 40 thousand years ago, but it's bearers mostly underwent a population bottleneck 6000-4000 years ago. His data shows the following for I2 sub-clades:

Haplotype trees for all three
haplogroups listed above are more uniform ones, and their “age” is 5600±620
years (I2a1), 5700±590 (I2b1) and 5000±630 (I2b2)

In another paper he writes:

The value for TSCA seen in the populations discussed
above are quite typical of other European I1 populations. For the Northwest European/Scandinavian
(Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland) combined series
of haplotypes the TSCA equals to 3375±345 ybp. For
the Central and South Europe (Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Italy, Switzerland, Spain) it equals to
3425±350 ybp, for Germany 3225±330 ybp, for the
East European countries (Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Lithuania) it is equal to 3225±360 ybp (to be
published). It is of interest that even Middle Eastern I1
haplotypes (Jordan, Lebanon, and presumably Jewish
ones) descend from a common ancestor who lived at
about the same time, 3475±480 ybp





So it seems I is indeed Paleolithic in Europe, but the Paleolithic didn't affect it's current population structure because of the bottleneck.

You're confusing I1 and I. I1 is different from I. I1 has a population bottleneck. This doesn't consider I or I2.

Mkk
31-07-12, 09:32
You're confusing I1 and I. I1 is different from I. I1 has a population bottleneck. This doesn't consider I or I2.
...It did. I quoted TRMCA dates for some of the major I2 subclades, and they came out to about 5500 years before present. So maybe this lineage too went through a bottleneck?

sparkey
31-07-12, 17:18
...It did. I quoted TRMCA dates for some of the major I2 subclades, and they came out to about 5500 years before present. So maybe this lineage too went through a bottleneck?

The difference is that there are a lot more I2 lineages. I deal with the different I lineages that expanded beginning about 6000 years ago or later in my Paleolithic Remnants Map (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26944-The-Paleolithic-Remnants-a-map). I relied largely on Nordtvedt's date estimations, and other research for diversity analyses, so it's not just copying Nordtvedt, either. Note that there's 1 dot for I1, and 27 dots for I2 (and counting... it's a work in progress that I haven't updated in a little while).

JFWR
31-07-12, 17:19
...It did. I quoted TRMCA dates for some of the major I2 subclades, and they came out to about 5500 years before present. So maybe this lineage too went through a bottleneck?

Potentially. I had heard other studies that placed I2 a bit earlier.

Sparkey, you know a lot about I. What do you say for the ages of I1, I2, et cetera?

Edit: Ha! Speak of the devil. I post a minute later and Sparkey already got me...

Alan
01-08-12, 04:49
So I might be Paleolithic yet the subject was more "IJ*" I think, and if I am not mistaken was only found in Iran so far. So we can basically say, "IJ" arrived in Europe from Iran most probably and later developed to I*.

JFWR
01-08-12, 10:30
So I might be Paleolithic yet the subject was more "IJ*" I think, and if I am not mistaken was only found in Iran so far. So we can basically say, "IJ" arrived in Europe from Iran most probably and later developed to I*.

That's the general story, BUT...

As you said, IJ hasn't been found in any ancient samples in Iran.

I would hope that we'll find them, but it would be quite a shock if we did not.

Knovas
01-08-12, 13:44
As I said...xd

Again, the finding proves nothing concerning IJ origins. And I think we'll never know it, because this haplogroup was surely very widespread in the deeper past. The most especific guess at the moment is West Eurasia, and let's see what happens when checking ancient DNA, but I think it's possible to find ancient IJ in Europe, West Asia, the Middle East and even North Africa. So if this finally happens, which it wouldn't be surprising IMO, it will be pretty difficult to know its origins.

JFWR
01-08-12, 15:43
As I said...xd

Again, the finding proves nothing concerning IJ origins. And I think we'll never know it, because this haplogroup was surely very widespread in the deeper past. The most especific guess at the moment is West Eurasia, and let's see what happens when checking ancient DNA, but I think it's possible to find ancient IJ in Europe, West Asia, the Middle East and even North Africa. So if this finally happens, which it wouldn't be surprising IMO, it will be pretty difficult to know its origins.

According to most research I've read, it would be unlikely to be found in significant numbers in North Africa. The Middle East in general is the censensus for where IJ would probably be located.

Knovas
01-08-12, 16:17
Not unlikely at all considering IJ's antiquity. Finding ancient IJ in North Africa would not mean it originated there (very unlikely of course), it would just support my point that it was a very widespread haplogroup in West Eurasia. This is the most logical escenario since this haplogroup had a lot of time to move and spread.

Alan
01-08-12, 20:10
That's the general story, BUT...



As you said, IJ hasn't been found in any ancient samples in Iran.

I would hope that we'll find them, but it would be quite a shock if we did not.

I dont get the but part, since it was neither found in modern nor in ancient populations anywhere else?

As I said...xd

Again, the finding proves nothing concerning IJ origins. And I think we'll never know it, because this haplogroup was surely very widespread in the deeper past. The most especific guess at the moment is West Eurasia, and let's see what happens when checking ancient DNA, but I think it's possible to find ancient IJ in Europe, West Asia, the Middle East and even North Africa. So if this finally happens, which it wouldn't be surprising IMO, it will be pretty difficult to know its origins.

I thought it was common knowledge the IJ (the mother of I and J haplogroups) originated somewhere in West Asia. Or do some people expect that IJ originated in Europe and moved into West Asia and formed Haplogroup J? doesnt sound very meaningful. And also you have to take in account It has to be at least some 30-40000 years old, so it is not really a must to find any ancient IJ samples of that time if we have not even been able to find lineages of Paleolithic times in Europe.

To me this "but" simply sounds some people cant get over the fact that IJ* (as most scientist believed even before this finding) originated in Western Asia. Was there any doubt about this even before this finding?

Knovas dont drag this into ridiculousness with your Middle Eastern phobia. It is general knowledge that IJ* has to be originated in West Asia assuming anything else would be out of sense. Your talking about findings in Middle East in such a generalizing tone as if any other place beside Western Asia would come in question.

It is possible to assume, that Haplogroup IJ originated somewhere else in Western Asia (as example in Eastern Anatolia or North Mesopotamia where the diversity of J gets highest), but any place outside West Asia is out of question for me.

Knovas
01-08-12, 21:50
No phobia my friend, and please, do not try to insult myself with such childish argument. I hope moderators take some notes about your behaviour when someone tells something you simply don't like to read...because it's not the first time.

What is of general knowledge, is that there's nothing as clear as you pretend to show regarding IJ, and we'll probably won't know more for the reasons I already explained (and seems you intentionally ignore). Like it or not, we need ancient DNA, it's the best clue, but probably not enough to know where IJ originated if it finally appears in many ancient burials as I suspect. In short: take it easy with your categorical statements and lack of respect, this is just the begining ;)

Alan
01-08-12, 23:06
point out the "insult" I have used against you.

Alan
01-08-12, 23:11
No phobia my friend, and please, do not try to insult myself with such childish argument. I hope moderators take some notes about your behaviour when someone tells something you simply don't like to read...because it's not the first time.


What is of general knowledge, is that there's nothing as clear as you pretend to show regarding IJ, and we'll probably won't know more for the reasons I already explained (and seems you intentionally ignore). Like it or not, we need ancient DNA, it's the best clue, but probably not enough to know where IJ originated if it finally appears in many ancient burials as I suspect. In short: take it easy with your categorical statements and lack of respect, this is just the begining ;)
We havent found any ancient I* samples in Europe(the Balkans) yet you seem to be very ok with the idea its origin being assumed in the Balkans. We have high diversity of J* and the only confirmed IJ* samples are also from West Asia, yet you want some ancient Data do confirm the origin of IJ in Western Asia? If this is not childish and just an attempt to refuse the Western Asian origin than I have no idea.

So tell me where do you think Haplogroup IJ originated?

Knovas
01-08-12, 23:20
"Knovas dont drag this into ridiculousness with your Middle Eastern phobia"

I said you TRIED to, not that you achieve the goal. So it seems you find ridiculous what I posted because it doesn't fit with your thoughts LOL. The fact is this is not the proper way to explain your arguments, that's the point I wanted to leave clear. Maybe you should take care of your phobia against people who don't think the same as you, and that's why you offer replies like the one above. I think it's enough, nothing left to say.

Knovas
01-08-12, 23:23
I posted above West Eurasia, bacause I don't know. Perhaps I am not as clever as you, and I prefer to wait for more evidence.

Alan
01-08-12, 23:41
"Knovas dont drag this into ridiculousness with your Middle Eastern phobia"



Wow what a sensible person you are. Though I couldnt see any personal attack.

Alan
01-08-12, 23:43
Maybe you should take care of your phobia against people who don't think the same as you, and that's why you offer replies like the one above. I think it's enough, nothing left to say.

Well I accept my wrongs and also the opinions of other as far as they dont reach ridiculousness

Knovas
01-08-12, 23:50
Wow what a sensible person you are. Though I couldnt see any personal attack.
"Knovas dont drag this into ridiculousness with your Middle Eastern phobia"

Yeah, that's not personal at all, no way...¬¬ XD

I'm afraid you should wear some glasses.

PD: You reached the top, congratulations.

JFWR
02-08-12, 07:05
I dont get the but part, since it was neither found in modern nor in ancient populations anywhere else?

As it has been said: IJ hasn't been found in any ancient populations period. The remaining IJ might reflect a historical population growth to Iran, or else the only remaining IJ left in the world which was once formed elsewhere.

Maciamo
02-08-12, 07:53
As it has been said: IJ hasn't been found in any ancient populations period. The remaining IJ might reflect a historical population growth to Iran, or else the only remaining IJ left in the world which was once formed elsewhere.

I agree. I explained two and a half years ago why it is wrong to assume that a haplogroup originated where it is most frequent now (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25644-Why-it-is-wrong-to-assume-that-a-haplogroup-originated-where-it-is-most-frequent-now).

The Middle East is a seriously undersampled region for Y-DNA and we could still find plenty of other pockets of IJ. Once there are enough of them, these could be further tested for new SNP's, and who knows, one of several new branches parallel to haplogroups I and J could emerge. They would probably be called IJ1, IJ2... a rather clumsy nomenclature, until the whole Y-DNA tree of modern humanity becomes clear and all haplogroups are renamed in a better organised way.

zanipolo
02-08-12, 08:08
basically I view all HG came through the middleeast except E ( which is african).

There are too many people with phobias about their DNA. the only true "aboriginal" europeans would be neaderthals.....are you one of them?

Maciamo
02-08-12, 10:37
basically I view all HG came through the middleeast except E ( which is african).

That is not exactly true. A haplogroup is not just a (subjectively attributed) top-level haplogroup like E, I or R. I2a2a1 is as much a haplogroup as I2a or I or IJK. Even a vey deep subclade like R1b1a2a1a1a5b2b1a1b2a is ultimately as much a single haplogroup as R*. You shouldn't be misled by the (always-changing and arbitrary) nomenclature. If tomorrow the ISOGG decided that there just too many subclades under R1b1a2a1a1a (S21/U106) and that it would be more convenient to rename it haplogroup U, it would instantly become a "root haplogroup". This is just to show how arbitrarily haplogroup names are attributed. It is popular now to give letter names, then alternate with numbers for each subclade level, but what if later geneticists prefer to give individual names to each subclade ? (a bit like Brian Sykes gave names for mtDNA subclades)

So when you say that all haplogroups came from the Middle East, this is simply not true. Many of them developed in Europe or elsewhere.

JFWR
02-08-12, 10:58
That is not exactly true. A haplogroup is not just a (subjectively attributed) top-level haplogroup like E, I or R. I2a2a1 is as much a haplogroup as I2a or I or IJK. Even a vey deep subclade like R1b1a2a1a1a5b2b1a1b2a is ultimately as much a single haplogroup as R*. You shouldn't be misled by the (always-changing and arbitrary) nomenclature. If tomorrow the ISOGG decided that there just too many subclades under R1b1a2a1a1a (S21/U106) and that it would be more convenient to rename it haplogroup U, it would instantly become a "root haplogroup". This is just to show how arbitrarily haplogroup names are attributed. It is popular now to give letter names, then alternate with numbers for each subclade level, but what if later geneticists prefer to give individual names to each subclade ? (a bit like Brian Sykes gave names for mtDNA subclades)

So when you say that all haplogroups came from the Middle East, this is simply not true. Many of them developed in Europe or elsewhere.

Good post.

Though to be fair to Zanipoli, I think he means that most haplogroups have an ancestor haplogroup that came from the ME.

JFWR
02-08-12, 10:59
basically I view all HG came through the middleeast except E ( which is african).

There are too many people with phobias about their DNA. the only true "aboriginal" europeans would be neaderthals.....are you one of them?

It is meaningless to say that Europeans are not indigeneous to Europe due to the length of time which they have inhabitted the land.

Excluding historical invasions of Asiatic and Turkic people, the majority of European groups were here by the Neolithic at latest.

zanipolo
02-08-12, 13:22
That is not exactly true. A haplogroup is not just a (subjectively attributed) top-level haplogroup like E, I or R. I2a2a1 is as much a haplogroup as I2a or I or IJK. Even a vey deep subclade like R1b1a2a1a1a5b2b1a1b2a is ultimately as much a single haplogroup as R*. You shouldn't be misled by the (always-changing and arbitrary) nomenclature. If tomorrow the ISOGG decided that there just too many subclades under R1b1a2a1a1a (S21/U106) and that it would be more convenient to rename it haplogroup U, it would instantly become a "root haplogroup". This is just to show how arbitrarily haplogroup names are attributed. It is popular now to give letter names, then alternate with numbers for each subclade level, but what if later geneticists prefer to give individual names to each subclade ? (a bit like Brian Sykes gave names for mtDNA subclades)

So when you say that all haplogroups came from the Middle East, this is simply not true. Many of them developed in Europe or elsewhere.

I do not know of any haplogroups that developed/formed/created in europe , only ones I know of developed in the middle-east, africa or western & central asia. The only things that developed in europe where subclades and branches of haplogroups.

I hope we are not saying that ...as an example, I1 and I2a are different haplogroups from a different "parental" haplogroup. To me they originated from I

I agree with you that they can rename it to haplogroup U , but they have not done this

Knovas
02-08-12, 13:50
It's not even sure that E is native to Africa despite the fact it's very common and has a lot of diversity there. Dienekes' pointed the possibility that E it's a Paleo-Eurasian haplogroup likely originated in the Arabian Peninsula or carried by people different from modern Africans. The article was also discussed here in Eupedia.

Using autosomal experiments, Dienekes' found that some deep Sub-Saharan populations had a West Eurasian affinity, and those were specially groups having higher E frequencies. Deep Sub-Saharan populations did not include East Africans, since they have a more recent input via the middle East wich is actually well reported.

There you are the summary by Dorianfinder, he did it good:

Dienekes notes that HG A and B are purely African Y-haplogroups whereas HG D is East Asian. He states that according to the new software preliminary findings show that African populations with HG E have proportionally higher amounts of West Eurasian genetic input suggesting that HG E may not be 'entirely' African. This is interesting as it links HG E with Eurasia and not with Africa as first thought. No doubt this will be followed up with some interesting comments and articles.

Wilhelm
02-08-12, 16:54
I agree. It is becoming more evident know that haplogroup E could have been an re-introsion of humans into Africa, from the middle-east, read the theories of Dienekes which are pretty good. He also explains why are West-Africans more shifted towards Eurasian on genetic plots, in respect to the more archaich africans like the Pygmies.

JFWR
02-08-12, 17:42
I do not know of any haplogroups that developed/formed/created in europe , only ones I know of developed in the middle-east, africa or western & central asia. The only things that developed in europe where subclades and branches of haplogroups.

I hope we are not saying that ...as an example, I1 and I2a are different haplogroups from a different "parental" haplogroup. To me they originated from I

I* developed in Europe.

Knovas
02-08-12, 18:00
I agree. It is becoming more evident know that haplogroup E could have been an re-introsion of humans into Africa, from the middle-east, read the theories of Dienekes which are pretty good. He also explains why are West-Africans more shifted towards Eurasian on genetic plots, in respect to the more archaich africans like the Pygmies.
Maybe the migration involved DE people, this is what Dienekes' said recently:

D has a relic distribution in the Asian periphery, and E is in Africa. So, it might make sense if DE was part of a southern population that got split up as the Arabia became more desert like, causing some remaining DE folk to migrate west and some east. These groups of escapees coalesced into E in Africa and D somewhere to the east.

So if that's the case, E could have originated in Africa, although seems it still wasn't representative of the original inhabitants of Africa (likely akin to modern Pygmies, some San, etc.). Well, let's follow the thread, moderators can move this to another discussion if they feel like.

Knovas
02-08-12, 18:27
I* developed in Europe.
I prefer to remain cautious concerning this for the same I posted about IJ.

sparkey
02-08-12, 18:54
I prefer to remain cautious concerning this for the same I posted about IJ.

I'm almost there with you, Knovas. I'm not willing to say "I originated in Europe" or "IJ originated in West Asia." But I am willing to say "Based on current samples, I probably originated in Europe, and IJ probably originated in West Asia." Future samples, of course, could change this idea dramatically. Who knows? We could find a tremendous diversity of IJ branches in an ancient DNA study in Djibouti, so even your assertion that IJ is "Western Eurasian" could be wrong. It's just very unlikely.

I'll also reiterate that the finding of IJ* in Iran is additional evidence that IJ originated in West Asia. It doesn't prove anything, no. Certainly not that IJ originated in Iran in particular. But it does show that the center of diversity of modern samples tested so far is probably in West Asia. Before this study, it had been split between Europe and West Asia, and we had to guess which migration direction was more likely based on the general direction of human migration. Now, we've got a little more evidence for the West Asia->Europe direction.

Alan
02-08-12, 19:04
As it has been said: IJ hasn't been found in any ancient populations period. The remaining IJ might reflect a historical population growth to Iran, or else the only remaining IJ left in the world which was once formed elsewhere.

Well as I already said, the reason for my reaction was not because some people showed their uncertainty for the origin of IJ in Iran. I mentioned myself that it is possible that IJ originated somewhere else (maybe in Eastern Anatolia or North Mesopotamia since this areas are known for their diversity of J*). What I couldnt agree on was that he tried to stretch the possible place of origin for Haplogroup IJ* over whole West Eurasia! Since the highest frequency as well biggest diversity is found in the area between the Balkans and West/Southwest Asia, and also historically there has been much more movements from West Asia into the rest of the World. It just doesnt make much sense (in my opinion) to assume that an origin in North Africa, Europe or South- Central Asia is as much of a possibility as in Western Asia.

Knovas
02-08-12, 20:09
Who knows? We could find a tremendous diversity of IJ branches in an ancient DNA study in Djibouti, so even your assertion that IJ is "Western Eurasian" could be wrong. It's just very unlikely.
Yes, it's unlikely, but I see your point. If I'm finally wrong it's ok, but I don't think so xd

Well Alan...

North Africa it's very unlikely to place the origin, but not unlikely at all to find ancient IJ, that's what I said. My point since the begining has been that IJ was probably very widespread in the deeper past, what would make pretty difficult to know the exact origin. Like it or not, West Eurasia will surely be the best guess for a very long time (if not for ever). Remove North Africa if you want, it doesn't matter.

If you have a problem with a possible origin out of West Asia, just take it easy, because it will take so long to get the final evidence. And yes, IT'S POSSIBLE.

By the way, did you see that?

I* developed in Europe.

Because it seems to me you only see what you want to see, so I diceded to help you.

You're welcome ;)

JFWR
03-08-12, 08:54
Because it seems to me you only see what you want to see, so I diceded to help you.

You're welcome ;)

I is a haplogroup. You said that you knew of no haplogroup that developed in Europe. The preponderance of data highly suggests I developed in Europe, deriving from a potentially West Eurasian (as you advocate for) IJ, which itself comes from an IJK somewhere in the ME.

zanipolo
03-08-12, 09:28
I is a haplogroup. You said that you knew of no haplogroup that developed in Europe. The preponderance of data highly suggests I developed in Europe, deriving from a potentially West Eurasian (as you advocate for) IJ, which itself comes from an IJK somewhere in the ME.

my scenario is that IJ where together in the middle-east and headed towards the levant, I went north and established in southern anatolia and J in the levant. I then went through the balkans into europe ............but there is a problem with this in that KN states the illyrian I came from the ukraine........so ......can we say say I went through the caucasus alone ( without J) ........but then that does not make sense for the IJ union in south west asia