Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,328
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
See: Maciej Chyleński et al
http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-017-0924-0
Background:
"We suspected that genetic influx from HG to farming communities might have happened in Late Danubian cultures since archaeologists see extensive contacts between those two communities."
Results:
"Here we address this issue by presenting 5 complete mitochondrial genomes of various late Danubian individuals from modern-day Poland and combining it with available published data. Our data show that Late Danubian cultures are maternally closely related to Funnel Beaker groups instead of culturally similar LBK."
"We assume that it is an effect of the presence of individuals belonging to U5 haplogroup both in Late Danubians and the TRB. The U5 haplogroup is thought to be a typical for HGs of Europe and therefore we argue that it is an additional evidence of genetic exchange between farming and HG groups taking place at least as far back as in middle Neolithic, in the Late Danubian communities."
I don't understand this part of the analysis. Why are they putting some of those lineages under "Other"?
http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-017-0924-0
Background:
"We suspected that genetic influx from HG to farming communities might have happened in Late Danubian cultures since archaeologists see extensive contacts between those two communities."
Results:
"Here we address this issue by presenting 5 complete mitochondrial genomes of various late Danubian individuals from modern-day Poland and combining it with available published data. Our data show that Late Danubian cultures are maternally closely related to Funnel Beaker groups instead of culturally similar LBK."
"We assume that it is an effect of the presence of individuals belonging to U5 haplogroup both in Late Danubians and the TRB. The U5 haplogroup is thought to be a typical for HGs of Europe and therefore we argue that it is an additional evidence of genetic exchange between farming and HG groups taking place at least as far back as in middle Neolithic, in the Late Danubian communities."
| Sample | Archaeol. culture | Region | Site | Age* | Morphological sex | mt genome coverage | % of mt genomea | Haplotype |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan1 | HG | Kuyavia | Janisławice | 5509 ± 135 cal. BC | M | 23x | 84,4116 | U5b1b1 |
| Sam1 | LBK | Little Poland | Samborzec | 5300–5000 BC | F | 34x | 99,7888 | N1a1a1a |
| KM1 | LDN | Little Poland | Kazimierza Mała | 4800–4500 BC | F | 27x | 99,9759 | U5b1b |
| KZ6 | LDN | Kuyavia | Krusza Zamkowa | 4500–4000 BC | F | 43x | 99,9215 | N1a1a1a3 |
| R18_1 | LDN | Greater Poland | Racot | 4200 ± 55 cal. BC | F | 9x | 98,6119 | K2a |
I don't understand this part of the analysis. Why are they putting some of those lineages under "Other"?