PDA

View Full Version : About the Genographic Project results from Asturias (spain)



Akklaf
13-10-14, 10:33
Hi! What do you think about these results? (I still can´t post links, so please look for it in google)

I think there is some mistakes in the migration maps and/or the information is not accurate enought. Not all E1b and J1 in spain come from Moors!

Maleth
13-10-14, 16:54
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/10/10/results-from-asturias-spain-add-to-the-genographic-project-human-family-tree/

Is this link you are referring to Akklaf? If it is there is no breakdown of other haplogroups except R1b at 75%. All in all I don't believe National Geographic are totally correct in the way the present things. When they tested people in Malta they presented Malta a 50% Phoenician when apparently in other studies it is found that J2 (what they termed Phoenician) is at 21%. This is besides the fact that J2 does not only represent Phoenician genes. They even ignored the fact Malta was uninhabited in the 1000's and only repopulated from Sicily in the 1040's.

Asturias was not even conquered by the moors so any E-81 (Berber gene) found could be well thousands of years old and much prior to the Moorish occupation of further south, although its route is more likely directly from North Africa, but thousands of years ago. Article says that Middle east is 23%. What haplogroup are they referring too? If not mistaken Asturias only have around 5% J1 - unless they term J2 as middle eastern too.

A sample of 100 people is not enough anyway to determine a correct picture of a whole region and the article goes in no detail. Just put a pinch of salt on it.

motzart
14-10-14, 06:06
I read the article, it says that European Hunter gatherers belonged to Y DNA G and Y DNA I were farmers. What a pile of trash, this guy clearly didn't do any research.

Akklaf
14-10-14, 15:09
Yes Maleth. This one. It is a shame using a misinformation to introduce the genetic anthropology genetic to the people. I think the report is just a pile of sensationalism and easy conclusions.

Maleth
15-10-14, 11:00
Yes Maleth. This one. It is a shame using a misinformation to introduce the genetic anthropology genetic to the people. I think the report is just a pile of sensationalism and easy conclusions.

sensationalism through DNA is well known. Most people unfortunately are not interested enough to know difference and time frames in regards to DNA and many still associate DNA solely as a forensic tool. Amateurish articles on magazines and papers use hit words that everyone can understand but unfortunately people immediately make their own assumptions intended to stir up the sensationalism aspect.

This reminds me of Adolph Hitler DNA. What more sensational news you can give to associate a racist as being subsaharan and even a Jew!!. Just gives the wow and awe factor, who cares about the correct info. His test was only half baked and a deeper test would probably put him with the ancient E's found both in Austria and South Germany and have absolutely nothing to do with Sub sahara or the Jews.

But who cares if such BS can sell. Going back to your original article, in 2014 you would expect something more professional from National Geographic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305414/Hitler-descended-Jews-Africans-DNA-tests-reveal.html

Maleth
15-10-14, 11:10
I read the article, it says that European Hunter gatherers belonged to Y DNA G and Y DNA I were farmers. What a pile of trash, this guy clearly didn't do any research.

Correct Motzart, and also can someone please explain what is the British DNA? have they found the Italian or the French one yet? And surprise surprise Austurias has no Spanish DNA? but hunter gatherers (were are the farmers!) middle eastern and north African and British. Nice pie chart

Drac II
15-10-14, 11:50
Hi! What do you think about these results? (I still can´t post links, so please look for it in google)

I think there is some mistakes in the migration maps and/or the information is not accurate enought. Not all E1b and J1 in spain come from Moors!

Also on the maternal chart, U6, which is prehistoric and might not even be "African" to begin with but from the Middle East, is also not necessarily associated with "Moors" either. This is obviously the result of the silly assumption that many people -including some geneticists- with a faint knowledge of history make that any genetic marker associated with "Africa" found in Iberia must somehow be connected with "Moors" from the Middle Ages.

Sile
15-10-14, 19:04
Also on the maternal chart, U6, which is prehistoric and might not even be "African" to begin with but from the Middle East, is also not necessarily associated with "Moors" either. This is obviously the result of the silly assumption that many people -including some geneticists- with a faint knowledge of history make that any genetic marker associated with "Africa" found in Iberia must somehow be connected with "Moors" from the Middle Ages.

, it would have had older carthagians as per the city of new carthage...........the carthagians would have also sent over numidians where where long time allies of them in Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage#mediaviewer/File:CarthageMap.png

Drac II
16-10-14, 17:52
, it would have had older carthagians as per the city of new carthage...........the carthagians would have also sent over numidians where where long time allies of them in Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage#mediaviewer/File:CarthageMap.png

Hardly much to do with U6, which is in fact more common in Western Iberia and the Canary Islands, not in places that had to do with Carthage. It would be like trying to attribute U6 in Italy to this:

http://www.electrummagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Hannibal-journey-map.png

Mars
03-11-14, 19:00
The 1% of native american maternal haplogroups is interesting nevertheless.
6822

Angela
03-11-14, 19:49
The 1% of native american maternal haplogroups is interesting nevertheless.
6822

Well, it only makes sense. How could anyone imagine that no women carrying Amerindian mtDna haplogroups ever made the return trip back to Iberia?

Aberdeen
03-11-14, 21:56
Well, it only makes sense. How could anyone imagine that no women carrying Amerindian mtDna haplogroups ever made the return trip back to Iberia?

And little known historical facts can be quite relevant. The Basques had a cod fishery for several centuries in what is now the Canadian province of Newfoundland. There is some evidence that it was established before or shortly after John Cabot "discovered" Newfoundland for the English crown. So the Basques had several centuries to mingle with the Native people of Newfoundland before the Newfoundland Natives became extinct. That could account for any apparent Amerindian admixture among the Basques, although I think it could also be a false positive caused by a small amount of ANE reaching the Iberian peninsula without any Caucasian admixture. And other Spaniards eventually became involved in the Newfoundland fishery so could also have gotten some Amerindian ancestry from there.

Angela
04-11-14, 00:09
And little known historical facts can be quite relevant. The Basques had a cod fishery for several centuries in what is now the Canadian province of Newfoundland. There is some evidence that it was established before or shortly after John Cabot "discovered" Newfoundland for the English crown. So the Basques had several centuries to mingle with the Native people of Newfoundland before the Newfoundland Natives became extinct. That could account for any apparent Amerindian admixture among the Basques, although I think it could also be a false positive caused by a small amount of ANE reaching the Iberian peninsula without any Caucasian admixture. And other Spaniards eventually became involved in the Newfoundland fishery so could also have gotten some Amerindian ancestry from there.

I never bothered to take the Genographic test, but on 23andme my only non European dna is .1 for East Asian, and .1 for Amerindian. I don't think many Italians went from the Apennines to the New World and back, although it's possible some sailor made the trip. :) I think it's more likely to be some holdover either from ANE bearing people during the Metal Ages, or some settled Alans during the Roman or Byzantine period.

Ed. Hold on...now that the Etruscan theories are all up in the air again, maybe it came from them as part of the Metal Ages Migrations. I've always thought some of the Etruscans had a rather "Asian" look. The boundary was the Magra River, so some of them could have have left some of their genetic material in our areas.

Sile
04-11-14, 00:19
And little known historical facts can be quite relevant. The Basques had a cod fishery for several centuries in what is now the Canadian province of Newfoundland. There is some evidence that it was established before or shortly after John Cabot "discovered" Newfoundland for the English crown. So the Basques had several centuries to mingle with the Native people of Newfoundland before the Newfoundland Natives became extinct. That could account for any apparent Amerindian admixture among the Basques, although I think it could also be a false positive caused by a small amount of ANE reaching the Iberian peninsula without any Caucasian admixture. And other Spaniards eventually became involved in the Newfoundland fishery so could also have gotten some Amerindian ancestry from there.

The Venetian Zuanne Cabot ( John Cabot) read upon the manuscripts of the 3 Zeno brothers who traded from Venice to southampton and London in the 12th and 13th centuries. They got Cod from merchants from Norway and sent it back to Venice.......Venetians use Cod to this day as Bacala ( Tuscans refuse to use this venetian term and call it Stoccofisso after the dutch Stockfish ).

I never heard of basques to newfoundleand.............do you have a source?

Aberdeen
04-11-14, 01:24
The Venetian Zuanne Cabot ( John Cabot) read upon the manuscripts of the 3 Zeno brothers who traded from Venice to southampton and London in the 12th and 13th centuries. They got Cod from merchants from Norway and sent it back to Venice.......Venetians use Cod to this day as Bacala ( Tuscans refuse to use this venetian term and call it Stoccofisso after the dutch Stockfish ).

I never heard of basques to newfoundleand.............do you have a source?

Just do an internet search for "Basques" and "Newfoundland" and you'll find a lot of stuff about the French and Spanish Basques whale hunting and fishing for cod on the Grand Banks near Newfoundland definitely as early as 1520 and, according to one unproven theory, as early as 1372. The Basques had settlements on Newfoundland for centuries, mostly in the area around the town of Port Aux Basques- that's how it got its name. And Spanish fishermen to this day fish the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, just outside Canadian territorial waters, vacuuming up immature cod in violation of international law. That's why a lot of Canadians dislike Spaniards. Several years ago, our coast guard and national police seized a Spanish vessel and it caused quite the international incident.

Angela
04-11-14, 01:25
OMG...Just so people are not confused...stoccafisso is air dried cod, as hard as wood; it should be listed as a lethal weapon! :) Baccala' is salted cod. Both must be soaked in cold water to reconstitute them. The people of Liguria and Toscana eat both, calling each by its proper name...

Baccala' alla Livornese (Livorno is in Toscana for those who might be geographically challenged), is my preferred method of preparing it.

Ed. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FFZjdUwEJOs/TxtciOsXzuI/AAAAAAAAAwA/09o3b5RPpEg/s1600/DSC_1337.jpg

JS Bach
04-11-14, 02:07
Well, it only makes sense. How could anyone imagine that no women carrying Amerindian mtDna haplogroups ever made the return trip back to Iberia?
Or Maybe A2 came over with the Solutreans. On Family Tree DNA's haplogroup A project, there's an A2 fellow there who listed his most distant known maternal ancestor as being born in Seville, Spain in 1508. That's cutting it a little close to 1492. I wouldn't be too surprised if some A2 ancient dna turned up in Europe sometime.

ArmandoR1b
05-11-14, 00:17
Or Maybe A2 came over with the Solutreans. On Family Tree DNA's haplogroup A project, there's an A2 fellow there who listed his most distant known maternal ancestor as being born in Seville, Spain in 1508. That's cutting it a little close to 1492. I wouldn't be too surprised if some A2 ancient dna turned up in Europe sometime.

You must be talking about Francisca de Alcocer, born 1508. She was the wife of Diego Temiño de Velasco. The person with that FTDNA kit has ancestry from Mexico and I seriously doubt that person has well documented genealogy for the maternal line. It is extremely likely there are many holes in the documented genealogy.

You should do a search of Catálogo de pasajeros a Indias durante los siglos XVI, XVII y XVIII and read some of the entries. In it you will find people that are asking permission to return to the New World where they were originally from which proves people originally from the New World went to Europe in the 16th and 17th century. The person in the Asturias project probably doesn't have documented genealogy back that far.

JS Bach
05-11-14, 01:00
You must be talking about Francisca de Alcocer, born 1508. She was the wife of Diego Temiño de Velasco. The person with that FTDNA kit has ancestry from Mexico and I seriously doubt that person has well documented genealogy for the maternal line. It is extremely likely there are many holes in the documented genealogy.

You should do a search of Catálogo de pasajeros a Indias durante los siglos XVI, XVII y XVIII and read some of the entries. In it you will find people that are asking permission to return to the New World where they were originally from which proves people originally from the New World went to Europe in the 16th and 17th century. The person in the Asturias project probably doesn't have documented genealogy back that far.

Okay, thanks for the info. Hopefully dna will sort these things out eventually.

If ydna Q-L54 made its way across the Atlantic with the Solutreans, I think C rather than A was the more likely accompanying mtdna haplogroup anyway. And I think A more likely came by way of the Bering Strait.

These ancient dna findings are really heating up now. Some of the Ancient Karelian dna belonged to mtdna C, including some 7,500 ybp samples that were C1. I thought they might possibly be connected with the Q-L54 in and around Scandinavia there, but if it turns out they were associated with proto-Yamna R1a then that would speak for that being the case.

ArmandoR1b
05-11-14, 17:18
Okay, thanks for the info. Hopefully dna will sort these things out eventually.

If ydna Q-L54 made its way across the Atlantic with the Solutreans, I think C rather than A was the more likely accompanying mtdna haplogroup anyway. And I think A more likely came by way of the Bering Strait.

These ancient dna findings are really heating up now. Some of the Ancient Karelian dna belonged to mtdna C, including some 7,500 ybp samples that were C1. I thought they might possibly be connected with the Q-L54 in and around Scandinavia there, but if it turns out they were associated with proto-Yamna R1a then that would speak for that being the case.

I have absolutely zero belief in the hypothesis that Solutreans crossed the Atlantic and contributed to the Clovis culture or their DNA. The Solutrean hypothesis is pure fantasy.

JS Bach
06-11-14, 01:45
I have absolutely zero belief in the hypothesis that Solutreans crossed the Atlantic and contributed to the Clovis culture or their DNA. The Solutrean hypothesis is pure fantasy.

If you'd like to contribute some of your reasoned arguments to the points myself and others have made on the Solutrean Hypothesis thread here, by all means feel free to do so: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28321-Solutrean-hypothesis-Native-American-Clovis-Culture-amp-NW-Europe-%28ydna-Q-mtdna-X2%29/page5

As I mentioned in some posts there, there's an admixture graph in the recently published Lazaridis et al paper that depicts Motala12 (the 7,000 ybp Swedish Hunter Gatherer) as being a mixture of WHG (about 98%) and Amerindian (about 2%) for most values of K.

In Eurogenes13, Motala12 breaks down as: North Atlantic (37.33%); Baltic (61.92%); and Amerindian (.75%) http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/my-analysis-of-motala-12-ancient-dna.html

And in HarappaWorld Admixture, Motala12 breaks down as: NE-Euro (90.24%); Meditteranean (6.83%); American (1.58%); Beringian (.68%); Papuan (.57%); and Siberian (.07%).

ArmandoR1b
06-11-14, 04:15
That doesn't prove anything about the Solutrean hypothesis. It's still a fantasy.

MOESAN
07-11-14, 22:22
a repetition of mine - some ancient DNA common to a lot of human beings in very ancient time, and presenting today geographically very sharply separated distributions could have been kept at very low levels by someones,; selection and drift are not operating with computer technics - selection concerns very more certain genes and not other genes, maybe? - it's maybe not a hazard if ancient HGs kept some apparently "exotic" genes in their genome - all of these genes were not already eliminated???

JS Bach
08-11-14, 00:34
a repetition of mine - some ancient DNA common to a lot of human beings in very ancient time, and presenting today geographically very sharply separated distributions could have been kept at very low levels by someones,; selection and drift are not operating with computer technics - selection concerns very more certain genes and not other genes, maybe? - it's maybe not a hazard if ancient HGs kept some apparently "exotic" genes in their genome - all of these genes were not already eliminated???

I suspect future genomic analysis will shed more light on that question, especially as more ancient dna becomes available. And looking for examples of those kind of oddities in modern populations around the world would probably also lend weight either for or against that. OTOH humans, as shown by dna results, mix a lot with people of different haplogroups, so perhaps over time it's likely that those exotic components would get diluted. However, my wife has a component very similar to Motala12's Amerindian component, and has no Amerindian ancestry she knows of, and that's 7,000 years later than Motala12.

MOESAN
08-11-14, 19:15
not surprising if today Europeans have still some "amerindian" component elements in DNA: the eastern Eurasia in a bridge to Siberia and East Asia - we see Scandinavians and Alps-Lyonnais French people (Burgundians?) having not unsignificant %s of Y-Q (Asia) - did Scandinavians take that with later contacts with Eurasia steppic people? with I-Eans? before that?) exchanges existed at large scale between West and East for a long time even if a low demic levels -
AND even if possible WE NEED NO RECENT CONTACTS from far Asia: the ANE component contains surely a lot of "amerindian" (look ANE = 'lithuanien' + 'amerindian' + 'southasian' - the same reasoning concerning "subsaharian" even if less evident and surely even more ancient!
good drink for all of yours!

Aberdeen
08-11-14, 20:04
I suspect future genomic analysis will shed more light on that question, especially as more ancient dna becomes available. And looking for examples of those kind of oddities in modern populations around the world would probably also lend weight either for or against that. OTOH humans, as shown by dna results, mix a lot with people of different haplogroups, so perhaps over time it's likely that those exotic components would get diluted. However, my wife has a component very similar to Motala12's Amerindian component, and has no Amerindian ancestry she knows of, and that's 7,000 years later than Motala12.

If your wife has ancestors who were in North America during the early settlement period, there's a good chance that some male ancestor married a Native woman because of the shortage of European women and later generations concealed the fact in order to avoid discrimination. DNA analysis shows that practice to have been most common in Quebec and Manitoba. On the other hand, it's also possible that a scrap of ANE is showing up as Amerindian, as Moesan has suggested. At this point, I think it's difficult to rule out either possibility.

Melancon
08-11-14, 21:07
If your wife has ancestors who were in North America during the early settlement period, there's a good chance that some male ancestor married a Native woman because of the shortage of European women and later generations concealed the fact in order to avoid discrimination. DNA analysis shows that practice to have been most common in Quebec and Manitoba. On the other hand, it's also possible that a scrap of ANE is showing up as Amerindian, as Moesan has suggested. At this point, I think it's difficult to rule out either possibility.http://www.acadian-home.org/origins-mtdna.html The chances of that are very rare; actually. ^^^This website proves that not all of the women were American indian, and most of the wives were actually European. The wives of Acadian colonists with Amerindian count is actually very low. Check the mtDna of most of them. Most are European women.

Why would a white male colonist marry American indian women in the New World, due to a lack of women? I can see it happening. And it has. But their isn't "a good chance" that's just silly. There is "a rare chance".

Erm, I don't believe most of the male French Acadians were virginal bachelors under 30 either, genius.

My advice for most here: the information presented at 23andMe and FTDNA aren't particularly accurate and are very generic. Use Dodecad or Eurogenes to browse Raw DATA/Genome.

@Aberdeen: I would school you in this area; because I am an Acadian myself and have already known the history. My ancestors are from .. NOVA SCOTIA! Go figure...I don't have to be Canadian to know Canada's history.

JS Bach
08-11-14, 21:52
I shouldn't say my wife's Amerindian component is "very similar" to Motala12's, actually. Like Motala12, she has around 2% Amerindian on many calculators, but Motala12's Amerindian component goes away on other calculators more than my wife's does. For instance, unlike Motala12 she has a little over 1% Amerindian on Eurogenes36. Her dad's from Nova Scotia as well, and I could possibly see some Amerindian genes getting in there somewhere along the line.

Melancon
08-11-14, 21:55
I suspect future genomic analysis will shed more light on that question, especially as more ancient dna becomes available. And looking for examples of those kind of oddities in modern populations around the world would probably also lend weight either for or against that. OTOH humans, as shown by dna results, mix a lot with people of different haplogroups, so perhaps over time it's likely that those exotic components would get diluted. However, my wife has a component very similar to Motala12's Amerindian component, and has no Amerindian ancestry she knows of, and that's 7,000 years later than Motala12.Well then, she most likely doesn't have American indian ancestry pal; and the results came out erroneous; in all likelihood. This is not uncommon though. Congratulations man.


Aberdeen just because you and Angela scored on 23andme or FTDNA as having American indian ancestry or Black or whatever, doesn't mean the rest of us North American whites are. Not to call you idiotic, your analysis is just illogical.


Listen to Maciamo, he is all-knowing. He is a well-educated student and probably has a PhD.

Melancon
08-11-14, 22:51
If your wife has ancestors who were in North America during the early settlement period, there's a good chance that some male ancestor married a Native woman because of the shortage of European women and later generations concealed the fact in order to avoid discrimination. DNA analysis shows that practice to have been most common in Quebec and Manitoba. On the other hand, it's also possible that a scrap of ANE is showing up as Amerindian, as Moesan has suggested. At this point, I think it's difficult to rule out either possibility.Science isn't always right and has a tendency to contradict itself; with reoccuring studies. I don't readily believe everything I am told. Even sources I read. 100%

They are just scientific theory and perspectives, not facts.

And the UK will never leave the EU.

Greying Wanderer
09-11-14, 01:18
a repetition of mine - some ancient DNA common to a lot of human beings in very ancient time, and presenting today geographically very sharply separated distributions could have been kept at very low levels by someones,; selection and drift are not operating with computer technics - selection concerns very more certain genes and not other genes, maybe? - it's maybe not a hazard if ancient HGs kept some apparently "exotic" genes in their genome - all of these genes were not already eliminated???

As long as those genes aren't being specifically selected *against* for some reason this seems quite likely to me especially if the containing population had a population explosion at one or more points in their history.

JackBlack
22-09-15, 08:45
Or Maybe A2 came over with the Solutreans. On Family Tree DNA's haplogroup A project, there's an A2 fellow there who listed his most distant known maternal ancestor as being born in Seville, Spain in 1508. That's cutting it a little close to 1492. I wouldn't be too surprised if some A2 ancient dna turned up in Europe sometime.

On the 23andme forum, there's a person who's mother's grandmother on their mother's side immigrated from France in the 1800's yet had mt haplogroup A2. There is 2 other people in that thread with a similar maternal line, one leading back to France in the 1700's, the other being Basque, both with mt haplogroup A2.

These are just 3 antidotes. But I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg and that mt A2 ( at least some lines) did indeed descend from the Solutreans and not from Mongolia like most people would assume.

JackBlack
27-09-15, 21:17
On the 23andme forum, there's a person who's mother's grandmother on their mother's side immigrated from France in the 1800's yet had mt haplogroup A2. There is 2 other people in that thread with a similar maternal line, one leading back to France in the 1700's, the other being Basque, both with mt haplogroup A2.

These are just 3 antidotes. But I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg and that mt A2 ( at least some lines) did indeed descend from the Solutreans and not from Mongolia like most people would assume.

Here's an interesting link on this topic.

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.ca/2013_09_01_archive.html


If we compare the number of mutations that have occurred in X2a lineages with the number of new mutations that have occurred in other founding lineages of Native Americans we see similar numbers. The figure below compares the number of mutations in the X2a1a1 lineage with a typical lineage (A2i) in the major founding A2 haplogroup. Both share a similar number of mutations which are most likely to have arisen since their arrival in the New World.


You will also notice that the A and X lineage are very distantly related. They are different branches of the N super-haplogroup. The number of mutations that have occurred in the X2a subclade since it branched from other N lineages is 15. In other words, the amount of variation within New World X2a lineages is similar to the variation that distinguishes X2a from other lineages belonging to the N haplogroup, which includes the Native American A2 lineage.

This backs up what I was saying.