Discontinuities in Y-DNA in Europe's prehistory

[Tomenable]

One discontinuity occured between Mesolithic and Early-Middle Neolithic, with frequency of typically Mesolithic Y-hgs dropping in Europe (not counting Russia and Georgia) from 100% to 30%. Frequency of G2 increased from 0% to 45% at the same time. A fraction of Mesolithic European Y-hgs and some WHG autosomal were present among Neolithic farmers already before they departed from Western Anatolia, later that frequency increased as they assimilated and absorbed WHG hunters in Europe (this is also consistent with gradual increase of WHG autosomal):

http://s18.postimg.org/avz9ucx55/Mesolithic_Neolithic.png

http://s18.postimg.org/avz9ucx55/Mesolithic_Neolithic.png

[Sile]

One discontinuity occured between Mesolithic and Early-Middle Neolithic, with frequency of typically Mesolithic Y-hgs dropping in Europe (not counting Russia and Georgia) from 100% to 30%. Frequency of G2 increased from 0% to 45% at the same time. A fraction of Mesolithic European Y-hgs and some WHG autosomal were present among Neolithic farmers already before they departed from Western Anatolia, later that frequency increased as they assimilated and absorbed WHG hunters in Europe (this is also consistent with gradual increase of WHG autosomal):

http://s18.postimg.org/avz9ucx55/Mesolithic_Neolithic.png

http://s18.postimg.org/avz9ucx55/Mesolithic_Neolithic.png

Thanks

What are the approximate date range for each of the 3 groups?

[Tomenable]

Thanks

What are the approximate date range for each of the 3 groups?

Date ranges partially overlap because it took time for farmers to spread.

It is 13,770-5,250 years ago for hunter-gatherers (except for 5 among Swedish samples, which are dated to 4,815-4,000 years ago).

For Anatolia it's 8,500-5,600 ybp (except for 1 G2a from Kleitos in Greece which I added to Anatolians and which is 6,250-6,000 ybp).

And for European Neolithic it's 7,800-4,600 ybp, except for ca. 1 sample which is younger (and most are older than 5,000 years ago).

[Tomenable]

Another table below:

This time a purely chronological one (Pitted Ware hunters are included in 2750-750 BC) range:

I also added a few missing samples that should have been in previous table as well.

Note that some millennia are much better represented than others (more samples):

http://s14.postimg.org/mu6jakwv5/Chronological_YDNA.png

http://s14.postimg.org/mu6jakwv5/Chronological_YDNA.png

[Sile]

Another table below:

This time a purely chronological one (Pitted Ware hunters are included in 2750-750 BC) range:

I also added a few missing samples that should have been in previous table as well.

Note that some millennia are much better represented than others (more samples):

http://s14.postimg.org/mu6jakwv5/Chronological_YDNA.png

http://s14.postimg.org/mu6jakwv5/Chronological_YDNA.png

thanks

which study has the F ( Ydna ) because IIRC krefter stated that only 1 was F

[Tomenable]

^^ Actually, Krefter now has these samples listed as F in his spreadsheet, and so does Jean Manco on her website too.

Maybe that was a long time ago when he had just one? Or they appear as F because they weren't tested for some hgs?

[bicicleur]

some further subclade testing is required

in 2013 H2-P96 was still classified as F3 instead by isogg

http://isogg.org/tree/2013/ISOGG_HapgrpF13.html

[Tomenable]

And such a graph based on data from the second table:

http://s22.postimg.org/gbhqh1jn5/Wykres.png

[LeBrok]

And such a graph based on data from the second table:

http://s22.postimg.org/gbhqh1jn5/Wykres.png
That's a great graph. Interesting is resurgence of G in copper age.

[bicicleur]

I would split the C1a2 : La Brana was mesolithic and European - so red colour
but IMO the neolithic C1a2 was IMO SW Asian in origing - so blue colour

the last (left) part of the graph suggests I expanded faster than R1 1000 year after the arrival of IE

[Tomenable]

That's a great graph. Interesting is resurgence of G in copper age.

Thanks! But let's just note that IMO some of these dramatic changes should be viewed with caution, especially when sample sizes are small. Some changes might be partially due to different locations of samples - for example the apparent disappearance of G after 2750 BC is partially caused by fact that nearly all samples from this period are from Central and Northern Europe - while I'm quite sure that G2a survived to a larger extent / for a longer time in Southern Europe, because this is also where it is most frequent today:

Majority of samples for 2750-1750 BC period are from Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, Scandinavia, Lithuania:

Maybe if we get more samples from areas located more to the south from that period, there will be more G2a left:

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_G2a.gif


I would split the C1a2 : La Brana was mesolithic and European - so red colour
but IMO the neolithic C1a2 was IMO SW Asian in origing - so blue colour

It is possible, but we can't be sure about this (or do you know some facts which are solid proofs for this idea?).

BTW - it is also possible that some of I2 in the Copper-Bronze Age was not local, but also came from elsewhere (see below).


the last (left) part of the graph suggests I expanded faster than R1 1000 year after the arrival of IE

Yes but 11 samples are from just one Cave - from Lichtenstein Cave near Dorste. 11 men with I2a2b were buried there.

And some of those men were related to each other. Also - due to a small sample size (22 in total for that period), such things might be skewing the results. But note how hg I survived PIE expansion much better than G2a, or at least it seems so.

Maybe some of that I also came from the east? We don't know how far to the east did I originally live in Mesolithic times.

[moore2moore]

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU Tomenable.

Thanks for this hard work. And I agree wholeheartedly with what you said, about taking the gaps with caution.

I respectfully disagree with (and am wary of) those who try to assign significance to gaps we have in our knowledge.

When you see graphically like this how many areas still have no ancient remains, and how, when arranged chronologically, the data can be misleading, you should become very wary too, of the people who pretend to have all the answers with aDNA, or those who say that the aDNA conclusively proves their version of events.

[LeBrok]

That's a great graph. Interesting is resurgence of G in copper age. Sure, lack of data is skewing the chart somewhat. I'm looking forward to refining it with time.

[MOESAN]

[QUOTE=LeBrok;472551]That's a great graph. Interesting is resurgence of G in copper age.[/QUOTE

Good work of Tomenable and good remark of yourself.
Could this resurgence of Y-G2a (subclades welcome) at Copper confirm a new imput from Anatolia to Balkans, Greece and Italy of the time? (new EEF plus some western 'westasians' of some kind and even some 'southwest-asian')- concerns too other threads, in them the Italy one. In fact every thread about ancient DNA concerns thread about autosomals and History! the later Bronze Age in Hungary shows high level of individual variations withslight 'steppic' imput but yet dominance of southerners but with someones showing more WHG if I'm not wrong.

[MOESAN]

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU Tomenable.

Thanks for this hard work. And I agree wholeheartedly with what you said, about taking the gaps with caution.

I respectfully disagree with (and am wary of) those who try to assign significance to gaps we have in our knowledge.

When you see graphically like this how many areas still have no ancient remains, and how, when arranged chronologically, the data can be misleading, you should become very wary too, of the people who pretend to have all the answers with aDNA, or those who say that the aDNA conclusively proves their version of events.
Good remark too - It's late and my sleeping brain was pushed by my enthusiasm to make to hasty conclusions - but the Copper and early Bronze question in Southern Europe stays a good question.

[singingfalls]

This is so I can follow this thread. Very interesting. I would like to use your tables on my website Tomenable (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/49064-Tomenable). Is that acceptable to you?

[Tomenable]

I would like to use your tables on my website Tomenable. Is that acceptable to you?

OK, feel free to use them.

[singingfalls]

OK, feel free to use them.

I appreciate that very much. Thanks.

[Tomenable]

A minor update:

Rathlin genomes added to the table - 3 x R1b1a2, including 2 from 2750-1750 BC and 1 from 1750-750 BC:

Y-DNA Discontinuities (updated chart - Rathlin R1b added) (http://s10.postimg.org/r7dxtusux/Y_DNA_Discontinuities_2.png)

http://s10.postimg.org/r7dxtusux/Y_DNA_Discontinuities_2.png

[Alpenjager]

Derenburg LBK samples belongs to F*(xG, H1, I, J, K)


This mean K-M9 is discarded, T is downstream K-M9. So, T is discarded.

The most probably haplogroup is H2 but not T. There are no 4 possible T, you should change to H2.

[Tomenable]

Thanks, I will fix this later!

[Sile]

Derenburg LBK samples belongs to F*(xG, H1, I, J, K)


This mean K-M9 is discarded, T is downstream K-M9. So, T is discarded.

The most probably haplogroup is H2 but not T. There are no 4 possible T, you should change to H2.

Only 2 could be H2 .............they are deb20 and deb38

there is no call on deb04 and deb10

[Tomenable]

Maybe they were just basal F*, like Paleolithic Peștera cu Oase from Romania, who was F* xIJK - see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_F-M89

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EnSE_FF5CNwJ:www.ancestraljourneys. org/palaeolithicdna.shtml+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pl&client=opera


The vast majority of individual males with F-M89 fall into its direct descendant Haplogroup GHIJK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_GHIJK) (F1329/M3658/PF2622/YSC0001299).[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_F-M89#cite_note-isogg2015-8) Apart from GHIJK, Haplogroup F has four other immediate descendant subclades, all of which are rare in modern populations: the basal paragroup F-M89* (M89/PF2746), F1 (P91/P104); F2 (M427/M428) andF3 (M481).

So, it seems that:


Derenburg LBK samples belongs to F*(xG, H1, I, J, K)

Maybe they were descendants of that Paleolithic Romanian - Peștera cu Oase? Perhaps I should count them as red colour (pre-Neolithic European Y-DNA) ??? Or did most of it enter Europe from Anatolia as Neolithic immigration? What do you think about this - were men with F haplogroup Paleolithic (Aurignacian?) "survivors" in Europe, or new Neolithic immigration from outside of Europe?