PDA

View Full Version : Understanding Which Ancient DNA Lineages Survived to Modern Times



moore2moore
29-12-15, 07:26
The following was posted on another thread, where it was slightly off topic, so I am relocating it here:

The following exercise will help people conceptualize which ancient DNA patrilines and matrilines survived into the modern era:

We all know that Italy is in the center of the Mediterranean, and that it was the "superhighway" during Greco-Roman times. It has been invaded by countless peoples: Neandertals, Cro-Magnons, Hunter Gatherers, Farmers, Herders, Samnites, Romans, Greeks, Goths, Franks, Lombards, Byzantines, Saracens -- to name some. We are all pretty familiar with the list.

Italy has the largest Y-haplogroup diversity in all of Europe. It is a land that has been coveted for millennia. I have seen this concept posted on other threads here, and I don't think anyone doubts it.

On the opposite extreme, Ireland has very low Y-haplogroup diversity. It is almost 80% one haplogroup.

Ireland is a land that has been ignored for millennia. The Romans said "no thanks." The Anglo-Saxons said, "no thanks."

There has not been much incursion into Ireland. (Note that I didn't say none). The fact that Ireland is an island, and westernmost, and cold, all help its isolation. I think most of us well know Ireland's geography and history.

If you populate one land, and every 200 years, 10% of the the population is new, you will end up with 10 different haplogroups after 2000 years. The ones that have been there longer will decrease in numbers. I think we all can grasp this mathematical concept.

If you populate another land initially, but there are no major introgressions to speak of after the first major settlement, then you will end up with FEWER haplogroups after 2000 years.

You see, over time, some males have only daughters. Some die before childbearing age because a bear eats them. Etc.

Those lineages die with them.

Put another way: If 10 people decide to populate a small island somewhere, and there are no further invasions, the number of lineages on that island can only go in one direction. It can't go up, barring a freak series of mutations. It can only go down.

The variability will decrease over time. This can (and judging by many posts here - DOES) give the ILLUSION that the original population was smaller than it was.

I repeat: a place that did not have widespread invasions will see the number of its patrilines and matrilines go in one direction only: down. This is true for all isolated places around the globe. If we let a place stay like that until infinity, eventually all people would have the same patriline and matriline, because a certain percentage die out every generation.

Note this is different from saying they will all be related. They can keep genetic variability to some extent, but patrilines are a binary equation: each generation, they die or have male offspring.

A locale having a large percentage of one patrilines can deceive people to thinking that that only one group of guys was having kids, because they were "royalty" or had "harems."

There is no place on the globe, not even in the case of Genghis Khan, where one royal line, family, or clan has direct offspring in the present that total more than 10% in certain regions.

This is scientific and mathematical fact. I don't know how more plainly to state it. Please let me know if anything is unclear.

Tomenable
29-12-15, 07:45
There is no place on the globe, not even in the case of Genghis Khan, where one royal line, family, or clan has direct offspring in the present that total more than 10% in certain regions.

Of course nobody claims that Genghis Khan himself fathered 10% of all Mongols, or anything like that. But you need to take into account the enormous time scale - dozens of generations. If people descended from Genghis remained in power, then his children, grandchildren, great-great... and so on grandchildren were also having - on average - much more children than some "average Joe". As the result after several or few dozen generations, frequencies of their haplogroup could be much higher. There are mathematical models proving this, for example Heinrich Härke together with Mark Thomas and Michael Stumpf created a realistic mathematical model showing that an Y-DNA haplogroup could increase in frequency from 10% to 50% of the total during just 8 up to 12 generations (1 generation = ~25 years).

All that is needed is female mate choice (or any other factor) giving dominant male group a selective advantage of 1.2 to 1 per generation. If for example group "B" conquers group "A" and initially B has 10% of Y-DNA and A has 90%, then if during the next 8-12 generations for every 1 A woman taking an A male as husband, 1.2 A women take a B male as a husband, then frequency of B haplogroup should increase to 50% of all Y-DNA after such time. If selective advantage is smaller than 1.2, then of course it will take more generations.

bicicleur
29-12-15, 09:45
Under Gengis Khan, all his entourage had first access to women.
It was even so, that after they had conquered another town, their general had the right to chose his women first before the troops were allowed to rape all the other women.
So it is not only ofspring of Gengis Khan himself, but also ofspring of his kin.

And then, they whiped out a lot of Y-DNA too.

There is a nice study about haplgroup G1 which demonstrates how the ofspring of 1 or 2 man can grow into half a million man in a few centuries.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0122968

Ukko
29-12-15, 13:46
The following was posted on another thread, where it was slightly off topic, so I am relocating it here:

The following exercise will help people conceptualize which ancient DNA patrilines and matrilines survived into the modern era:

We all know that Italy is in the center of the Mediterranean, and that it was the "superhighway" during Greco-Roman times. It has been invaded by countless peoples: Neandertals, Cro-Magnons, Hunter Gatherers, Farmers, Herders, Samnites, Romans, Greeks, Goths, Franks, Lombards, Byzantines, Saracens -- to name some. We are all pretty familiar with the list.

Italy has the largest Y-haplogroup diversity in all of Europe. It is a land that has been coveted for millennia. I have seen this concept posted on other threads here, and I don't think anyone doubts it.

On the opposite extreme, Ireland has very low Y-haplogroup diversity. It is almost 80% one haplogroup.

Ireland is a land that has been ignored for millennia. The Romans said "no thanks." The Anglo-Saxons said, "no thanks."

There has not been much incursion into Ireland. (Note that I didn't say none). The fact that Ireland is an island, and westernmost, and cold, all help its isolation. I think most of us well know Ireland's geography and history.

If you populate one land, and every 200 years, 10% of the the population is new, you will end up with 10 different haplogroups after 2000 years. The ones that have been there longer will decrease in numbers. I think we all can grasp this mathematical concept.

If you populate another land initially, but there are no major introgressions to speak of after the first major settlement, then you will end up with FEWER haplogroups after 2000 years.

You see, over time, some males have only daughters. Some die before childbearing age because a bear eats them. Etc.

Those lineages die with them.

Put another way: If 10 people decide to populate a small island somewhere, and there are no further invasions, the number of lineages on that island can only go in one direction. It can't go up, barring a freak series of mutations. It can only go down.

The variability will decrease over time. This can (and judging by many posts here - DOES) give the ILLUSION that the original population was smaller than it was.

I repeat: a place that did not have widespread invasions will see the number of its patrilines and matrilines go in one direction only: down. This is true for all isolated places around the globe. If we let a place stay like that until infinity, eventually all people would have the same patriline and matriline, because a certain percentage die out every generation.

Note this is different from saying they will all be related. They can keep genetic variability to some extent, but patrilines are a binary equation: each generation, they die or have male offspring.

A locale having a large percentage of one patrilines can deceive people to thinking that that only one group of guys was having kids, because they were "royalty" or had "harems."

There is no place on the globe, not even in the case of Genghis Khan, where one royal line, family, or clan has direct offspring in the present that total more than 10% in certain regions.

This is scientific and mathematical fact. I don't know how more plainly to state it. Please let me know if anything is unclear.



Finland is different from Ireland as it is situated geopolitically in a location that has been fought over constantly over the past 2000 years but still a periphery in relation to Central Europe.

Almost 90% of the patrilineages can be found in these two trees, want to give an opinion?

http://www.yfull.com/tree/N/

http://www.yfull.com/tree/I1/

bicicleur
29-12-15, 15:10
Finland is different from Ireland as it is situated geopolitically in a location that has been fought over constantly over the past 2000 years but still a periphery in relation to Central Europe.

Almost 90% of the patrilineages can be found in these two trees, want to give an opinion?

http://www.yfull.com/tree/N/

http://www.yfull.com/tree/I1/

I believe I1 was first, as farmers.
But climate change made them move south some 2.5 ka.
N1c arrived to fill the gap.

I don't think there is a universal stroy about spreading/surviving DNA.
Every story is different.

Ukko
29-12-15, 15:25
I believe I1 was first, as farmers.
But climate change made them move south some 2.5 ka.
N1c arrived to fill the gap.

I don't think there is a universal stroy about spreading/surviving DNA.
Every story is different.

I1 is Germanic it is clear but claiming N1c Finnic where hunter gatherers on arrival is not correct as horses, cattle, agriculture and metal forging as part of their cultural package is a scientific fact.

MOESAN
29-12-15, 17:34
modelization is complicated even if the reasoning of moore2moore is correct in an ideal context: what occurs when a mix of population arrives with 3 different Y-haplo's as same level, say roughly one third everyone?
the rarefaction of some macro-ligneages is linked to their smaller percentage in the whole population (example: paternal family names in a country); and yet, here i take a level mix of 3 haplo's evenly distributed in the land; what if every Y-haplo is representative of a different group taking different places/territories in the country? as said by bicicleur, every case in History is partly different, spite big common lignes of evolution.
in a same macro-ligneage lower % subhaplo are swept out more easily than the higher % ones. OK
but we forget here the increase in population: it can agment the mutation rate, so decrease the weight of basic forms of ligneages and create new forms, so variance in the population, without external apport.
&: by the way we are all of us of the same lignage on earth.
I think maths rules are sometimes a bit contradicted by not-maths influences as elite priority in mating, chromosome Y qualities, natural selection, population size, wars, religion and permanent or changing social beheaviors...
the result depend UPON the OPPOSITION OR COOPERATION of all these factors.

MOESAN
29-12-15, 17:37
I forgot: sometimes ovules choose their spermatozoid! (it 'll please to Angela)

moore2moore
29-12-15, 18:45
Finland is another example of this. Thanks for mentioning it. It is isolated, and although wars have been fought, it's nowhere near the situation of a Sicily or Cyprus.

Dienekes has posted a lot on this too - understanding the difference between an expansion and a sink.

This clear explains the distribution of R1b in Ireland.

Aaron1981
30-12-15, 04:08
Finland is another example of this. Thanks for mentioning it. It is isolated, and although wars have been fought, it's nowhere near the situation of a Sicily or Cyprus.

Dienekes has posted a lot on this too - understanding the difference between an expansion and a sink.

This clear explains the distribution of R1b in Ireland.

Nah still doesn't explain it. Spain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, England also have well over 50% R1b (Except southern Italy having 33-35% R1b). Germany and Denmark have about 40-45%. (CW and Slavic regions of Germany have higher R1a offsetting the R1b)

The answer is some selective advantage the Bell Beaker cultures had. I'm not sure what it was at this time, but it has been plainly obvious for some time now.

Garrick
31-12-15, 18:31
Nah still doesn't explain it. Spain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, England also have well over 50% R1b (Except southern Italy having 33-35% R1b). Germany and Denmark have about 40-45%. (CW and Slavic regions of Germany have higher R1a offsetting the R1b)

The answer is some selective advantage the Bell Beaker cultures had. I'm not sure what it was at this time, but it has been plainly obvious for some time now.

For France there is detailed study by regions:

Ramos-Luis E., Blanco-Verea A., Brion M., Van Huffel V., Sanchez-Diz P., Carracedo A.
Y-chromosomal DNA analysis in French male lineages

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260010192_Y-chromosomal_DNA_analysis_in_French_male_lineages

http://i.imgur.com/L3N2Qng.jpg

Angela
31-12-15, 20:28
I forgot: sometimes ovules choose their spermatozoid! (it 'll please to Angela)

Exactly right, Moesan! If our immune system doesn't like them we kill those little swimmers right off...sort of an internal spermicide. :grin:

Can't count on that though given the vagaries of the immune system, so maybe you could surreptitiously put water hemlock in the stew of these migrants/invaders if they were the nasty sort.

Or, you could always just have it on with a nice looking serf/slave of your own ethnicity and put a little cuckoo in the nest of your "spouse-owner". That might be best since you get some pleasure out of it, propagate your own kind, and ensure your child has the best environment to thrive.

Of course these things are perilous, but doubtless some women had the requisite nerve. At least I hope so.

Fire Haired14
31-12-15, 22:05
All that is needed is female mate choice (or any other factor) giving dominant male group a selective advantage of 1.2 to 1 per generation. If for example group "B" conquers group "A" and initially B has 10% of Y-DNA and A has 90%, then if during the next 8-12 generations for every 1 A woman taking an A male as husband, 1.2 A women take a B male as a husband, then frequency of B haplogroup should increase to 50% of all Y-DNA after such time. If selective advantage is smaller than 1.2, then of course it will take more generations.

I agree with that. moore2moore's model can't explain the expansions of Y DNA in the Bronze age. Most men have sons and that would not have suddenly stopped when R1a/b arrived from the Steps. But if Steppe groups arrive and keep themselves in power, let in more women than men from outside tribes, the autosomal DNA can change greatly but the Y DNA remain primary R1a/b.

I don't know if there's a study on this. But my guess is men are more against women from their tribe/nation having relations with a man from another tribe/nation, than women have against men from their tribe/nation having relations with women from another tribe/nation. Men are more territorial and xenophobic. This can help explain why some R1b/a lineages became so popular in the Bronze age.

Look at African Americans. Look at this case Image (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/31/article-2196310-14C504D5000005DC-839_1024x615_large.jpg). There's no statistics to prove it, but I'm pretty sure it is much more common for Black men to have relations with non-Black women than it is for Black women to have relations with non-Black men. Also, that Black men are much less tolerant of Black women having relations with non-Black men than the other way around.

And look at Early American history. The average African American is 1/4 British. The vast majority of cases was a White overseer or sometype of White man who was around Slaves, who usually raped a female slave. Rape wasn't very uncommon. Other whites were aware this happened, but they didn't try or weren't able to stop it. While if a white woman had relations with a Black man, she'd be in huge trouble.

If R1a/b tribes were the dominate(size and other ways) in a region. Xenophobic R1a/b men who loved forigen women, can explain a high amount of WHG/EEF ancestry but low amount of WHG/EEF Y DNA.

moore2moore
01-01-16, 01:13
I agree with that. moore2moore's model can't explain the expansions of Y DNA in the Bronze age. Most men have sons and that would not have suddenly stopped when R1a/b arrived from the Steps. But if Steppe groups arrive and keep themselves in power, let in more women than men from outside tribes, the autosomal DNA can change greatly but the Y DNA remain primary R1a/b.

I don't know if there's a study on this. But my guess is men are more against women from their tribe/nation having relations with a man from another tribe/nation, than women have against men from their tribe/nation having relations with women from another tribe/nation. Men are more territorial and xenophobic. This can help explain why some R1b/a lineages became so popular in the Bronze age.

Look at African Americans. Look at this case Image (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/31/article-2196310-14C504D5000005DC-839_1024x615_large.jpg). There's no statistics to prove it, but I'm pretty sure it is much more common for Black men to have relations with non-Black women than it is for Black women to have relations with non-Black men. Also, that Black men are much less tolerant of Black women having relations with non-Black men than the other way around.

And look at Early American history. The average African American is 1/4 British. The vast majority of cases was a White overseer or sometype of White man who was around Slaves, who usually raped a female slave. Rape wasn't very uncommon. Other whites were aware this happened, but they didn't try or weren't able to stop it. While if a white woman had relations with a Black man, she'd be in huge trouble.

If R1a/b tribes were the dominate(size and other ways) in a region. Xenophobic R1a/b men who loved forigen women, can explain a high amount of WHG/EEF ancestry but low amount of WHG/EEF Y DNA.

Ah, the we found one example from the modern world, so it must be true in prehistory theme.

Again: if a place had

5000 hunter gatherers bearing Haplogroup A

then

10000 farmers bearing Haplogroup B

then


500000 herders bearing Haplogroup C

and every male has a 12% chance each generation to only have female children

and an 8% chance to die in war (or a fight over whose soccer team is better LOL)

then it will give the false impression of what you're talking about, after a certain number of generations go by. Don't fall for that. I've seen your posts; you're smarter than that.

Twilight
01-01-16, 01:55
Ah, the we found one example from the modern world, so it must be true in prehistory theme.Again: if a place had5000 hunter gatherers bearing Haplogroup Athen10000 farmers bearing Haplogroup Bthen 500000 herders bearing Haplogroup Cand every male has a 12% chance each generation to only have female childrenand an 8% chance to die in war (or a fight over whose soccer team is better LOL)then it will give the false impression of what you're talking about, after a certain number of generations go by. Don't fall for that. I've seen your posts; you're smarter than that.What theory are you seggesting? And do you have a source for your claim? I do apologize but I'm not sure weather I'm following you. Genetic genealogy, as well as archeology is a disaplinary research.

moore2moore
10-02-16, 08:27
A landmark new study with a wealth of aDNA has emphasized the concepts I articulated on this thread. (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31951-Demographics-Caution-and-the-Orthodoxy-The-Posth-Study-on-Euro-mtDNA)

holderlin
11-02-16, 00:34
Look at African Americans. Look at this case Image (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/31/article-2196310-14C504D5000005DC-839_1024x615_large.jpg).

You know, I had a joke, but after positive self-talk I was able to convince myself not to.

This joke had nothing to do with an inclination towards cowardly sukcer punching.

Tomenable
11-02-16, 17:55
Around year 200 BCE, subclade I2a1b2a1-CTS10228 had its TMRCA (which means that at that time only one male with this clade reproduced having sons, passing this clade to next generations - and that man was the common patrilineal ancestor of all modern carriers of this subclade). Yet nowadays, there are over a dozen million males with this subclade in Europe, mostly in Slavic countries (as well as in countries neighbouring with Slavic ones):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31961-I2a1b2a1-(I-CTS10228)-a-strong-marker-of-Slavic-expansion?p=475461#post475461

The idea that all lineages grow proportionately to each other is wrong. Some haplogroups have been reproducing much faster than other ones.

moore2moore
12-02-16, 04:32
Around year 200 BCE, subclade I2a1b2a1-CTS10228 had its TMRCA (which means that at that time only one male with this clade reproduced having sons, passing this clade to next generations - and that man was the common patrilineal ancestor of all modern carriers of this subclade). Yet nowadays, there are over a dozen million males with this subclade in Europe, mostly in Slavic countries (as well as in countries neighbouring with Slavic ones):

The idea that all lineages grow proportionately to each other is wrong. Some haplogroups have been reproducing much faster than other ones.

I can't tell if you are joking or being serious.

You do understand this thread is about how you get a false appearance with the benefit of hindsight?