PDA

View Full Version : Guess the Y-haplogroup(s) of Mesolithic Iberians (Braña 1 & 2)



Aberdeen
11-12-13, 20:19
The Eurogenes Blog has pointed out that we will probably soon have the results of Y DNA from two Mesolithic Iberian hunter-gatherers, and has an interesting perspective the results might be.


"Last year Current Biology put out a paper on the partial genome sequences of two Mesolithic Iberian hunter-gatherers, dubbed Brana 1 and 2, which showed that they were genetically more similar to modern-day Northern Europeans than Iberians. According to Spanish news portal Leonoticias.com, the genome of Brana 1 has now been fully sequenced, and the more comprehensive new data not only back up the initial findings, but also suggest that this individual had blue eyes:

El mesolítico 'leonés' afín al ciudadano del norte de Europa (http://leonoticias.com/frontend/leonoticias/El-Mesolitico-leones-Afin-A-Los-Ciudadanos-Del-Norte-De-Eu-vn132622-vst306)

As per the link above, the new paper will be published in a few weeks. I suppose this means we'll finally see a Y-chromosome haplogroup result from pre-Neolithic Europe. I'm betting on hg R, considering that this was the Y-DNA hg of the Mal'ta boy from Upper Paleolithic South Siberia (seehere (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/first-genome-of-upper-paleolithic-human.html)). Siberia might seem like a long way from Iberia, but in fact, for thousands of years both regions were connected by the Mammoth-Steppe, which was inhabited by highly mobile herds of animals and human hunters who followed them. However, I won't be surprised if it turns out that Brana 1 belonged to Y-DNA hg I or even Q."

Does anyone want to place any bets?

bicicleur
11-12-13, 21:16
I or I1.
These were the survivors of the ice ages in Western Europe.
8000 years ago in Iberia, that was even before cardium print culture (G2a).
R1b only arrived in Western Europe in the copper or bronze ages.

sparkey
11-12-13, 21:44
Are these are the same whose autosomal and mtDNA have been analyzed by Dienekes here?: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/mesolithic-iberians-la-brana-arintero.html

Either way, very intriguing. I'd be more confident in guessing I2 if these samples were from France than from Spain, since modern I2 diversity drops off a bit once you enter Spain. Another interesting dynamic is that, if these are the same samples as before, they are fairly late for the Mesolithic; they would in fact be roughly contemporary with the Neolithic Epicardical samples we have from Iberia, which gave G2a and E1b. That leaves transmission from Neolithic migrants an open possibility, so I2, G2a, and E1b are all possible, along with some others. I wouldn't place R1b as particularly likely, though.

LeBrok
11-12-13, 22:31
The Eurogenes Blog has pointed out that we will probably soon have the results of Y DNA from two Mesolithic Iberian hunter-gatherers, and has an interesting perspective the results might be.


"Last year Current Biology put out a paper on the partial genome sequences of two Mesolithic Iberian hunter-gatherers, dubbed Brana 1 and 2, which showed that they were genetically more similar to modern-day Northern Europeans than Iberians. According to Spanish news portal Leonoticias.com, the genome of Brana 1 has now been fully sequenced, and the more comprehensive new data not only back up the initial findings, but also suggest that this individual had blue eyes:

I remember musing in one thread that if mutation for blue/green eyes are older than 10k years it had to happen farther south around Black Sea or North Mediterranean coast. Due to Ice Age climate Mediterranean Sea had more resembled today's Baltic and North Sea area where light eyes are more prevalent today. Assuming that climate had something to do with eyes colour.



As per the link above, the new paper will be published in a few weeks. I suppose this means we'll finally see a Y-chromosome haplogroup result from pre-Neolithic Europe. I'm betting on hg R, considering that this was the Y-DNA hg of the Mal'ta boy from Upper Paleolithic South Siberia (seehere (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/first-genome-of-upper-paleolithic-human.html)). Siberia might seem like a long way from Iberia, but in fact, for thousands of years both regions were connected by the Mammoth-Steppe, which was inhabited by highly mobile herds of animals and human hunters who followed them. However, I won't be surprised if it turns out that Brana 1 belonged to Y-DNA hg I or even Q."
I'm not sure if there were big migration from Asia to Europe at this time to see R presence in Iberia. Southern Europe was mostly woodlands during Ice Age and till Neolithic, with way of life and hunting techniques somewhat different than open steppes of the East. This probably dampened migratory trends. Therefore I would expect mostly hg I or maybe remnants of ancient IJ still in Iberia during Mesolithic.
But who knows maybe we will discover that E or T showed up in some areas as Hunter-Gatherers or herders before first farmers.

Angela
12-12-13, 00:09
I think I'd go with F( or I), but I don't think predicting a G2a result is out of bounds...as someone posted on another forum, there's a very old, 12,000 year old cluster of G2a in northwestern Italy...much older than the others.

This is the Globe 13 breakdown for La Brana 1...25% Mediterranean.
6136

Tabaccus Maximus
12-12-13, 00:20
It doesn't matter what dna the La Brana individuals have.

The La Brana site is a garbage pit in the floor of a cave with mix debris from different periods.
The burial, if you call it that, is out of context and dated to the edge of the neolithic, which is convenient when you're a timid archealogist trying to date a trash heap that you think might be Mesolithic.

As with more than half of the Spanish archealogy sites, wasting time trying to draw conclusions on piss research is a waste of time.

Let me take a stab on the results without being specific. The results will surprise everyone because they don't jive with everything else we know and we will waste several years debating false facts and points that don't matter as with Paglicci Cave in Italy.

Aberdeen
12-12-13, 00:56
Are these are the same whose autosomal and mtDNA have been analyzed by Dienekes here?: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/mesolithic-iberians-la-brana-arintero.html

Either way, very intriguing. I'd be more confident in guessing I2 if these samples were from France than from Spain, since modern I2 diversity drops off a bit once you enter Spain. Another interesting dynamic is that, if these are the same samples as before, they are fairly late for the Mesolithic; they would in fact be roughly contemporary with the Neolithic Epicardical samples we have from Iberia, which gave G2a and E1b. That leaves transmission from Neolithic migrants an open possibility, so I2, G2a, and E1b are all possible, along with some others. I wouldn't place R1b as particularly likely, though.

It looks like the same two, yes. And, in terms of autosomal DNA, they apparently clustered with Northern Europeans. Should be interesting.

Aberdeen
12-12-13, 00:58
It doesn't matter what dna the La Brana individuals have.

The La Brana site is a garbage pit in the floor of a cave with mix debris from different periods.
The burial, if you call it that, is out of context and dated to the edge of the neolithic, which is convenient when your a timid archealogist trying to date a trash heap that you think might be Mesolithic.

As with more than half of the Spanish archealogy sites, wasting time trying to draw conclusions on piss research is a waste of time.

Let me take a stab on the results without being specific. The results will surprise everyone because they don't jive with everything else we know and we will waste several years debating false facts and points that don't matter as with Paglicci Cave in Italy.

Okay, Grumpy Cat, so I guess you're saying that if the results don't fit some preconceived notion of what the results should be, they're wrong?

Jackson
12-12-13, 01:13
Y-DNA. Maybe I, F. Maybe G2, N1 or R1 (in forms now not found in western Europe). But i guess we'll see! My vote is for the I-team though to be honest, i'm biased. :D

sparkey
12-12-13, 01:32
Hey Aberdeen, mind if I use my mod powers to add a poll to this thread so we can vote like we did with Ötzi (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26763-Poll-What-will-%C3%96tzi-s-Y-DNA-haplogroup-be)? I'm curious as to how the forum is leaning on this one.

Tone
12-12-13, 01:32
I also find it interesting that the subject had blue eyes. It puts a knife into the theory that Europeans developed "paleness" due to agriculture and vitamin D deficiency. If true, it's looking likely that paleness was either a response to high latitude or sexual selection amongst Paleo-Europeans.

And I vote "F". But it wouldn't surprise me either if some older form of R was found.

adamo
12-12-13, 02:36
Can someone please get lebrok off my back? He is consistently threatening to ban me and doesn't even contribute to the forum, he will remove points from me for this very comment as well I am assuming, it is ruining my life and putting me into a depression.

Aberdeen
12-12-13, 02:41
Hey Aberdeen, mind if I use my mod powers to add a poll to this thread so we can vote like we did with Ötzi (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26763-Poll-What-will-%C3%96tzi-s-Y-DNA-haplogroup-be)? I'm curious as to how the forum is leaning on this one.

Thanks, that would be great.

I'm personally leaning toward I2 or T if the finds are in fact Mesolithic, and either E1, G or J2 if they're early Neolithic (but I suspect they're not). Although I do have a heretical theory about maritime R1b arriving in the Iberian Peninsula during the Neolithic, I think that happened a bit later. But you see the problem - whether or not my choices make sense, they're multiple. Are you going to allow for more than one choice, or do we have to bet all our money on one haplotype?

adamo
12-12-13, 02:52
T would have entered Europe during the Neolithic not Mesolithic, period; the I subclades make much more sense.

Aberdeen
12-12-13, 04:20
T would have entered Europe during the Neolithic not Mesolithic, period; the I subclades make much more sense.

Well, perhaps early neolithic, but I think late mesolithic is possible.

Tabaccus Maximus
12-12-13, 05:34
Okay, Grumpy Cat, so I guess you're saying that if the results don't fit some preconceived notion of what the results should be, they're wrong?


Archeogentic testing should be done on individuals to whom we can confidently place within a timeline, otherwise the results are meaningless.

For example, if we want to know what dna mesolithic people had, we should take it from a burial that we can confidently argue and date as mesolithic.
La Brana doesn't cut the muster. It, like many of the caves in Spain, is a mixed pile of murder victims, animal feces, rubbish and bat guano that spans great lengths of time.
The dating of the popular Spanish cave art, in many cases, is a sad joke that people uncritically eat up. I hate to be a hater, but that's the truth.

sparkey
12-12-13, 06:03
Thanks, that would be great.

I'm personally leaning toward I2 or T if the finds are in fact Mesolithic, and either E1, G or J2 if they're early Neolithic (but I suspect they're not). Although I do have a heretical theory about maritime R1b arriving in the Iberian Peninsula during the Neolithic, I think that happened a bit later. But you see the problem - whether or not my choices make sense, they're multiple. Are you going to allow for more than one choice, or do we have to bet all our money on one haplotype?

OK, done. I made it multiple choice, but since there are only 2 samples, let's limit ourselves to only 1 or 2 guesses. Let's make it so that we all give +rep to anybody who guesses exactly what the samples are. Like, if they're both C, and somebody guesses only C, then they get +rep; if they guessed C and something else, they don't. But if one is C and the other is E1b, then just guessing one of those won't get +rep.

Sile
12-12-13, 07:26
OK, done. I made it multiple choice, but since there are only 2 samples, let's limit ourselves to only 1 or 2 guesses. Let's make it so that we all give +rep to anybody who guesses exactly what the samples are. Like, if they're both C, and somebody guesses only C, then they get +rep; if they guessed C and something else, they don't. But if one is C and the other is E1b, then just guessing one of those won't get +rep.

you could have throw the K in the mix

nordicquarreler
12-12-13, 08:33
My first vote is G2a and my second is an early form of I... however TM brought up an important issue. There is quite a cluster in some of these caves. And I'll bring forward an additional factor that is unpleasant to ponder. Bias.

It might be helpful if all researchers include their own personal Y-DNA in their reports from now on. For example, if the lead team members involved in this particular Iberian cave hunt are all members of R1b (statistically well within reason) and if their conclusions-- out of this hodge podge of layerings-- point to say R* or R1b... well I think you all can see where I'm going with this.

If there is a more politically charged endeavor of study than historical Y-DNA tribal movements, I'd like to hear of it. And yes I'm as biased as the next guy. Hopefully there is enough in this case though for both accurate carbon dating and proper STR identification.

I wonder if it would make sense to turn this entire paleo-archelogy stuff over to the ladies? :) Afterall, they don't really have a dog in this fight.

nordicquarreler
12-12-13, 08:38
And if this report does conclude that both are members of R* or R1b, I'm going to sit tight until I hear the boys at Max Planck weigh in. Paabo has proven over time that he and his team are the most accurate sleuths in these matters.

Again, I'm biased. Very biased.

adamo
12-12-13, 09:15
I don't get why T,Q,G or any downstream subclades of I2a received any votes but anyways; Q is so rare in Europe and the others excluding the I2a subclades are clearly middle eastern Neolithic introductions.

Maciamo
12-12-13, 10:49
In my opinion, Mesolithic Iberian carried E-M81, I (perhaps I* but more likely I2), but also R1a1-SRY1532 or possibly R1a1a-M17.

Overall, I think that Mesolithic Europeans belonged mainly to haplogroup I and R1a(xM417), while E-M81 was restricted to Iberia and perhaps southern France. E-V13 might have spread around the southern Balkans and southern Italy during the Mesolithic period too.

As for I2-M26, I still have doubts about its place of origin within Europe and about when it spread around Western Europe. It could have first appeared in Iberia or France or Italy during the Mesolithic or Early Neolithic. If it only dates from the Neolithic it would have been diffused by the Cardium Pottery, Megalithic and Bell Beaker cultures. But from which country ?

I would expect very sporadic cases of haplogroups C-V20 and F-P96 and even A1a in various parts of Europe since these haplogroups almost certainly arrived during the Palaeolithic but are extremely rare today (altogether < 0.1% of the population).

N1c would also surely have been present in northern Russia and Finland during the Mesolithic. Perhaps also in Scandinavia depending on what time frame we understand as Mesolithic, since there was hardly any Neolithic in Lapland.


EDIT: I didn't notice that the poll was only about the Brana 1 and 2 samples. In that case I retract hg E1b1b and vote for R1a (xM417). I2 is also possible, but R1a appears more likely if these two samples resembled more modern Northeast Europeans and had blue eyes. The strongest argument in favour of I2 is that their mtDNA was U5b2c1. Nowadays all subclades of U5b2c are typically found in Western Europe.

adamo
12-12-13, 11:10
I wonder how much E-M81 is due to moorish presence in Iberia and how much is significantly older, I'm not sure wether or not it would be Mesolithic, don't know. I don't think N1c was present in Europe during the Mesolithic and I sure have my doubts on R1a, I would need more convincing to believe that.

Sile
12-12-13, 11:22
I don't get why T,Q,G or any downstream subclades of I2a received any votes but anyways; Q is so rare in Europe and the others excluding the I2a subclades are clearly middle eastern Neolithic introductions.

because the initial paper was this

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

and since they mouth U5 mtdna in the same area and U5 is the hunter/getherer from the baltic area, some assume this ydna find could have come with this U5 female

adamo
12-12-13, 11:41
Which y-DNA came with u5?

ElHorsto
12-12-13, 14:24
My bets sorted by likelyhood:

1. I
2. Q

3. E1b or other E
4. R1a
5. G2a


6. anything else (N1c,F,A,R1,C,...)


Group (I,Q,R1a) I expect due to the dominant Globe13 north european autosomals.
Group (E, G2a) and again (I) I expect also to some degree (like 20% chance) due to the south european autosomal admixture from K12b and Globe 13.
Group (6) is also very likely because I think many if not most old lineages are extinct and there is also slight exotic autosomal shown in Globe 13.

After all I voted for all I, Q, R1a and E1b.

Wilhelm
12-12-13, 14:57
I would expect haplogroup N, due to Saami/North-East euro affinity, but since he also had decent amount of Atlanto-Med, he could have also R1, G, I,.

Nobody1
12-12-13, 15:22
From the first study:

Sanchez-Quinto et al 2012-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212006501

A worldwide genomic principal component analysis (PCA) with data from the 1000 Genomes Project [31] places La Braña 1 and 2 near, but not within the variation of current European populations (Figure S2). However, when compared exclusively to European populations, La Braña 1 and 2 fall closer to Northern European populations such as CEU and Great Britons than Southern European groups such as Iberians or Tuscans (Figure 3).
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-35pYfsnhd88/T-yeTCYGNSI/AAAAAAAAE64/LMV5iFcqBcU/s1600/brana.png

Since Brana1 (left) and Brana2 (right) are not close (completely diff.) to modern-day Iberians; i do not expect them to have a Y-DNA Hg thats common amongst modern day Iberians; They dont seem to be too close to the Finns either so my Guess is I2-P37.2;
But im hoping for a major surprise;

Goga
12-12-13, 17:16
My first choices are G2a or F. My second choice is I2*. My third choice is R1a*…

MOESAN
12-12-13, 19:51
From the first study:

Sanchez-Quinto et al 2012-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212006501

A worldwide genomic principal component analysis (PCA) with data from the 1000 Genomes Project [31] places La Braña 1 and 2 near, but not within the variation of current European populations (Figure S2). However, when compared exclusively to European populations, La Braña 1 and 2 fall closer to Northern European populations such as CEU and Great Britons than Southern European groups such as Iberians or Tuscans (Figure 3).
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-35pYfsnhd88/T-yeTCYGNSI/AAAAAAAAE64/LMV5iFcqBcU/s1600/brana.png

Since Brana1 (left) and Brana2 (right) are not close (completely diff.) to modern-day Iberians; i do not expect them to have a Y-DNA Hg thats common amongst modern day Iberians; They dont seem to be too close to the Finns either so my Guess is I2-P37.2;
But im hoping for a major surprise;

I am not a wizard: these La Brana people seem to me very close to modern British People (the oldest parts?) surely something akin to a "basque-atlantic" componant (what Y-DNA? Y-I2*?) and also a bit of old 'mediterranean' (first wave of pre-neolithic Y-G?) - I keep in mind Y-haplogroups are not tightly linked to an autosomal pannel so... - for Y-I1 I have a doubt when I see to its modern distribution but Lapps-Saami are rich of it and France could be the way until there so?... in South of Iberia Y-E1b (>> M81) could have been there for a long time, maybe before Neolithic, maybe with the recorded north-african neolithic?
Y-T could have been around for a long time too, when we look at the distribution in whole Europe and in Scandinavia, come with Y- G and others...
just bets - I recall the place of greater variance is not always the place of "birth" (history is running on) and the place of older SNPs is not more the place of "birth", the oldest place... a restriction in absolute number can lead to a "frozing" of mutations? statistical accidents, bottlenecks can mistake us, at least partly -for Y-R1a I should be surprised to see it in mesolithic Iberial and have no answer - Y-R1b seems arrived through North as well as trough South, but from East al the way... I prefer to be prudent.

MOESAN
12-12-13, 20:10
concerning mammuth mythology, I don't think the distances never play a role in selection ; they did - I don't believe in a undisrupt genetical "Province" at ice ages encompassing Iberia and Behring stright even if I think men were walking large distances - we know that at Cro-Magnon ages, mammuth elements (ivory and so on) were travelling from France Dordogne to Switzerland: it doesn't prove men did regularly the complete way from one point to the other...

ElHorsto
12-12-13, 20:14
From the first study:

Sanchez-Quinto et al 2012-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212006501

A worldwide genomic principal component analysis (PCA) with data from the 1000 Genomes Project [31] places La Braña 1 and 2 near, but not within the variation of current European populations (Figure S2). However, when compared exclusively to European populations, La Braña 1 and 2 fall closer to Northern European populations such as CEU and Great Britons than Southern European groups such as Iberians or Tuscans (Figure 3).
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-35pYfsnhd88/T-yeTCYGNSI/AAAAAAAAE64/LMV5iFcqBcU/s1600/brana.png

Since Brana1 (left) and Brana2 (right) are not close (completely diff.) to modern-day Iberians; i do not expect them to have a Y-DNA Hg thats common amongst modern day Iberians; They dont seem to be too close to the Finns either so my Guess is I2-P37.2;
But im hoping for a major surprise;

I think Brana would be closer to Scandinavians than Britons if the authors would've included them.
But whatever similarity to contemporary populations La Brana has, I think it is more due to similar admixture composition rather than direct ancestry.

Aberdeen
12-12-13, 21:36
When it came time to vote, I went with I2 P37.2+only but I have a nagging feeling that I should have gone with T. Nothing left to do but wait for the results.

sparkey
12-12-13, 21:50
I'm surprised by how many people are picking "I* or IJ." Does anyone want to justify that pick? I* hasn't been found in modern samples, and IJ has only been found in Iran. Are people supposing that most late Mesolithic DNA was extinct, outlier type subclades?

Knovas
12-12-13, 22:31
I'd say I2, G2a or E-M81.

elghund
13-12-13, 00:00
Why do they wait so long to publish? Which journal or which website will publish this article when it is released?

Jackson
13-12-13, 00:35
Why do they wait so long to publish? Which journal or which website will publish this article when it is released?
To create suspense. :)

Maciamo
13-12-13, 12:42
I'm surprised by how many people are picking "I* or IJ." Does anyone want to justify that pick? I* hasn't been found in modern samples, and IJ has only been found in Iran. Are people supposing that most late Mesolithic DNA was extinct, outlier type subclades?

I voted too quickly, thinking it concerned all Mesolithic Iberians since 10,000 BCE, in which case there might still have been occasional I* lineages, or side branches of I1 and I2 that don't exist anymore.

I am more surprised by the number of people who chose hg G, Q and T. Or even N and L !

Tabaccus Maximus
13-12-13, 14:05
I chose haplogroup T, and to highroll, haplogroup L.

My wager
99.9% haplogroup T
00.1% haplogroup L (highball)

I chose haplgroup T for several reasons...
Dienekes K12 run showed a 10% affinity to East Africans. Another run strangely to the San. Another to East Asians. Bizarre results?
East Africa has a strange founder effect for T* which extends through Tanzania and the countryside. Another group of people that has T* in low frequencies is the Australian aborigines, and it is also probably found at low frequencies among australoid peoples, which may explain part of the Asian shift.

Here's the bottom line: Europe was not invaded and settled by Amazonian women. We should not see very much continuity in male haplogroups through the ages when we see obvious discontinuity between female haplotypes as we do.

Racially, the La Brana individuals' facial features, while Caucasian, do not look Northern European. So the proximity, while more similar to Northern Europeans that Southern Europeans, doesn't mean they were or looked like Northern Europeans. If they belonged to haplogroup T, then they will appear more Northern European than Neolithic (G2a and E1b) individuals with non-k, non-MNOPS haplogroups. In theory, with the U5 lineage and a LT lineage, should appear more North European, East African and South East Asian.
I think the cheek bones, brow, forehead and the teeth speak to this.

Tabaccus Maximus
13-12-13, 14:19
Footnotes:

It would be tempting to associate T* with a Near Eastern spread of agriculture. As Maciamo has pointed out, it could well be that all K* descended peoples had some understanding of plant cultivation and gardening. However, while T* peoples spread to places that ultimately had plant cultivation, such as East and South Central Africa and Australia, these people, while having domestic plants, did not have Near Eastern domestic plants, at least Neolithic Near Eastern plants. I believe this is true for India as well.

Haplogroup T also appears to have spread earlier than the usual Near Eastern Neolithic lineages. A paper on Dienekes several years ago discusses this.

Overall, T is found at low and consistent quantities throughout Europe, especially the Urals.

T101
15-12-13, 01:08
I'm putting my money on R1a1a-M17. They were the blue-eyed, hunter-gatherers of the mammoth steppe, and from Mesolithic Europe to Siberia they roamed. I2, I bet originated in the Middle East/ Eastern Med., and only arrived in Europe during the Neolithic. I1 is probably a Neolithic entrant as well, and arrived with LBK.

MOESAN
15-12-13, 17:49
I chose haplogroup T, and to highroll, haplogroup L.

My wager
99.9% haplogroup T
00.1% haplogroup L (highball)

I chose haplgroup T for several reasons...
Dienekes K12 run showed a 10% affinity to East Africans. Another run strangely to the San. Another to East Asians. Bizarre results?
East Africa has a strange founder effect for T* which extends through Tanzania and the countryside. Another group of people that has T* in low frequencies is the Australian aborigines, and it is also probably found at low frequencies among australoid peoples, which may explain part of the Asian shift.

Here's the bottom line: Europe was not invaded and settled by Amazonian women. We should not see very much continuity in male haplogroups through the ages when we see obvious discontinuity between female haplotypes as we do.

Racially, the La Brana individuals' facial features, while Caucasian, do not look Northern European. So the proximity, while more similar to Northern Europeans that Southern Europeans, doesn't mean they were or looked like Northern Europeans. If they belonged to haplogroup T, then they will appear more Northern European than Neolithic (G2a and E1b) individuals with non-k, non-MNOPS haplogroups. In theory, with the U5 lineage and a LT lineage, should appear more North European, East African and South East Asian.
I think the cheek bones, brow, forehead and the teeth speak to this.

I'm interested by what you say concerning facial features: could you give more details or a link on the net? thank you beforehand
by the way, "northern european" show a dominant trend dolicho-cranial and facial, a kind of 'eurafrican' types with some divergeant details (roughly said, things are more complicated!) what gained him the naming "depigmented mediterranean" (Coon idea?) even if it is a too short-cut conclusion - but this dominant trend doesn't manage to conceal other trends in North Europe of whom some are archaïc, and on the way to 'cro-magnon' and to 'brünn' , partly brachycephalized or not -

Maciamo
16-12-13, 22:24
I have edited the thread title as didn't notice until after I had voted and replied that it was only about the two 7000-year-old samples from La Brana-Arintero. I thought it was Mesolithic Iberians in general, which makes a whole lot of difference.

Tabaccus Maximus
18-12-13, 05:42
I'm interested by what you say concerning facial features: could you give more details or a link on the net? thank you beforehand
by the way, "northern european" show a dominant trend dolicho-cranial and facial, a kind of 'eurafrican' types with some divergeant details (roughly said, things are more complicated!) what gained him the naming "depigmented mediterranean" (Coon idea?) even if it is a too short-cut conclusion - but this dominant trend doesn't manage to conceal other trends in North Europe of whom some are archaïc, and on the way to 'cro-magnon' and to 'brünn' , partly brachycephalized or not -

Sorry for the late reply. I have limited connectivity at the momment. I googled and found a recent paper on La Brana. Might have been Academia(?) where you can register for free.
One of the men has typical Caucasoid features such as the eye socket shape and chin, round cranial top. The forhead is more resessed than most Euros. The cheeks more pronounced.
The brow is split like two umbrellas. The upper teeth are damaged but don't look typical NW Euro.

I'll make a concession and say he cound be an R* man due to the fact that Mesolithic R* people had not yet mixed with gracialized Mediterranean/Middle Eastern people, but the diversity and age of R* in Western Europe makes it unlikely. Also, the European neolithics were at least mostly not R* and later population movements can account for R's spread to the West

MOESAN
21-12-13, 01:40
Sorry for the late reply. I have limited connectivity at the momment. I googled and found a recent paper on La Brana. Might have been Academia(?) where you can register for free.
One of the men has typical Caucasoid features such as the eye socket shape and chin, round cranial top. The forhead is more resessed than most Euros. The cheeks more pronounced.
The brow is split like two umbrellas. The upper teeth are damaged but don't look typical NW Euro.

I'll make a concession and say he cound be an R* man due to the fact that Mesolithic R* people had not yet mixed with gracialized Mediterranean/Middle Eastern people, but the diversity and age of R* in Western Europe makes it unlikely. Also, the European neolithics were at least mostly not R* and later population movements can account for R's spread to the West

I'm not in a position to make bets about the La Braña (Leon Spain) people Y-HGs
I found at last a picture of the La Braña I (male? surely) and this lonely picture is taken from a "in front top positon" so it is difficult to make a pronostic -
at first sight it seems "archaïc" (not too informative!) and broad cheekboned with broad rectangular eyescokets and broad enough jawed (inferior maxillar) - a true facial picture would have helped me but... the forehead doesn' t seem too vertical nor bomb-like, it seems rather "brutal" :
I would bet a 'cro-magnoid'-'capelloid/brünnoid' crossing more on the 'cro-magnon' side but...? it is important and perhaps presomptuous, it could imply there were more than a phylum at European Mesolithic (I think it is so) - all the types I saw (pictures) or I red about in Mesolithic are for me crossings of these two phylums whatever they were "regional" and well marked; I believe they were crossings (white mulatos) but with a new process of partial (local) raciation, what is normal with isolation and small falilies or clans, spite the exchanges - but their two ancestral phylums (for me) were so close (in Dordogne France by example or in Bohemia) some thousands after after the LGM that crossings was almost obliged... Teviec as Mugem types had the same different and alike story I think -
concerning the autosomal 'north-european' concept 1) I think it is heterogenous - 2) the known 'nordic' phenotype is modern in date and form, and I suppose he formed itself in West-Eurasia upon an refined previously archaic robust type, dolichofacial, of remote common proto-"brünnoid"-"eurafrican" origin (Coon would be right?) by relative isolation followed by sur-depigmentation - if I'm right it came to Europe by East, and found in Northern Europe AND North-Eastern Europe the remnants of paleo-mesolithic people of the same stock of the pre-Iberians? It could make sense -
I recall some western "mediterraneans" show a incipient archaic component as well as Irishmen and Welshmen and all the way we find that until Sweden-Norway on the North Sea shores (this old mixture would give the 'atlantic' or 'northwest' component its particuliarities?) - everytime the two basic archaic types are found one together in the mix with the modern types- in fact even Central and East Europe show these remnants - Welshmen and Danes and Western Frenchies by instance present more on the 'cromagnoid' side (as do some Murcianos) when Dutchmen are more on the "capelloid-brünnoid" side - Central Europe and some other districts in W-Norway, Germany and Denmark show this mixture of types but more brachycephalized I think -
&: the 'gracilization' is a partially non-genetic phenomenon or a genetic one but under pressure-selection which doesn't modify other inherited traits -and at Mesolithic, even relatively robust, the people were smaller in West than in east, in Europe: and curiously, the North ones were closer to the West ones for that! so a big part of the nordist people of today are come from East...?

epoch
22-12-13, 11:10
it is important and perhaps presomptuous, it could imply there were more than a phylum at European Mesolithic (I think it is so)

That could possibly explain how the Swedes and other Scandinavians have large portions of population that show little decendancy from U4, U5, U mtdna, yet show remarkable autosomal relation to the la Brana finds.

That could work if there was a second mesolithic culture, roughly in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, that had H1 and H3 lineages. There are a lot of hunter-gatherer finds that almost all show U4, U5 or U mtdna. But they are remarkably few, if any, from France and the Netherlands.

T101
24-12-13, 10:27
Definitely all in on I2!! Lol! I2a1b was widespread in Mesolithic Europeans (see the Lazaridis paper.)

Maciamo
24-12-13, 18:27
Now that we know the Y-DNA of the Loschbour (Luxembourg) and Motala (Sweden) Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, and that both of them are I2a1b, and that the Brana samples are closest autosomally to the Loschbour individual, it seems likely that the La Brana samples were also I2a1. However I maintain that R1a-M17 is also possible.

Sile
24-12-13, 20:06
Since Loschbor male is I2a1b with U5b1a and Dolmen male is I2a1a
It seems I2* would be La Brana ..............my I1* choice has gone up in smoke

Alan
24-12-13, 20:33
Don't know why but something tells me T had a bigger role during that time than today.

T101
24-12-13, 22:37
However I maintain that R1a-M17 is also possible.
Absolutely. The whole Eastern half of Europe from present day Ukraine to the Urals probably contained some R1a-M17 groups.
If ANE was present in Mesolithic Europe, then R1 probably was as well. R1 however with the exception of perhaps R1a-M417/R1a-CTS4385 did not enter Central and Western Europe until after the Neolithic with the Indo-Europeans.

Eldritch
31-12-13, 19:51
I exclude any sort of R for sure, i'd say I or maybe E1b.

John123
17-01-14, 02:09
Exactly; I was certainly present, probably the first (or among the first) lineages to successfully colonize Europe. Don't leave one line replies by the way you may get blocked by lebrok or Maciamo, the tyrannical administrators.

nordicquarreler
17-01-14, 02:59
I'm surprised by how many people are picking "I* or IJ." Does anyone want to justify that pick? I* hasn't been found in modern samples, and IJ has only been found in Iran. Are people supposing that most late Mesolithic DNA was extinct, outlier type subclades?

Yes, that was one of my picks (along with G2a). I went with those two haplogroups because the authors hinted at a surprise result. Nobody1's guess of I2 P37.2 would have been my guess had the researchers not clued us in to expect the unexpected.

Aberdeen
17-01-14, 16:44
Yes, that was one of my picks (along with G2a). I went with those two haplogroups because the authors hinted at a surprise result. Nobody1's guess of I2 P37.2 would have been my guess had the researchers not clued us in to expect the unexpected.

Okay, I missed the part about the authors hinting at a surprise result. If I'd noticed that, I would probably gone with T instead of I2.

CLF
17-01-14, 17:22
sorry, so far everyone is wrong. You have 10 more days for guessing the right answer...

Angela
17-01-14, 17:42
When the authors hinted that the "y" results would be a surprise, was that before or after the announcement of the results for Loschbour?

If it was before, I'd go with La Brana carrying the same y as Loschbour.

If it was after, then I'd say perhaps a type of E1b, perhaps the Berber marker.

CLF
17-01-14, 17:56
The authors never hinted that the Y results would be a surprise, I don't know where this comes from. E1b was already chosen, so it is wrong again…sorry

Tabaccus Maximus
17-01-14, 18:04
sorry, so far everyone is wrong. You have 10 more days for guessing the right answer...

Ok, this is tricky. You said we are all wrong,
so I will go out on a limb and re-vote Haplogroup C????

I say this because no one has picked it yet. I've wondered about its distribution which strangely seems to have migrated earlier than Q-M242 in the Americas. Someone else on this forum linked it to a Solutrean hypothesis.
If it does turn out to be C*, that would be explosive since it would put it in the right time and place and it would re-kindle some of the speculation of Solutrean-like technology in the Americas.

sparkey
17-01-14, 18:39
sorry, so far everyone is wrong. You have 10 more days for guessing the right answer...

In case anybody is wondering, this guy's email checks out. He's the real deal and would know what the results of the upcoming study are.

I'd also guess C out of those that haven't been chosen yet, perhaps C-V20 or a relative of it.

Aberdeen
17-01-14, 18:43
sorry, so far everyone is wrong. You have 10 more days for guessing the right answer...

If you are in fact a person in the know, and if we're to take your comment literally, it has to be either J2 or R1b L11-, since they're the only two nobody has chosen so far. But I don't see either haplotype as being likely for Iberia in the Mesolithic. Watch me have to eat my words in about ten days.

sparkey
17-01-14, 18:45
If you are in fact a person in the know, and if we're to take your comment literally, it has to be either J2 or R1b L11-, since they're the only two nobody has chosen so far.

He is in the know. And you're forgetting C and "other" (except for K, which Sile guessed as his other).

Eldritch
17-01-14, 18:52
In case anybody is wondering, this guy's email checks out. He's the real deal and would know what the results of the upcoming study are.

I'd also guess C out of those that haven't been chosen yet, perhaps C-V20 or a relative of it.
Is that a perfect proof?

Angela
17-01-14, 19:06
I double checked, and indeed only C, J2 and R1b L11 haven't been picked. So...

Unless, of course, it's "other" because it's something like an E1b1a or something even older, like a San type y dna signature.

sparkey
17-01-14, 19:08
Is that a perfect proof?

I suppose not, he could be spoofing the email by changing it after registration or something.

nordicquarreler
17-01-14, 19:12
sorry, so far everyone is wrong. You have 10 more days for guessing the right answer...

If we are all wrong so far... I will guess that one will be somewhere in the hg. A to hg. E sprectrum, and the second would be in the hg. F to hg. R1b range. :)

nordicquarreler
17-01-14, 19:14
a;lsdkjfa;dkjf

sparkey
17-01-14, 19:37
a;lsdkjfa;dkjf

Excellent post, thank you nq. :clap:

Aberdeen
17-01-14, 21:39
He is in the know. And you're forgetting C and "other" (except for K, which Sile guessed as his other).

Yes, I missed the fact that nobody here chose C, but some folks have chosen "other", although our friend could have disregarded that as a category because it isn't specific enough. And are you forgetting that La Brana had blue eyes, or do you consider that to be in the realm of possibility for a Mesolithic C? I guess blue eyes makes T dubious as well, now that I think of it. But I'm still having trouble reconciling blue eyes to the autosomal analysis and getting anything other than maybe I2. We will see, once the info is released.

CLF
17-01-14, 21:48
C is getting better…but it was obvious nobody had chosen it. Maybe we can guess the subhaplogroup?

sparkey
17-01-14, 21:56
C is getting better…but it was obvious nobody had chosen it. Maybe we can guess the subhaplogroup?

Was I right with V20?

CLF
17-01-14, 22:15
Was I right with V20?

that was quick!

sparkey
17-01-14, 22:21
that was quick!

:cool-v:

I knew that subclade was ancient in Europe! We've talked about it before on the Eupedia forums here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29080-Chronology-of-Cro-Magnon-Y-DNA) and elsewhere.

Closing the polling. We lose this time... tough luck after having gotten more than half to guess correctly about Ötzi's haplogroup when that came out!

LeBrok
17-01-14, 22:37
Wow, that is freakishly old haplogroup! Iberia is a specific place. Last Neanderthal had died there, now we've found the last of Cro Magnon hiding there.:67:

Aberdeen
17-01-14, 23:20
Okay, I did not see that one coming. And it does make me wonder how old the blue eye thing is if this guy was a leftover from the Cro-Mags.

John123
17-01-14, 23:34
What?? Hg C in Mesolithic Iberians; wow I'm speechless and this has rattled my previous understanding of early European genetics. Found in Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Siberia and western North America. How is C even a possible option lol; as far away as Iberia??

LeBrok
18-01-14, 00:11
What?? Hg C in Mesolithic Iberians; wow I'm speechless and this has rattled my previous understanding of early European genetics. Found in Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Siberia and western North America. How is C even a possible option lol; as far away as Iberia??
Because C is very ancient, possibly 70k years old one of first people out of Africa. That's why it can be found around the world. I think V20 is European offshoot of C.

John123
18-01-14, 00:16
I know C is ancient; old news. Is V20 still found in European populations today? If so it must represent an abysmally low amount of European lineages far inferior to 1%.

sparkey
18-01-14, 00:21
I know C is ancient; old news. Is V20 still found in European populations today? If so it must represent an abysmally low amount of European lineages far inferior to 1%.

Yeah, it's quite rare nowadays, but it's been known about for a while. V20 is actually the only C branch that is unique to Europe, and it's not particularly closely related to anything else, with the closest related subclade being the apparently Jomon Japanese C-M8 subclade. Hence speculation that it's at least as old in Europe as Haplogroup I.

The C Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Chaplogroup/default.aspx?section=yresults) has a few samples. They call it "C1a2" there. Geographic locations are Ireland, UK, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Greece, Ukraine, Italy, and, intriguingly, Spain.

John123
18-01-14, 00:32
There very first European y-DNA group I guess? But the question is how did it survive? Where did it come from to Spain?

nordicquarreler
18-01-14, 03:18
How are the R1a/R1b folks going to claim the introduction of blue eyes now? Maybe the R1b elite owned C members (and their mates) as slaves and these forced laborers somehow escaped from the Russian Steppes and made it to Europe...

nordicquarreler
18-01-14, 03:20
In all seriousness, this gives a tremendous boost to Solutreans Theory.

JS Bach
18-01-14, 04:01
So it turned out to be ydna C. Very interesting. I guess population replacement may have been more brutal than we'd like to think.

In my posts on the Solutrean thread I was referring to them carrying mtdna C, rather than ydna C.

But there are many things about the ancient populating of the Americas that I find very puzzling, especially regarding South America. For instance, the sites at Monte Verde and Toca da Tira Peia seem to maybe even pre-date the Solutreans, and the high frequencies of Denisovan alleles in South America and an ancient skull showing similarites to Australoids are a mystery too. Maybe some ancient relatives of the Melanesians got there before the Solutreans, but how would they have gotten there?

John123
18-01-14, 04:07
Exactly...I'm predicting those hg I men got in there and "bang,bang,bang,bang,bing-bong,bing-bong-bing-bong!" : ) ,vthe gene pool took a little switchey-dee-switch!

LeBrok
18-01-14, 04:45
How are the R1a/R1b folks going to claim the introduction of blue eyes now? Maybe the R1b elite owned C members (and their mates) as slaves and these forced laborers somehow escaped from the Russian Steppes and made it to Europe...
Can you please quote these R folks that were convinced that blue eyes originated with hg R (from Eupedia website)? Otherwise this R versus I war is your doing only, which I'm convinced of. Pretty much R conspiracy against I. Sounds familiar?

LeBrok
18-01-14, 04:46
In all seriousness, this gives a tremendous boost to Solutreans Theory.
What do you mean? Do we have blue eye American Indians of haplogroup C-V20?
And if C is 70kya, tell me how many times these people could have went to america on foot the long way during this time?

LeBrok
18-01-14, 04:53
Exactly...I'm predicting those hg I men got in there and "bang,bang,bang,bang,bing-bong,bing-bong-bing-bong!" : ) ,vthe gene pool took a little switchey-dee-switch!
I'm so glad you're grasping genetics finally.:good_job:

nordicquarreler
18-01-14, 05:19
What do you mean? Do we have blue eye American Indians of haplogroup C-V20?
And if C is 70kya, tell me how many times these people could have went to america on foot the long way during this time?

That's what the meta-myth says...

But to your point-- if the maternal population all had brown eyes (really the entire autosomal of North America at the time would have had brown eyes) and Solutreans travellers had a much, much smaller representation... I would be shocked if ANY blue eyed Natives made it four hundred years forward, not to mention 20,000 years.

Remember the legend says the Native Americans (as we know them now) killed the giants (who were already in the Americas) and then took their women...

And by the way, if hg. C was 70,000 years old, why would this disqualify them from Soluteans? I'm confused by your logic...

Aberdeen
18-01-14, 05:44
That's what the meta-myth says...

But to your point-- if the maternal population all had brown eyes (really the entire autosomal of North America at the time would have had brown eyes) and Solutreans travellers had a much, much smaller representation... I would be shocked if ANY blue eyed Natives made it four hundred years forward, not to mention 20,000 years.

Remember the legend says the Native Americans (as we know them now) killed the giants (who were already in the Americas) and then took their women...

And by the way, if hg. C was 70,000 years old, why would this disqualify them from Soluteans? I'm confused by your logic...

I'm no expert in these things, but C-V20 isn't found among Native Americans, AFAIK. C is a really old haplotype that seems to have spread from some spot in Asia and it's rare in Europe, but C-V20 is specifically European, according to the experts. I read that on Wikipedia, so it must be true.

nordicquarreler
18-01-14, 06:08
I'm no expert in these things, but C-V20 isn't found among Native Americans, AFAIK. C is a really old haplotype that seems to have spread from some spot in Asia and it's rare in Europe, but C-V20 is specifically European, according to the experts. I read that on Wikipedia, so it must be true.

In that case I stand corrected. I thought C-V20 was in the Americas. I must admit I'm no expert in hg. C either-- I need to study some more.

nordicquarreler
18-01-14, 06:56
Can you please quote these R folks that were convinced that blue eyes originated with hg R (from Eupedia website)? Otherwise this R versus I war is your doing only, which I'm convinced of. Pretty much R conspiracy against I. Sounds familiar?

Please check your in-box.

LeBrok
18-01-14, 08:36
Remember the legend says the Native Americans (as we know them now) killed the giants (who were already in the Americas) and then took their women... As I said before it might have applied to Vikings settling the east coast 1,000 years ago. Romans were fighting giants in Germania, you can read about this in Roman historians works.


And by the way, if hg. C was 70,000 years old, why would this disqualify them from Soluteans? I'm confused by your logic...Occam's razor. For ancient people it was much easier to walk on ground that go through oceans on big boats which they didn't have. Even Vikings, when they settled there, didn't last too long in America or in Greenland did they. The environment was too strange, and land was already occupied, and not always by friendly people.

CLF
18-01-14, 11:42
I think the right nomenclature (Y-haplogroup DNA tree, Version: 8.85, Date: 9 December 2013) is C6; it is very rare and according to my info so far only described in 18 European individuals (some yet unpublished), about one third from Southern Europe, another third from Central Europe and the rest from British islands. Quite widespread.

Sile
18-01-14, 12:07
I think the right nomenclature (Y-haplogroup DNA tree, Version: 8.85, Date: 9 December 2013) is C6; it is very rare and according to my info so far only described in 18 European individuals (some yet unpublished), about one third from Southern Europe, another third from Central Europe and the rest from British islands. Quite widespread.

bravo:good_job:

un goto di vin per ti:smile:

Knovas
18-01-14, 12:19
Very surprising information: C6 (C-V20)!!!!!

Hope to see more details soon.

Ricardo
18-01-14, 14:39
Any Mesolithic individual would had a total "make-or-break" situation in terms of descendancy. We would need the full Y-chromosome sequencing of all samples, if that's true :wary2:

EastAnglian
18-01-14, 15:29
Can you please quote these R folks that were convinced that blue eyes originated with hg R (from Eupedia website)? Otherwise this R versus I war is your doing only, which I'm convinced of. Pretty much R conspiracy against I. Sounds familiar?

Hap I and R do battle, sounds very familiar!

Goga
18-01-14, 18:06
Thank you very much this is fascinating stuff. Can we say that the aboriginal Europeans were like the ancestors of the modern day East Eurasians? With N (in North) and C as paternal haplogroups?

Angela
18-01-14, 18:40
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Loschbour(y dna I2) and La Brana (y dna C?) are both hyper-dolichocephalic with rather small crania and very prominent eye-brow ridges. They don't resemble the ancient hunter-gatherer remains that I've seem labeled as being "Cro-Magnon".

I suppose what I'm asking is if these sequenced samples are from an older or later migration into Europe than that of the "Cro-Magnon" people (if that term is even used any longer)?

Also, given that La Brana is yDNA C, it will be interesting to see if autosomally he is closer to WHG or ANE in Lazaridis et al terms.

Wilhelm
18-01-14, 18:45
Also, given that La Brana is yDNA C, it will be interesting to see if autosomally he is closer to WHG or ANE in Lazaridis et al terms.
The La Braña invidivuals appear on the PCA plot of the Lazaridis study, they are grouped in the WHG category :

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/2267/g0zb.png

LeBrok
18-01-14, 18:58
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Loschbour(y dna I2) and La Brana (y dna C?) are both hyper-dolichocephalic with rather small crania and very prominent eye-brow ridges. They don't resemble the ancient hunter-gatherer remains that I've seem labeled as being "Cro-Magnon".

I suppose what I'm asking is if these sequenced samples are from an older or later migration into Europe than that of the "Cro-Magnon" people (if that term is even used any longer)?

Also, given that La Brana is yDNA C, it will be interesting to see if autosomally he is closer to WHG or ANE in Lazaridis et al terms.
I know Moesan wrote one post about differences between these more "gracial" hunter-gatherers (possibly Cro-Magnons), and the "robust" type. I've asked him for more information on subject but he must have missed my post.
If the gracial one is more ancient in Europe (supposedly Cro Magnon), and was replaced by the brut, the question is, when this brut showed up and where it came from?

Maciamo
18-01-14, 22:18
In that case I stand corrected. I thought C-V20 was in the Americas. I must admit I'm no expert in hg. C either-- I need to study some more.

Why not start by Eupedia's main page on European haplogroups (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#C). Haplogroup C6 (V20) has been listed as a Paleolithic/Mesolithic lineage (alongside F and I) for a while now. Interesting to know it was found in Iberia just before the Neolithic.

C-V20 is found in less than 0.1% of Europeans today. It's interesting that I lineages resisted so much better the Neolithic and Bronze Age invasions. Of course, it is possible that C-V20 was already a tiny minority lineage during the Mesolithic, and that replacement occured progressively over tens of thousands of years preceding the Neolithic. I had suggested exactly four months ago a Cro-Magnon chronolog (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29080-Chronology-of-Cro-Magnon-Y-DNA)y in which C6 was the first to arrived in Europe (during the Aurignacian) and interbreed with Neanderthals, and that haplogroups F and I represented two later migrations (Gravettian and Solutrean respectively), who each, turn by turn, progressively replaced older lineages. I should also add to that E-V13 and J2b probably represented a Mesolithic migration from the Near East to the southern Balkans (alongside J1c, J2b1 and some T2 mtDNA lineages). The actual Neolithic migrations from the Near East would have been E-M123, J1 and T (+ R1b-V88 but mostly to North Africa, although a few lineages could have ended up in Europe too).

ElHorsto
18-01-14, 22:57
I know Moesan wrote one post about differences between these more "gracial" hunter-gatherers (possibly Cro-Magnons), and the "robust" type. I've asked him for more information on subject but he must have missed my post.
If the gracial one is more ancient in Europe (supposedly Cro Magnon), and was replaced by the brut, the question is, when this brut showed up and where it came from?

AFAIK the "Cro-magnid" term denotes only the shape of the old Cro-Magnon skull which is the only Cro-Magnid skull find from europe. It is dolichocephal, yet very broad faced. It is > 30000 years old. I always found it risky to say "Cro-Magnons" when actually referring to late mesolithic europeans, because it is > 20000 years later. The only other Cro-Magnid skulls ever found (AFAIK!) are mesolithic from North-West Africa (Mechta, Afalou), but today Berbers who partially are classified as Cro-Magnoid have very minimal WHG admixture (almost nonexistent, source: few individuals posted their admixture percentages in some forums right after the Lazaridis et al paper). The only other very ancient skull class from europe I'm aware of is Brünn (today Czech republic) and it is probably even older than Cro-Magnon.
I believe the simplification by saying "Cro-Magnon" referring to all pre-neolithic europeans comes from the very different Combe-Capelle find, which was believed to be of the same age as the old Cro-magnon and therefore it was assumed to be strongly related. But recent re-evaluation (2011) of the age of Combe-Capelle revealed different, surprisingly young age of 9000 years, suggesting a much stronger separation from the old Cro-Magnon folks. In my eyes Combe-Capelle is a completely different skull type than Cro-Magnon, such that the recent re-datation makes even more sense.
I think it would be still ok to call Brünnids and Cro-Magnids both "Cro-Magnons" despite they are different, but Capellid (also very robust, but as Cro-Mag also huge elongated skull size, but very long face too) is known recently to be of a very much later epipaleolithic era and it would be risky to call it "Cro-Magnon".
Moesan is indeed very welcome to comment and correct if necessary.

bicicleur
18-01-14, 23:27
Why not start by Eupedia's main page on European haplogroups (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#C). Haplogroup C6 (V20) has been listed as a Paleolithic/Mesolithic lineage (alongside F and I) for a while now. Interesting to know it was found in Iberia just before the Neolithic.

C-V20 is found in less than 0.1% of Europeans today. It's interesting that I lineages resisted so much better the Neolithic and Bronze Age invasions. Of course, it is possible that C-V20 was already a tiny minority lineage during the Mesolithic, and that replacement occured progressively over tens of thousands of years preceding the Neolithic. I had suggested exactly four months ago a Cro-Magnon chronolog (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29080-Chronology-of-Cro-Magnon-Y-DNA)y in which C6 was the first to arrived in Europe (during the Aurignacian) and interbreed with Neanderthals, and that haplogroups F and I represented two later migrations (Gravettian and Solutrean respectively), who each, turn by turn, progressively replaced older lineages. I should also add to that E-V13 and J2b probably represented a Mesolithic migration from the Near East to the southern Balkans (alongside J1c, J2b1 and some T2 mtDNA lineages). The actual Neolithic migrations from the Near East would have been E-M123, J1 and T (+ R1b-V88 but mostly to North Africa, although a few lineages could have ended up in Europe too).

Do you have an age estimate for CTS11043 ?
If it is not to old CTS11043 could have been involved in Andronovo culture :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture

Out of 10 human male remains assigned to the Andronovo horizon from the Krasnoyarsk region, 9 possessed the R1a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R1a) Y-chromosome haplogroup and one haplogroup C-M130 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C-M130_(Y-DNA)) (xC3)

The one was tested C+ and C3- but not for any other subclades

As for F in present Europe it is F3, and I think it is neolithic and came along with G2a.
F and G have been found together in neolithic Europe.

bicicleur
19-01-14, 00:19
Why not start by Eupedia's main page on European haplogroups (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#C). Haplogroup C6 (V20) has been listed as a Paleolithic/Mesolithic lineage (alongside F and I) for a while now. Interesting to know it was found in Iberia just before the Neolithic.

C-V20 is found in less than 0.1% of Europeans today. It's interesting that I lineages resisted so much better the Neolithic and Bronze Age invasions. Of course, it is possible that C-V20 was already a tiny minority lineage during the Mesolithic, and that replacement occured progressively over tens of thousands of years preceding the Neolithic. I had suggested exactly four months ago a Cro-Magnon chronolog (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29080-Chronology-of-Cro-Magnon-Y-DNA)y in which C6 was the first to arrived in Europe (during the Aurignacian) and interbreed with Neanderthals, and that haplogroups F and I represented two later migrations (Gravettian and Solutrean respectively), who each, turn by turn, progressively replaced older lineages. I should also add to that E-V13 and J2b probably represented a Mesolithic migration from the Near East to the southern Balkans (alongside J1c, J2b1 and some T2 mtDNA lineages). The actual Neolithic migrations from the Near East would have been E-M123, J1 and T (+ R1b-V88 but mostly to North Africa, although a few lineages could have ended up in Europe too).

I see now, it is allready confirmed that the Iberian hunter/gatherer was C6.
In that case he probably came with Aurignacians as you suggest, or maybe even earlier, with Bohunicians.
What I don't understand, they all came in through the Balkans, while CTS11043 was supposed to split in Siberia into C1 (Japan) and C6 (Europe)
Things are surely becoming more complicated again.

Sile
19-01-14, 01:33
I see now, it is allready confirmed that the Iberian hunter/gatherer was C6.
In that case he probably came with Aurignacians as you suggest, or maybe even earlier, with Bohunicians.
What I don't understand, they all came in through the Balkans, while CTS11043 was supposed to split in Siberia into C1 (Japan) and C6 (Europe)
Things are surely becoming more complicated again.

these are C6 markers
F3393+, CTS11043+, CTS11798+, F993+, P53+, V20+, V222+

how do you know CTS11043+ split in Siberia when it was added/announce only this week?

C-CTS11043 Combining information from many sources, CTS11043 was added to the C tree in Jan 2014.

CTS11043 is a subgroup of F3393 and has two subgroups, P122 and V20. CTS11043 has one sister
subgroup, F1370.

epoch
19-01-14, 14:14
Has La Brana 2 also been sequenced or are there plans for that? It would be quite interesting to compare the Y-DNA haplogroup to this find.


EDIT: I saw dienekes mixed La Brana 1 and 2. So there must be info.

epoch
19-01-14, 17:27
I think I'd go with F( or I), but I don't think predicting a G2a result is out of bounds...as someone posted on another forum, there's a very old, 12,000 year old cluster of G2a in northwestern Italy...much older than the others.

This is the Globe 13 breakdown for La Brana 1...25% Mediterranean.
6136

The breakdown also shows a few percent "Paleo-African". Is that San/Bushmen/Capoid? Also it would be quite interesting to see if North-European is more Northwest of Northeast. Especially since the Swedes are considered to be far more EEF than Baltics and North-Scandinavians.

nordicquarreler
20-01-14, 03:36
AFAIK the "Cro-magnid" term denotes only the shape of the old Cro-Magnon skull which is the only Cro-Magnid skull find from europe. It is dolichocephal, yet very broad faced. It is > 30000 years old. I always found it risky to say "Cro-Magnons" when actually referring to late mesolithic europeans, because it is > 20000 years later. The only other Cro-Magnid skulls ever found (AFAIK!) are mesolithic from North-West Africa (Mechta, Afalou), but today Berbers who partially are classified as Cro-Magnoid have very minimal WHG admixture (almost nonexistent, source: few individuals posted their admixture percentages in some forums right after the Lazaridis et al paper). The only other very ancient skull class from europe I'm aware of is Brünn (today Czech republic) and it is probably even older than Cro-Magnon.
I believe the simplification by saying "Cro-Magnon" referring to all pre-neolithic europeans comes from the very different Combe-Capelle find, which was believed to be of the same age as the old Cro-magnon and therefore it was assumed to be strongly related. But recent re-evaluation (2011) of the age of Combe-Capelle revealed different, surprisingly young age of 9000 years, suggesting a much stronger separation from the old Cro-Magnon folks. In my eyes Combe-Capelle is a completely different skull type than Cro-Magnon, such that the recent re-datation makes even more sense.
I think it would be still ok to call Brünnids and Cro-Magnids both "Cro-Magnons" despite they are different, but Capellid (also very robust, but as Cro-Mag also huge elongated skull size, but very long face too) is known recently to be of a very much later epipaleolithic era and it would be risky to call it "Cro-Magnon".
Moesan is indeed very welcome to comment and correct if necessary.

Such excellent points. I'm glad you brought them up here...

I postulate that we are missing at least two very important clues in the settlement of the European continent. The enormous variation we see historically in European skull size and shape lends credibility to a theory I've heard mentioned (but have ignored pretty much until now). It sounds nuts, but when you pair this idea with these incredible cranial differences, the temperature core readings found in the poles, the large scale elimination of animal species (comparatively anyway), and a few other interesting tid-bits... I think we owe our current genetic jumble to the skies above!

And no I don't mean aliens.

What if we got thumped by a decent sized meteor or small comet about 13,000 years ago? It's starting to look like this was the case...

Sile
27-01-14, 00:03
the final paper

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature12960-s1.pdf

Aberdeen
27-01-14, 02:01
If you read the paper carefully, it makes very interesting reading. For example, the identification of the La Brana remains as having Y haplotype C6 specifically is not completely certain. To quote:

"The mean coverage obtained for the Y chromosome (1.4x) prevented us from recovering phylogenetically relevant SNPs at high coverage. However, using unfiltered data, we were able to narrow down the paternal lineage affiliation of La Braña 1 individual (Table S9). The presence of the derived allele in many different mutations defining haplogroups A1, A1b, BT, CT and CF suggests La Braña 1 sample belongs to either haplogroup C or F. When mutations defining those haplogroups were checked, only ancestral alleles were found in the haplogroup F-defining mutations, whereas seven C-defining mutations (M130, M216, P255, P260, V183, V199 and V232) showed only derived alleles. Thus, La Braña 1 most likely belonged to haplogroup C. The actual distribution of haplogroup C is thought to be a consequence of a single out of Africa migration through Southern Asia, followed by a northward migration that eventually reached Siberia and the Americas. The fact that we found ancestral alleles in mutations defining C1, C2, C3 and C4 (Table S9), together with their actual phylogeographic distribution restricted to Asia, Oceania and the Americas suggests that our individual does not belong to any of these branches. Rather, a new branch within haplogroup C (C6, originally named C7) has recently been identified in several men from Southern Europe, suggesting this could be an ancient European clade. Importantly, mutation V20 showed one read with the derived allele (A), which points to C6 as the most probable sub-clade for La Braña 1 sample. It could also be possible that this G to A mutation is a result of DNA damage. Other less likely haplogroup affiliations are C* and C5 (no read covered SNP M356), both found mainly in present- day India. Besides the V20 mutation, four other positions could have potentially been assigned wrongly due to the presence of DNA damage. However, their allele state is phylogenetically coherent with the rest of the SNPs studied. The precise affiliation of La Braña 1 in the Y-chromosome phylogeny could be better determined in the future with more data and increased genomic coverage."

It also seems that the idea that the La Brana person had dark skin and blue eyes is a probability rather than a certainty.

"Furthermore, using the alleles present in La Braña 1 for the six most informative SNPs for eye color prediction69 and for other SNPs associated to hair color, the HIrisPlex model was applied (Table S22). We obtained a probability of 0.780 and 0.202 for having black and brown hair respectively. Regarding the eye color prediction, no data could be recovered for SNP rs12896399. Thus, accounting for the three possible genotypes in this SNP, we obtained a probability range of 0.706-0.458, 0.214-0.117 and 0.328-0.177 for blue, intermediate and brown color respectively. If it can be confirmed that La Braña 1 had blue eyes with the genotyping of the SNP rs12896399, it would be so far the oldest known individual carrying this trait. The combination of seven SNPs has also been shown to be useful in the prediction of “not-dark” and “not white” skin color in a global human sample. However, some of these SNPs are not variable between Asians and Europeans and thus, its usefulness for skin color prediction in an ancient, European-specific genetic background is debatable. Moreover, the model, developed for forensics purposes, is based on the number of these SNPs present in a particular individual. La Braña 1 has the non-dark allele in rs6119471 (two copies), rs12913832 (two copies) and rs12203592 (one copy). As a conclusion, it is very difficult to ascertain the precise skin pigmentation phenotype of La Braña 1 individual from the comparison with modern human populations because the two critical pigmentation SNPs (at SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 genes) are essentially fixed in extant Europeans. Although some neighbouring populations such as Middle Easterns or North Africans can carry these ancestral alleles, their general genetic background is still quite different from that of modern Europeans and especially from Northern Europeans, to which La Braña 1 displays clear affinities. It is likely that La Braña 1 represents a unique phenotype that is no longer present in modern Europeans."

Of course, these "maybe" statements are to some extent just typical of scientists, who will mention even the slightest doubts about their results. But they didn't seem to have any doubts about the relationship between the La Brana man and Mal'ta Boy.

"Table S10 presents result for this analysis, indicating that the Mal’ta individual is closer to the La Braña 1 individual than it is to any European population, with the exception of Orcadian and Russian populations. We also calculated D statistics using all the East Asian population from the HGDP, and found that the Mal’ta individual is significantly closer to the La Braña 1 individual than it is to the East Asians (Table S11). "

So Mal'ta Boy, despite being R*, is related to someone who's C, and possibly C6. Okay, maybe not related, but genetically closer to than most modern European populations.

martiko
27-01-14, 02:22
it is not easy to give an opinion, because can be groups disappeared without a trace or can be is not still bare.
But for the msolithique I see only I2, I2a, I2b (Aquitaine) and also I *, I1 can be of possible in the Iberian Peninsula, G2a will arrive only much more late and E1b could be as well residual Punic troops of Roman occupation and that another presence of him before is anecdotal. When to R1a it seems to me difficult see impossible and for R1b it will be better to forget.

T101
27-01-14, 02:26
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/dark-skin-blue-eyes-genes-paint-picture-7-000-year-2D11996418



(http://www.nbcnews.com/science/dark-skin-blue-eyes-genes-paint-picture-7-000-year-2D11996418)

nordicquarreler
27-01-14, 03:40
I'm kind of in a hurry tonight so I'm going off of memory, but weren't several men assigned to G2a in the Northwest of Italy 12,000 years ago? This pre-dates La Brana by about 5,000 years so I don't think it's a stretch to say G2a could have been in Iberia long ago.

Also the males in Sweden were assigned to I2 and I* (possibly), but isn't it true that some of the I* could be proto I1 or even I1 proper? Has anyone else heard this before? (That the readings weren't defined enough to determine or assign exact clade.)

My point here is that Iberian pennisula might have been a "soup" of y-DNA even during La Brana, that it can be easy to forget some of these other findings and develop tunnel vision.

That being said... overall very cool that C6 was in Europe this far back and that blue eyes also look like they've been tied to the Continent for so long.

Sile
27-01-14, 04:28
If you read the paper carefully, it makes very interesting reading. For example, the identification of the La Brana remains as having Y haplotype C6 specifically is not completely certain. To quote:

"The mean coverage obtained for the Y chromosome (1.4x) prevented us from recovering phylogenetically relevant SNPs at high coverage. However, using unfiltered data, we were able to narrow down the paternal lineage affiliation of La Braña 1 individual (Table S9). The presence of the derived allele in many different mutations defining haplogroups A1, A1b, BT, CT and CF suggests La Braña 1 sample belongs to either haplogroup C or F. When mutations defining those haplogroups were checked, only ancestral alleles were found in the haplogroup F-defining mutations, whereas seven C-defining mutations (M130, M216, P255, P260, V183, V199 and V232) showed only derived alleles. Thus, La Braña 1 most likely belonged to haplogroup C. The actual distribution of haplogroup C is thought to be a consequence of a single out of Africa migration through Southern Asia, followed by a northward migration that eventually reached Siberia and the Americas. The fact that we found ancestral alleles in mutations defining C1, C2, C3 and C4 (Table S9), together with their actual phylogeographic distribution restricted to Asia, Oceania and the Americas suggests that our individual does not belong to any of these branches. Rather, a new branch within haplogroup C (C6, originally named C7) has recently been identified in several men from Southern Europe, suggesting this could be an ancient European clade. Importantly, mutation V20 showed one read with the derived allele (A), which points to C6 as the most probable sub-clade for La Braña 1 sample. It could also be possible that this G to A mutation is a result of DNA damage. Other less likely haplogroup affiliations are C* and C5 (no read covered SNP M356), both found mainly in present- day India. Besides the V20 mutation, four other positions could have potentially been assigned wrongly due to the presence of DNA damage. However, their allele state is phylogenetically coherent with the rest of the SNPs studied. The precise affiliation of La Braña 1 in the Y-chromosome phylogeny could be better determined in the future with more data and increased genomic coverage."

It also seems that the idea that the La Brana person had dark skin and blue eyes is a probability rather than a certainty.

"Furthermore, using the alleles present in La Braña 1 for the six most informative SNPs for eye color prediction69 and for other SNPs associated to hair color, the HIrisPlex model was applied (Table S22). We obtained a probability of 0.780 and 0.202 for having black and brown hair respectively. Regarding the eye color prediction, no data could be recovered for SNP rs12896399. Thus, accounting for the three possible genotypes in this SNP, we obtained a probability range of 0.706-0.458, 0.214-0.117 and 0.328-0.177 for blue, intermediate and brown color respectively. If it can be confirmed that La Braña 1 had blue eyes with the genotyping of the SNP rs12896399, it would be so far the oldest known individual carrying this trait. The combination of seven SNPs has also been shown to be useful in the prediction of “not-dark” and “not white” skin color in a global human sample. However, some of these SNPs are not variable between Asians and Europeans and thus, its usefulness for skin color prediction in an ancient, European-specific genetic background is debatable. Moreover, the model, developed for forensics purposes, is based on the number of these SNPs present in a particular individual. La Braña 1 has the non-dark allele in rs6119471 (two copies), rs12913832 (two copies) and rs12203592 (one copy). As a conclusion, it is very difficult to ascertain the precise skin pigmentation phenotype of La Braña 1 individual from the comparison with modern human populations because the two critical pigmentation SNPs (at SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 genes) are essentially fixed in extant Europeans. Although some neighbouring populations such as Middle Easterns or North Africans can carry these ancestral alleles, their general genetic background is still quite different from that of modern Europeans and especially from Northern Europeans, to which La Braña 1 displays clear affinities. It is likely that La Braña 1 represents a unique phenotype that is no longer present in modern Europeans."

Of course, these "maybe" statements are to some extent just typical of scientists, who will mention even the slightest doubts about their results. But they didn't seem to have any doubts about the relationship between the La Brana man and Mal'ta Boy.

"Table S10 presents result for this analysis, indicating that the Mal’ta individual is closer to the La Braña 1 individual than it is to any European population, with the exception of Orcadian and Russian populations. We also calculated D statistics using all the East Asian population from the HGDP, and found that the Mal’ta individual is significantly closer to the La Braña 1 individual than it is to the East Asians (Table S11). "

So Mal'ta Boy, despite being R*, is related to someone who's C, and possibly C6. Okay, maybe not related, but genetically closer to than most modern European populations.


But wasn't AG2 the marker Q1a1 with subclade F1215 ?

sparkey
27-01-14, 08:07
If you read the paper carefully, it makes very interesting reading. For example, the identification of the La Brana remains as having Y haplotype C6 specifically is not completely certain.

From what I can tell, the important stuff to know is:


La Brana 1 tested positive for C-V20.
It is possible that C-V20 is a false reading and that it is actually C* or even C5.
The main reason to be suspicious of the C-V20 result is that 3 SNPs that are phyloequivalent to V20 in modern samples are negative in La Brana 1.
A more likely reason for the other SNPs being negative than C-V20 being false is that La Brana 1 is on a different branch of C-V20 than modern C-V20, sort of like Loschbour's relationship to modern I2a-Din.

sparkey
27-01-14, 08:13
Also the males in Sweden were assigned to I2 and I* (possibly), but isn't it true that some of the I* could be proto I1 or even I1 proper? Has anyone else heard this before? (That the readings weren't defined enough to determine or assign exact clade.)

Motala2 and Motala9 are both Haplogroup I xI1, meaning that both were positive for Haplogroup I and negative for a particular I1 SNP. Either could be proto-I1, but more likely is that both are I2, very possibly I2-L178 like Loschbour and Motala12.

bicicleur
27-01-14, 09:59
From what I can tell, the important stuff to know is:


La Brana 1 tested positive for C-V20.
It is possible that C-V20 is a false reading and that it is actually C* or even C5.
The main reason to be suspicious of the C-V20 result is that 3 SNPs that are phyloequivalent to V20 in modern samples are negative in La Brana 1.
A more likely reason for the other SNPs being negative than C-V20 being false is that La Brana 1 is on a different branch of C-V20 than modern C-V20, sort of like Loschbour's relationship to modern I2a-Din.




I wonder what the conclusion would have been if the clade C-V20 wasn't recently discovered.
Yet I agree, the most likely is that this man was related to C-V20 without actually being C-V20.

epoch
27-01-14, 15:44
I think while the Y-DNA haplogroup is a surprise it is not the most interesting about La Brana 2. I think the existence of genes that are associated with pathogen resistance is the most interesting.
http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2014/01/brown-skinned-blue-eyed-y-haplogroup-c.html

All over the world the first encounter between hunter-gatherers and agricultural societies results in mass death of the former due to diseases the latter are more or less resistant to. It went that way with the Indians, who were far, far more susceptible to smallpox than the westerners. The tribes from the the Andaman islands experienced it. There are numerous accounts.

Jared Diamond builds a large part of his thesis in his very readable book "Guns, Germs and Steel" on the idea that it is almost a law of nature.

We have been seeing a number of accounts of hunter-gatherers living alongside farmers for thousands of years. We now have an idea why they did not perish from these diseases.

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/10/ancient-central-european-mtdna-across.html

LeBrok
27-01-14, 18:37
We have been seeing a number of accounts of hunter-gatherers living alongside farmers for thousands of years. We now have an idea why they did not perish from these diseases.

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/10/ancient-central-european-mtdna-across.html

The building immunity to pathogens is rather a quick process based on natural selection. It goes quickly through the populations like wildfire. We are talking about few years, maybe couple of decades) after time frame, like black death in Europe, or WWI spanish flu. In most cases population rebuilds numbers in few generations. In case of America by 1600 hundreds life was back to normal, well except colonialists being there. Now it's been 500 years since first contact, and immunity seems to be the same across the board.

When we extrapolate it on Europe, farmers meeting hunters, the dying off event could have happened at first encroachment of farmers 8,000 BC and was done couple of hundreds years later. We won't find it later at 6,000 BC the time if Stuttgart or Brania. Most likely it didn't happen at all or much sooner, because of constant contact of both sides through dry Bosphorus bridge.

Aberdeen
27-01-14, 19:11
From what I can tell, the important stuff to know is:


La Brana 1 tested positive for C-V20.
It is possible that C-V20 is a false reading and that it is actually C* or even C5.
The main reason to be suspicious of the C-V20 result is that 3 SNPs that are phyloequivalent to V20 in modern samples are negative in La Brana 1.
A more likely reason for the other SNPs being negative than C-V20 being false is that La Brana 1 is on a different branch of C-V20 than modern C-V20, sort of like Loschbour's relationship to modern I2a-Din.



Yes, La Brana Man was definitely some kind of C, so I find it interesting that he probably had blue eyes, although that doesn't seem to be 100% certain. But any C-6 folk currently living in Europe aren't necessarily his direct Y-haplotype descendants - he may not have any at this point. But the disease resistance probably means that hunter-gatherer types didn't die off from diseases when farmers showed up at the same rate they did in other parts of the world, such as the Americas.

Angela
27-01-14, 19:55
The building immunity to pathogens is rather a quick process based on natural selection. It goes quickly through the populations like wildfire. We are talking about few years, maybe couple of decades) after time frame, like black death in Europe, or WWI spanish flu. In most cases population rebuilds numbers in few generations. In case of America by 1600 hundreds life was back to normal, well except colonialists being there. Now it's been 500 years since first contact, and immunity seems to be the same across the board.

When we extrapolate it on Europe, farmers meeting hunters, the dying off event could have happened at first encroachment of farmers 8,000 BC and was done couple of hundreds years later. We won't find it later at 6,000 BC the time if Stuttgart or Brania. Most likely it didn't happen at all or much sooner, because of constant contact of both sides through dry Bosphorus bridge.

I can see how it could have happened much sooner. There wasn't an iron curtain at the Bosphorus, and all that is needed for communicable disease to spread is the exchange of one food stuff or trade good. I'll have to look at the results for Loschbour when I get a chance, and see if they tested for this; I know they did for Mal'ta, but I have to look up the results for that too as my memory seems to be letting me down today.

When looking at the autosomal break downs for Amerindians, it's always struck me how even relatively isolated, previously high density areas that show typical Amerindian mtDNA and yDNA have a small amount of admixture. Perhaps it was that admixture that allowed them to survive the ravages of the diseases that the Europeans brought with them.

I do think the genes for blue eyes and dark skin pigmentation are interesting. It should be kept in mind as Aberdeen has noted that the probability score for blue eyes is about 50/50, although it rises for fair eyes, including hazel.

As far as the skin pigmentation genes are concerned, what is really striking is not so much that the individual lacked the two snps that so heavily account for European type pigmentation ( SLC 24A5 and 45A2 ), as Loschbour lacked them too, and Mal'ta. It's that even at this late date he lacks the KITLG gene.

KITLG and AGIP are skin lightening mutations that occurred in Eurasia before the split between West Eurasians and East Eurasians ever happened. He has the AGIP gene, but lacks the KITLG gene, which on its own accounts for up to 20% of the variation between West Africans and Europeans.

I thought all non West African populations had the KITLG gene. Are there any modern populations today that have the AGIP gene but not KITLG? I think the Amerindians have both. I'm not sure about the islanders of Indonesia.

I also think that the artist's reconstruction that has been put out is a little off, and not only in the matter of the skin tone presented. The skull, from my admittedly limited knowledge, has a rather archaic look. How likely is it that it would be paired with such a modern European face? For one thing, the forehead area would seem to me to be much narrower than in the reconstruction, and the cheek bones much higher. I'm reminded of the first reconstruction of Oetzi before the much more extended imaging and testing, and how wrong it was. I just think there is a tendency at first to make these ancient people look more like us, or like some group to which we think they belong.

nordicquarreler
27-01-14, 20:01
Even if La Brana didn't have blue eyes himself, he tells us that the gene(s) responsible for blue were in the European theater well over five thousand years ago.

Also, I've read several times that he had dark skin. I find this odd because of the seven alleles we can now link to light skin... La Brana had three (two of these alleles were on both sides, and the third was only on one side). So I don't know how dark he could be with these kind of indicators.

Nevertheless, when La Brana's information is paired with the fact that Neolithic Farmers brought their own batch of light skin genes... I think we can put to bed the old eugenics tale of Aryans bringing the "blue-eyed, blond haired" phenotype into Europe.

**EDIT**
I suppose Arayans could have brought blonde hair into Europe at this point.

What I think was more likely though is that light skin, light eyes, and blonde hair were already in Europe... but that either the colder environment or sexual selection focused these phenotypes (Northern Europe/Scandinavia) into what we see today. My bet is on sexual selection.

Goga
27-01-14, 20:45
What I think was more likely though is that light skin, light eyes, and blonde hair were already in Europe... but that either the colder environment or sexual selection focused these phenotypes (Northern Europe/Scandinavia) into what we see today. My bet is on sexual selection.According to the results this La Brana fella is closer to Swedish people than to any other Europeans

epoch
27-01-14, 20:46
The building immunity to pathogens is rather a quick process based on natural selection. It goes quickly through the populations like wildfire. We are talking about few years, maybe couple of decades) after time frame, like black death in Europe, or WWI spanish flu. In most cases population rebuilds numbers in few generations. In case of America by 1600 hundreds life was back to normal, well except colonialists being there. Now it's been 500 years since first contact, and immunity seems to be the same across the board.

When we extrapolate it on Europe, farmers meeting hunters, the dying off event could have happened at first encroachment of farmers 8,000 BC and was done couple of hundreds years later. We won't find it later at 6,000 BC the time if Stuttgart or Brania. Most likely it didn't happen at all or much sooner, because of constant contact of both sides through dry Bosphorus bridge.


Well, that didn't happen with Indians and smallpox. The smallpox kept returning and kept taking an enormous toll. Take for instance the Mandan indians - blue eyed, quite relevant to our hunter-gatherers - that experienced several epidemics before their near annihilation in 1837. The die off among Indians was enormous.


The Mandan were first plagued by smallpox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox) in the 16th century and had been hit by similar epidemics every few decades. Between 1837 and 1838, another smallpox epidemic swept the region. In June 1837, an American Fur Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Fur_Company) steamboat traveled westward up the Missouri River from St. Louis. Its passengers and traders aboard infected the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara tribes.There were approximately 1,600 Mandan living in the two villages at that time. The disease effectively destroyed the Mandan settlements. Almost all the tribal members, including the chief, Four Bears, died. Estimates of the number of survivors vary from only 27 individuals to up to 150, though most sources usually put the number at 125.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandan#Smallpox_epidemic_of_1837.E2.80.9338

Charles C. Mann has written a book about Indian culture before the arrival of the Europeans, called "1491" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Colum bus), in which he also described similar effects among Siberian tribes that came into first contact with the Russians. He blames the susceptibility of Indians for epidemics on their genetic makup, mentioning especially the HLA gene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_leukocyte_antigen

Greying Wanderer
27-01-14, 20:49
I can see how it could have happened much sooner. There wasn't an iron curtain at the Bosphorus, and all that is needed for communicable disease to spread is the exchange of one food stuff or trade good. I'll have to look at the results for Loschbour when I get a chance, and see if they tested for this; I know they did for Mal'ta, but I have to look up the results for that too as my memory seems to be letting me down today.

When looking at the autosomal break downs for Amerindians, it's always struck me how even relatively isolated, previously high density areas that show typical Amerindian mtDNA and yDNA have a small amount of admixture. Perhaps it was that admixture that allowed them to survive the ravages of the diseases that the Europeans brought with them.

I do think the genes for blue eyes and dark skin pigmentation are interesting. It should be kept in mind as Aberdeen has noted that the probability score for blue eyes is about 50/50, although it rises for fair eyes, including hazel.

As far as the skin pigmentation genes are concerned, what is really striking is not so much that the individual lacked the two snps that so heavily account for European type pigmentation ( SLC 24A5 and 45A2 ), as Loschbour lacked them too, and Mal'ta. It's that even at this late date he lacks the KITLG gene.

KITLG and AGIP are skin lightening mutations that occurred in Eurasia before the split between West Eurasians and East Eurasians ever happened. He has the AGIP gene, but lacks the KITLG gene, which on its own accounts for up to 20% of the variation between West Africans and Europeans.

I thought all non West African populations had the KITLG gene. Are there any modern populations today that have the AGIP gene but not KITLG? I think the Amerindians have both. I'm not sure about the islanders of Indonesia.

I also think that the artist's reconstruction that has been put out is a little off, and not only in the matter of the skin tone presented. The skull, from my admittedly limited knowledge, has a rather archaic look. How likely is it that it would be paired with such a modern European face? For one thing, the forehead area would seem to me to be much narrower than in the reconstruction, and the cheek bones much higher. I'm reminded of the first reconstruction of Oetzi before the much more extended imaging and testing, and how wrong it was. I just think there is a tendency at first to make these ancient people look more like us, or like some group to which we think they belong.

Diseases - a near wipeout followed by regrowth makes sense as the Farmer's expansion into Europe was a lot slower than the one into America

(edit I mean, except along the mediterranean coast the HGs had thousands of years to adapt rather than hundreds)

Skin alleles - which ones different populations have or had is very interesting as it could give a clue to the route they took

Reconstruction - narrower forehead, higher cheek bones - i'm thinking more Cheyenne minus some of the unique East Asian facial features

http://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/images/d/d6/Cheyenne-Men-1909.jpg

epoch
27-01-14, 20:58
According to the results this La Brana fella is closer to Swedish people than to any other Europeans

That could be due to the fact that La Brana has more mediterranean admixture than more northern hunter-gatherers.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=6136&d=1386801296
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/3393/tvkd.png

Greying Wanderer
27-01-14, 21:02
Even if La Brana didn't have blue eyes himself, he tells us that the gene(s) responsible for blue were in the European theater well over five thousand years ago.

Also, I've read several times that he had dark skin. I find this odd because of the seven alleles we can now link to light skin... La Brana had three (two of these alleles were on both sides, and the third was only on one side). So I don't know how dark he could be with these kind of indicators.

Nevertheless, when La Brana's information is paired with the fact that Neolithic Farmers brought their own batch of light skin genes... I think we can put to bed the old eugenics tale of Aryans bringing the "blue-eyed, blond haired" phenotype into Europe.

**EDIT**
I suppose Arayans could have brought blonde hair into Europe at this point.

What I think was more likely though is that light skin, light eyes, and blonde hair were already in Europe... but that either the colder environment or sexual selection focused these phenotypes (Northern Europe/Scandinavia) into what we see today. My bet is on sexual selection.

How relevant is the process of tanning to this i.e. is tanned white skin what it might have been like in the past? (I have no idea how tanning works so this might be very silly.)

.

If two of the light skin genes (the SLC ones) originated in the near or mid east and the IE started from around the Black Sea those genes might have reached the IE first and been spread by both the farmers and IE.

#

Mandan Indians - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandan

(edit: probably nothing, but possibly interesting "18th-century reports about characteristics of Mandan lodges, religion and occasional physical features among tribal members, such as blue and grey eyes along with lighter hair coloring, stirred speculation about the possibility of pre-Columbian European contact.")

epoch
27-01-14, 21:18
As far as the skin pigmentation genes are concerned, what is really striking is not so much that the individual lacked the two snps that so heavily account for European type pigmentation ( SLC 24A5 and 45A2 ), as Loschbour lacked them too, and Mal'ta. It's that even at this late date he lacks the KITLG gene.

KITLG and AGIP are skin lightening mutations that occurred in Eurasia before the split between West Eurasians and East Eurasians ever happened. He has the AGIP gene, but lacks the KITLG gene, which on its own accounts for up to 20% of the variation between West Africans and Europeans.

I thought all non West African populations had the KITLG gene. Are there any modern populations today that have the AGIP gene but not KITLG? I think the Amerindians have both. I'm not sure about the islanders of Indonesia.

That is interesting. La Brana 2 seems to have an slight African admixture of 3.2% (if that isn't some noise). Loschbourg at least had both AGIP and KITLG as Europeans have.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=6136&d=1386801296

Goga
27-01-14, 21:18
That could be due to the fact that La Brana has more mediterranean admixture than more northern hunter-gatherers.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=6136&d=1386801296
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/3393/tvkd.pngCould be, but then again he’s closer to modern day Swedish population then to any modern European Mediterranean one. Southern Europeans have more Mediterranean genes than North European folks. But this La Brana fella is still closer to Swedish population than to Spanish population.

Goga
27-01-14, 21:20
This means that ancient native European WHG (West European foragers) aDNA component was dark skinned. And I'm talking about the universal WHG aDNA component among all NATIVE Europeans.

Greying Wanderer
27-01-14, 21:27
a collection of links related to the genes involved in skin and eye color

https://www.google.com/search?q=skin+color&btnG=Search!&domains=scienceblogs.com%2Fgnxp&sitesearch=scienceblogs.com%2Fgnxp

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&domains=scienceblogs.com%2Fgnxp&q=eye+color&btnG=Search&sitesearch=scienceblogs.com%2Fgnxp

nordicquarreler
27-01-14, 21:35
This means that ancient native European WHG (West European foragers) aDNA component was dark skinned.

?

Again La Brana had three alleles indicating light skin (of the seven that we know of) so I don't know what his skin tone could have looked like. One of these three alleles was only on one side, but if you do the math... these percentages would certainly have an impact on expressed phenotype.

Speaking of impact, I'm a big idea kind of thinker. By studying the autosomal and paternal hg's of these ancient contributors... what we find is quite a hodgepodge of confounding genetic travel/history.

Up to this point we have concentrated on male warfare to explain European genetics. I think we are on the right track when we also consider disease... but what about this meteor impact during younger Dryas that I've hinted at a few comments ago? Something seems like it really shook up the landscape (genetically) and this might be the explanation, or at least one of them.

Goga
27-01-14, 21:36
I think Indo-European tribes brought light skin & hair genes from the Caucasian Mountain range. Before R1b those areas in the Caucasus were and are still dominated by paternal haplogroup J2a (& G2a) folks. And it has been proven that light skin genes evolved in Northern parts of West Asia. It's not for nothing that we say that modern Europeans belong to a 'CAUCASIAN' race.

bicicleur
27-01-14, 21:38
these are C6 markers
F3393+, CTS11043+, CTS11798+, F993+, P53+, V20+, V222+

how do you know CTS11043+ split in Siberia when it was added/announce only this week?

C-CTS11043

Combining information from many sources, CTS11043 was added to the C tree in Jan 2014.

CTS11043 is a subgroup of F3393 and has two subgroups, P122 and V20. CTS11043 has one sister
subgroup, F1370.


Maciamo allready knew about this before :

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#C

Somewhere the ancestors of C1 and C6 must have split.
In Siberia, or before crossing the Hindu Kush?

Goga
27-01-14, 21:39
?

Again La Brana had three alleles indicating light skin (of the seven that we know of) so I don't know what his skin tone could have looked like. One of these three was only on one side, but if you do the math these are percentages that would certainly have an impact.

Speaking of impact, I'm a big idea kind of thinker. By studying the autosomal and paternal hg's of these ancient contributors... what we find is quite a hodge podge of confounding genetic travel/history.

Up to this point we have concentrated on male warfare to explain European genetics. I think we are on the right track when we also consider disease... but what about this meteor impact during younger Dryas that I've hinted at? Something seems like it really shook up the landscape (genetically) and this might be the explanation, or at least one of them.Buddy, you missed this thread on Eupedia? http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29435-Light-skin-allele-of-SLC24A5-gene-was-spread-by-the-Indo-Europeans-(R1a-R1b) http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/A111T-Canfield-2014.jpg

epoch
27-01-14, 22:07
?

Again La Brana had three alleles indicating light skin (of the seven that we know of) so I don't know what his skin tone could have looked like. One of these three alleles was only on one side, but if you do the math... these percentages would certainly have an impact on expressed phenotype.

Speaking of impact, I'm a big idea kind of thinker. By studying the autosomal and paternal hg's of these ancient contributors... what we find is quite a hodgepodge of confounding genetic travel/history.

Up to this point we have concentrated on male warfare to explain European genetics. I think we are on the right track when we also consider disease... but what about this meteor impact during younger Dryas that I've hinted at a few comments ago? Something seems like it really shook up the landscape (genetically) and this might be the explanation, or at least one of them.

O yes, quite possible. Although we need an impact crater for the theory to be firmly convincing and the criticism on the theory, based especially on the fact that megafauna did not disappear simultaniously, is not invalid either. Furthermore, it is mostly megafauna that went extinct, contrary to known impact extinction events, that had a colossal impact on marine life. For instance an awful lot of marine life fossils of known families, orders or even classes can't be found above the K/T boundary. That in itself doesn't disprove this hypothesis, since it thinks of a far smaller impact. However, it does seem strange that it had such impact on megafauna whereas eruptions as Campi Fleigri and Toba did not.

The oddness, however, of mesolthic hunter-gatherers is *later* than those events. And La Brana is not the only mesolthic one to have traces of peculiar admixture. We see American Indian, Paleo-African, Onge.

nordicquarreler
27-01-14, 22:31
O yes, quite possible. Although we need an impact crater for the theory to be firmly convincing and the criticism on the theory, based especially on the fact that megafauna did not disappear simultaniously, is not invalid either. Furthermore, it is mostly megafauna that went extinct, contrary to known impact extinction events, that had a colossal impact on marine life. For instance an awful lot of marine life fossils of known families, orders or even classes can't be found above the K/T boundary. That in itself doesn't disprove this hypothesis, since it thinks of a far smaller impact. However, it does seem strange that it had such impact on megafauna whereas eruptions as Campi Fleigri and Toba did not.

The oddness, however, of mesolthic hunter-gatherers is *later* than those events. And La Brana is not the only mesolthic one to have traces of peculiar admixture. We see American Indian, Paleo-African, Onge.

Thank you for the comments, Epoch.

Regarding mesolithic H.G., yes they would follow much later than this proposed impact... but if it's as big as I'm thinking it could have been... the after-effects of this collision would be seen for a long, long time.

nordicquarreler
27-01-14, 22:40
Buddy, you missed this thread on Eupedia? http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29435-Light-skin-allele-of-SLC24A5-gene-was-spread-by-the-Indo-Europeans-(R1a-R1b) http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/A111T-Canfield-2014.jpg

Didn't miss it... actually contributed to it (or at least participated in it depending on who you ask!)

Yes, Indo-Europeans can be linked to this sequence. It is only one of seven though. We know of at least seven so far (and there may be more) that contribute to light skin.

epoch
27-01-14, 22:43
Thank you for the comments, Epoch.

Regarding mesolithic H.G., yes they would follow much later than this proposed impact... but if it's as big as I'm thinking it could have been... the after-effects of this collision would be seen for a long, long time.


Couldn't it be that the diversity was actually the norm? Now, the "inventors of agriculture" were hunter-gatherers too before turning to farmers. That must be as obvious as can be. The first of them must have been a small number of people, experiencing founder effect and genetic drift. Then, as the survival rate of their newborns greatly improves their number explodes.

Perhaps we look at this from wrong perspective and is the uniformity of current day Europe the issue that needs explanation.

Angela
27-01-14, 23:59
SLC 24A5 and SLC45A2 between them have been found to account for up to 60-80% of the variation in pigmentation between West Africans and Europeans. KITLG accounts for another up to 20%. The other genes are more minor players it seems. So, although I don't think the odds are that the individual would have had West African pigmentation, it does seem as if something approaching the skin color of southern Indians, southeast Asian islanders or perhaps South American Amerindians with little European admixture is probably in the ballpark.

As for sexual selection being a factor, I think that's rather a subjective issue. Personally, my own inclinations lie in a decidedly Mediterranean direction, although I don't go as far as the Czech women in that study posted by Dienekes who found light eyed men untrustworthy. :)

Seriously, I think that sociologically a case definitely can be made that this is far from an immutable set of preferences. There are better classics scholars on this Board than I am, but I definitely recall that the ancient Greeks were of the opinion that their own pigmentation was precisely right, and far better than the too light phenotype of the barbarians to the north and the too dark pigmentation of the barbarians to their south. I think that whomever is at the top of the pyramid in a particular era and place sets the standard to some extent.

In our own era, the mass media, formed in the U.S., has featured northwestern and northern Europeans as the ideal, I think I would say, and that, combined with the ascendancy of these groups in the colonial past may have spread this notion much further. I've mentioned it before, but the eminent author John Hersey explores this phenomenon in his book The White Lotus, which takes places in a fictional world after a takeover by the Chinese. There is a resulting rush to surgeons to change the appearance of the eyes.

I think that on the whole, selective pressure because of a change in diet, coupled with different levels of irradiation in Europe probably explains most of the variation we see.

As to tanning, I would think that the ability to tan would be of evolutionary benefit in all but the most cloudy climates. The Wiki link above lists the sub-clusters of the pigmentation snps that code for the inability to tan, and not surprisingly says that they are not under evolutionary pressure, and even one allele is present in only a decided minority of Europeans. Unfortunately, 23andme didn't test for them. I would have been curious to see the results as I personally am one of those people who is totally unable to tan. Perhaps that's one reason half of my ancestors never seemed to move from their cool, wet, mountains. They would have burned to a crisp anywhere else. :)

@Goga
The Stuttgart LBK woman did carry SLC 24A5, and others and that was long before any Indo-Europeans were on the scene. That's not to say that they didn't acquire it at some point, and aid in its spread.

@Greying Wanderer
Yes, I was considering a Cheyenne type look as well, but I don't know how those proud noses would fit with the skeletal evidence. Also, does anyone know anything about their cranial type? I think that La Brana is, like Loschbour, very dolichocephalic. I'm not sure about actual size. It looks rather small for the rest of the body to me. Perhaps the researchers have or will post some data about that.

Goga
28-01-14, 00:18
@Goga
The Stuttgart LBK woman did carry SLC 24A5, and others and that was long before any Indo-Europeans were on the scene. That's not to say that they didn't acquire it at some point, and aid in its spread.Thank you very much. This is very interesting. Was she dark or light skinned?

nordicquarreler
28-01-14, 01:11
SLC 24A5 and SLC45A2 between them have been found to account for up to 60-80% of the variation in pigmentation between West Africans and Europeans. KITLG accounts for another up to 20%. The other genes are more minor players it seems. So, although I don't think the odds are that the individual would have had West African pigmentation, it does seem as if something approaching the skin color of southern Indians, southeast Asian islanders or perhaps South American Amerindians with little European admixture is probably in the ballpark.

As for sexual selection being a factor, I think that's rather a subjective issue. Personally, my own inclinations lie in a decidedly Mediterranean direction, although I don't go as far as the Czech women in that study posted by Dienekes who found light eyed men untrustworthy. :)

Seriously, I think that sociologically a case definitely can be made that this is far from an immutable set of preferences. There are better classics scholars on this Board than I am, but I definitely recall that the ancient Greeks were of the opinion that their own pigmentation was precisely right, and far better than the too light phenotype of the barbarians to the north and the too dark pigmentation of the barbarians to their south. I think that whomever is at the top of the pyramid in a particular era and place sets the standard to some extent.

In our own era, the mass media, formed in the U.S., has featured northwestern and northern Europeans as the ideal, I think I would say, and that, combined with the ascendancy of these groups in the colonial past may have spread this notion much further. I've mentioned it before, but the eminent author John Hersey explores this phenomenon in his book The White Lotus, which takes places in a fictional world after a takeover by the Chinese. There is a resulting rush to surgeons to change the appearance of the eyes.

I think that on the whole, selective pressure because of a change in diet, coupled with different levels of irradiation in Europe probably explains most of the variation we see.

As to tanning, I would think that the ability to tan would be of evolutionary benefit in all but the most cloudy climates. The Wiki link above lists the sub-clusters of the pigmentation snps that code for the inability to tan, and not surprisingly says that they are not under evolutionary pressure, and even one allele is present in only a decided minority of Europeans. Unfortunately, 23andme didn't test for them. I would have been curious to see the results as I personally am one of those people who is totally unable to tan. Perhaps that's one reason half of my ancestors never seemed to move from their cool, wet, mountains. They would have burned to a crisp anywhere else. :)

@Goga
The Stuttgart LBK woman did carry SLC 24A5, and others and that was long before any Indo-Europeans were on the scene. That's not to say that they didn't acquire it at some point, and aid in its spread.

@Greying Wanderer
Yes, I was considering a Cheyenne type look as well, but I don't know how those proud noses would fit with the skeletal evidence. Also, does anyone know anything about their cranial type? I think that La Brana is, like Loschbour, very dolichocephalic. I'm not sure about actual size. It looks rather small for the rest of the body to me. Perhaps the researchers have or will post some data about that.

"Up to 60-80%"-- that phrasing concerns me. Very ambiguous with a decent amount of wriggle room. Plus these percentages reflect the assumption of two combined alleles, not one. We are going to have to agree to disagree here. Please don't be offended because I normally agree with most of what you post... however not in this case.

And the sexual selection I mentioned may be different from the version you may have in mind. I was thinking the males guided or even enforced this sexual selection. For example I've heard stories of how red-heads were treated in parts of Northern Europe and it wasn't very nice. Remember the Pagan Norse came up with the whole pay-through-the-nose concept, also flayed the lungs of their living enemy, all sorts of stuff.

I do agree that the ideal tends to follow those at the top of the food chain-- like you mentioned with the Greeks. Some groups may have played a more active role in phenotype selection though.

Jackson
28-01-14, 01:57
"Up to 60-80%"-- that phrasing concerns me. Very ambiguous with a decent amount of wriggle room. Plus these percentages reflect the assumption of two combined alleles, not one. We are going to have to agree to disagree here. Please don't be offended because I normally agree with most of what you post... however not in this case.

And the sexual selection I mentioned may be different from the version you may have in mind. I was thinking the males guided or even enforced this sexual selection. For example I've heard stories of how red-heads were treated in parts of Northern Europe and it wasn't very nice. Remember the Pagan Norse came up with the whole pay-through-the-nose concept, also flayed the lungs of their living enemy, all sorts of stuff.

I do agree that the ideal tends to follow those at the top of the food chain-- like you mentioned with the Greeks. Some groups may have played a more active role in phenotype selection though.

Given that many in the Classical world, and also the Medieval world were mad about how they looked (copious use of wigs, make-up etc), i don't think we have changed that significantly in mindset in regards to sexual selection over the last couple of thousand of years, unless it is just something that is of major importance in quite complex societies, and that it is of more minor importance in less complex societies or in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

Greying Wanderer
28-01-14, 02:46
Given that many in the Classical world, and also the Medieval world were mad about how they looked (copious use of wigs, make-up etc), i don't think we have changed that significantly in mindset in regards to sexual selection over the last couple of thousand of years, unless it is just something that is of major importance in quite complex societies, and that it is of more minor importance in less complex societies or in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

The other way round imo. For most populations since agriculture marriages have been arranged by the families based on property with sexual selection barely involved at all. I'd have thought on average sexual selection was a much bigger factor with foragers.

Jackson
28-01-14, 04:45
The other way round imo. For most populations since agriculture marriages have been arranged by the families based on property with sexual selection barely involved at all. I'd have thought on average sexual selection was a much bigger factor with foragers.

Yeah it would seem that way to me as well for the most part.

LeBrok
28-01-14, 04:48
The other way round imo. For most populations since agriculture marriages have been arranged by the families based on property with sexual selection barely involved at all. I'd have thought on average sexual selection was a much bigger factor with foragers.
Excellent points!
Here is a picture of New Guinea hunter gatherers.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17910/17910-h/images/p000.jpg

The question is what is the sexual selection aiming for in this tribe? Tall, slim, dolichocephalic skull, blond, big boobs? Hmmm, surprisingly none of the western mass media beauty type.
Well, we can expect even less sexual selection among farmers where property inheritance and arranged marriage had lead the prim.
The only sexual selection among humans happened for rich, some monarchs and Genghis Khan, the people who selected many brides only for their beauty. Otherwise there is 1 to 1 ratio between men and women therefore everybody gets the chance to procreate, the beautiful, the ugly and the rest of us. Looks like natural forces, bottle necking and luck played bigger role in our looks than sexual selection.

Angela
28-01-14, 05:26
"Up to 60-80%"-- that phrasing concerns me. Very ambiguous with a decent amount of wriggle room. Plus these percentages reflect the assumption of two combined alleles, not one. We are going to have to agree to disagree here. Please don't be offended because I normally agree with most of what you post... however not in this case.

And the sexual selection I mentioned may be different from the version you may have in mind. I was thinking the males guided or even enforced this sexual selection. For example I've heard stories of how red-heads were treated in parts of Northern Europe and it wasn't very nice. Remember the Pagan Norse came up with the whole pay-through-the-nose concept, also flayed the lungs of their living enemy, all sorts of stuff.

I do agree that the ideal tends to follow those at the top of the food chain-- like you mentioned with the Greeks. Some groups may have played a more active role in phenotype selection though.

Why would I be offended? Goodness, if we didn't have different points of view, we wouldn't have anything to discuss, and what would be the fun in that? I do think that once it was established, there might have been a preference for blond women and/or fairer skinned women; I think I remember some studies showing that these things imply youth and therefore fertility. Perhaps, as these are more childish features (most people being more fair as children) "malleability" as well, a trait in high demand in women especially after those Indo-Europeans came along and got rid of the matriarchies of south east Europe!
http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/grin.png

I'm joking, of course. I haven't been a believer in Gimbutas' theories for a long time. I can remember, though, when her books and the whole "Goddess" thing was very trendy in certain circles. Also, as other posters have mentioned, which I hadn't thought of, young men would rarely have had a choice of marriage partners in the farming world.

@Goga,
IIRC, she had the KITLG gene which is a big one that separates Eurasians from West Africans, and the SLC 24A5 gene which also appears in the Middle East, parts of India etc, and has reached fixation in Europe. She doesn't have SLC42A5, which is the more specifically European one. So my guess, and that's all I'm doing here, proposing hopefully reasoned speculations, is that she might have looked like one of the darker Sardinians, since all these papers find that the EEF farmers cluster with them. They also have a minority part of their population that still doesn't have the SLC42A5 gene. By the time we get to Oetzi, he would have been fairer, I think, as he has the SLC42A5 gene, which has still not reached fixation in Europe, although it's close. (Interestingly, it tracks very well with the amount of irradiation in various parts of Europe.)

Razib Khan discusses the modern distributions of these alleles here, and there are some nice maps, although he didn't post all the results from the relevant paper for SLC42A5.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/08/pigmentation-phylogeny-history-and-adaptation/#.Uub_2bQo6JM

The thing to keep in mind though is that the East Asians have other skin lightening mutations that, in my opinion, also seem to track the spread of the Neolithic, so that's why I was thinking perhaps of southeast Asian Islanders or Amerindians as a model.

For Stuttgart, as I said, perhaps the darker and more antique looking Sardi are closest. These people, in my subjective view, of course, might fit that bill, especially if they were darker. (All Sardinians don't look like this, of course.)
http://www.lacanas.it/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/alessandro-cani-Donne-di-Cabras-durante-la-sagra-di-SantEfisio.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/297514_512777192082704_946736037_n.jpg

http://www.parcodessi.it/parcodessi/export/sites/default/www/Sinistra/Luoghi/Immagini/A_feste01g.jpg

I think the actress that Dienekes posted when he discussed the Neolithic farmers (the Sardinian actress Caterina Murino of Casino Royale fame) has a look that might have been affected by later migrations. She has a look of ancient Crete about her, at least to me.
http://www.mujzpravodaj.cz/repository/repImages/yy2013/mm03/dd03/6385425.jpg


Of course, to reiterate, we're all guessing here.

Greying Wanderer
28-01-14, 09:13
Excellent points!
Here is a picture of New Guinea hunter gatherers.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17910/17910-h/images/p000.jpg

The question is what is the sexual selection aiming for in this tribe? Tall, slim, dolichocephalic skull, blond, big boobs? Hmmm, surprisingly none of the western mass media beauty type.
Well, we can expect even less sexual selection among farmers where property inheritance and arranged marriage had lead the prim.
The only sexual selection among humans happened for rich, some monarchs and Genghis Khan, the people who selected many brides only for their beauty. Otherwise there is 1 to 1 ratio between men and women therefore everybody gets the chance to procreate, the beautiful, the ugly and the rest of us. Looks like natural forces, bottle necking and luck played bigger role in our looks than sexual selection.

Signals of *individual* health and fertility i expect - as opposed to signals of her family owning some nice meadows and an orchard.

Greying Wanderer
28-01-14, 09:14
Does anyone know if La Brana was checked for the red hair mutation MC1R?

epoch
28-01-14, 11:09
Personally, my own inclinations lie in a decidedly Mediterranean direction, although I don't go as far as the Czech women in that study posted by Dienekes who found light eyed men untrustworthy. :)

That was a very young woman, I suppose? ;)

No matter how current day preferences are, we know that during the Middle Ages and possibly before blondeness and whiteness were considered the beauty standards. In Roman times, names as Flavius may suggest that these preferences are old. Churlish oafs in medieval literature were described as swarthy. Furthermore women have tried to become lighter in both European and Asian cultures for quite some time. In Asia up until today, as the popularity of whitening creams in China show.

LeBrok
28-01-14, 18:28
That was a very young woman, I suppose? ;)

No matter how current day preferences are, we know that during the Middle Ages and possibly before blondeness and whiteness were considered the beauty standards. In Roman times, names as Flavius may suggest that these preferences are old. Churlish oafs in medieval literature were described as swarthy. Furthermore women have tried to become lighter in both European and Asian cultures for quite some time. In Asia up until today, as the popularity of whitening creams in China show.
Well, there is huge popularity of tanning solutions and techniques in Central and North Europe and North America. There is popularity of whitening creams and techniques farther South. So what does it mean? According to sexual selection, people in south should become white soon and others become swarthy up north? Or if very white is not possible for South, why they didn't turn blond and blue eyes at least already?

As long as people marry at 1:1 ratio and whitest people don't have more children than none whitest, the sexual selection is not strong enough to happen. Again, even if white skin is guarded by strong geographical selection, the blond and blue eyes shouldn't. I'm not sure why we even talk about this, when it is documented and logical to equate colour of skin with geographical latitudes and vitamin D synthesis, and leave sexual selection at rest. To make a dent with sexual selection you need good statistics showing that whitest people are having more children than others.

Greying Wanderer
28-01-14, 19:48
IRF4 is associated with brown hair, blue eyes and freckles

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/57/b2/70/57b2708d0d40295de096599768578969.jpg

Angela
28-01-14, 20:00
That was a very young woman, I suppose? ;)

No matter how current day preferences are, we know that during the Middle Ages and possibly before blondeness and whiteness were considered the beauty standards. In Roman times, names as Flavius may suggest that these preferences are old. Churlish oafs in medieval literature were described as swarthy. Furthermore women have tried to become lighter in both European and Asian cultures for quite some time. In Asia up until today, as the popularity of whitening creams in China show.

You're making my point for me, I think. To some degree, standards of beauty and the sexual selection based on it, to the extent that it would have impacted phenotype expression, is going to be dependent on the phenotype of whichever group is currently at the top of the totem poll.The Germanic invasions that brought an end to the Roman Empire installed an elite from areas which had already been the subject of a selective sweep for fair hair and eyes. Naturally enough, as these things go, they celebrated this as the ideal, and to a large extent, that lasted for centuries, maybe for the last two milennia. For milennia before that, the ideal had been different.

As I said, there are some studies that hypothesize about sexual selection in terms of a male preference for youthful looks and the correlation of that with blondism, as well. Then there are the more well-known ones that discuss the unconscious attraction to regularity of feature as another indicator of over-all health and fertility.

Which leads me to the study I mentioned. It was meant to be a joke...apparently a poor one. If any offense was taken, I apologize. (I could hardly have negative feelings about light eyed people, you know. My father and all his siblings and most of my relatives on that side of the family are blue and green eyed...red haired and fair haired too. I don't ever remember wanting my brown eyes to turn blue, but I did want the beautiful, wavy, auburn hair of my aunts. Instead, I got their photo-sensitive skin, which frankly has not been an unalloyed blessing :)

Anyway, here is the study. Turns out the different colored eyes were correlating with different face shapes, and it was certain face shapes that inspired trust. Personally, I don't think enough research has been done on any of these kinds of topics. Just generally, too, I think you trust what you know, as is alluded to by Dienekes' mention of the evil eye. Maybe it's just as simple as that.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/01/blue-eyes-facial-shape-and-perceived.html

Ed. And yes, I'm sure the respondents were all college students...they're cheap!
(http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/01/blue-eyes-facial-shape-and-perceived.html)

Alan
29-01-14, 20:12
Yeah, it's quite rare nowadays, but it's been known about for a while. V20 is actually the only C branch that is unique to Europe, and it's not particularly closely related to anything else, with the closest related subclade being the apparently Jomon Japanese C-M8 subclade. Hence speculation that it's at least as old in Europe as Haplogroup I.

The C Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Chaplogroup/default.aspx?section=yresults) has a few samples. They call it "C1a2" there. Geographic locations are Ireland, UK, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Greece, Ukraine, Italy, and, intriguingly, Spain.

So the ancient Caucasian features of the Jomon are "real" and not just coincidence.

Greying Wanderer
29-01-14, 22:18
So the ancient Caucasian features of the Jomon are "real" and not just coincidence.

Freckled too before they got the East Asian version of skin lightening.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ2011111615231

epoch
31-01-14, 23:03
Which leads me to the study I mentioned. It was meant to be a joke...apparently a poor one. If any offense was taken, I apologize.

Trust me, as a father of some very assertive children I have developed some stamina. But even without that I would not have been offended.



Anyway, here is the study. Turns out the different colored eyes were correlating with different face shapes, and it was certain face shapes that inspired trust. Personally, I don't think enough research has been done on any of these kinds of topics. Just generally, too, I think you trust what you know, as is alluded to by Dienekes' mention of the evil eye. Maybe it's just as simple as that.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/01/blue-eyes-facial-shape-and-perceived.html

Ed. And yes, I'm sure the respondents were all college students...they're cheap!
(http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/01/blue-eyes-facial-shape-and-perceived.html)

The error bars are interesting. Everything fits the 0 X-axis. Perhaps they found that there is no significant difference. However, such a result would not produce a noteworthy paper, wouldn't it..

epoch
31-01-14, 23:09
Well, there is huge popularity of tanning solutions and techniques in Central and North Europe and North America. There is popularity of whitening creams and techniques farther South. So what does it mean? According to sexual selection, people in south should become white soon and others become swarthy up north? Or if very white is not possible for South, why they didn't turn blond and blue eyes at least already?

As long as people marry at 1:1 ratio and whitest people don't have more children than none whitest, the sexual selection is not strong enough to happen. Again, even if white skin is guarded by strong geographical selection, the blond and blue eyes shouldn't. I'm not sure why we even talk about this, when it is documented and logical to equate colour of skin with geographical latitudes and vitamin D synthesis, and leave sexual selection at rest. To make a dent with sexual selection you need good statistics showing that whitest people are having more children than others.

It just struck me recently that whites and Asian light skinned both used to have a culture which preferred light skin. I heard the Asian longing for lighter skin once explained as a reaction to European domination of the world. But Chinese never liked the Europeans in their colonial heydays, as they considered them barbarians, and I read that this longing for lighter skin is far older than the first European-Chinese encounters.

But your remarks about selection are off course true.