Cardial aDNA from Spain - 7400 ybp

Thanks SIle but this table is chinese language for me: all seems of a kind of mt-H? right?
where came they from?
thanks beforehand

They came from brotherton paper of Neolithic Mtdna of the H marker only, the paper is used by Laz and Haak, so from 2013 to 2015 laz and Haak papers found ydna for these H mtdna markers ..like

KC553986(KAR6a) Brotherton Haplogroup H1bz 23-APR-2013
G1N A2N T3N C4N A5N C6N A7N G8N G9N T10N
C11N T12N A263G A750G A1438G G1719A G3010A C3107N A4769G A8860G
C14380T A15326G T16519C G16558N A16559N C16560N A16561N T16562N C16563N
A16564N
C16565N G16566N A16567N T16568N G16569N

Is T1a ydna tested - Neolithic from 5200BC to 5500BC from central Germany

this one below
KC553983(HAL39) Brotherton Haplogroup H1e 23-APR-2013
G1N A2N T3N C4N A5N C6N A7N G8N G9N T10N
C11N T12N A263G A750G A1438G G3010A C3107N A4769G G5460A A8860G
A15326G T16519C G16558N A16559N C16560N A16561N T16562N C16563N A16564N
C16565N
G16566N A16567N T16568N G16569N

was G2a neolithic from central germany
 
@Angela
your post #19 is sensible for the most for me;
 
Don't take your pills yet, you'll be too groggy to read this!

In Haaks admixture run in K=20, once WHG becomes a separate instance a strange thing happens with Loschbour. It all of a sudden shows some EEF admixture. Very strange:

haak_k16-20.png

the modification doesn't concern Loschbour only but also others populations - these different poolings are not more or less "regionally" specialized ones, they seem implying different criteria of assignation of some groups of genes to a basis population; at some stages of study some ancient populations were choosen as global "homogenous" criteria (basis) to compare to them, it seems at some others stages, they were themselves anlysed based upon criteria where other populations were choosen as basis for others ; sorry for my bad english and perhaps for my mistaked understanding of these autosomes games (unfalsiified?), a step by step approach.
 
the modification doesn't concern Loschbour only but also others populations - these different poolings are not more or less "regionally" specialized ones, they seem implying different criteria of assignation of some groups of genes to a basis population; at some stages of study some ancient populations were choosen as global "homogenous" criteria (basis) to compare to them, it seems at some others stages, they were themselves anlysed based upon criteria where other populations were choosen as basis for others ; sorry for my bad english and perhaps for my mistaked understanding of these autosomes games (unfalsiified?), a step by step approach.

No, I quite get it. Maybe one of these days we'll be able to consider ANE, the mysterical ancient component, as merely a hybrid of other components. The issue is maybe that ADMIXTURE was developed, if I understand correctly, to compare current day samples. To add older samples, in other words the forefathers of a number components it distinguishes, is to beg for strange outcome.
 
@MOESAN

Thanks. This is the F3 stats I talked about. Could it mean that Baltics are more related to KO1 than WHG? Also Loschbour is oddly high in that list.

2015_Olalde_Figure3.jpg


Update on this thread: Magdalenian admixture would be a good candidate for this, explained by Fu et al 2016.
 

This thread has been viewed 14992 times.

Back
Top