Y-DNA haplogroups of ancient civilizations

I read in eupedia that Ev13 was part of bronze age elite warriors. Then how is it today strongly ethnic alban!? And to the other hand, the Neolithic farming haplogroup G is almost absent in Albanian ethnic population. In alban Ghegs of Kosova the EV13 go more then 45% , while the 'G' is nearly zero
 
Piro Ilir said:
I read in eupedia that Ev13 was part of bronze age elite warriors. Then how is it today strongly ethnic alban!? And to the other hand, the Neolithic farming haplogroup G is almost absent in Albanian ethnic population. In alban Ghegs of Kosova the EV13 go more then 45% , while the 'G' is nearly zero
Click to expand...

The G2a disappeared all over Europe: y dna haplogroups come and go with big migrations. In big migrations, particularly, but not only if male mediated, the newcomers ensure one way or another that they have more reproductive "success". That's the way of it whether we like it or not.
 
Angela said:
The G2a disappeared all over Europe: y dna haplogroups come and go with big migrations. In big migrations, particularly, but not only if male mediated, the newcomers ensure one way or another that they have more reproductive "success". That's the way of it whether we like it or not.
Click to expand...

From here in Eupedia it says that Neolithic farmers were mostly G2 from what comes out from Neolithic sites. Ev13 it's almost not shown up from these Neolithic sites. Why Albanians have almost nothing G2? They must have some few. Actually we have G2 in Europe in isolated areas where the Neolithics got hidden from the IE warriors. There is a big gap between Ev13 and G2 in ethnic Albans. It doesn't fit to the logic
 
Eupedia also says that Ev13 was an important part of IE warriors , whom spread in many parts of Eurasia in a short time, whether R1b or R1a.
 
y-DNA in Europe was getting replaced frequently. Groups were invaded, the men all killed and the boys enslaved and treated so badly that most didn't make it to adulthood.

Piro Ilir said:
From here in Eupedia it says that Neolithic farmers were mostly G2 from what comes out from Neolithic sites. Ev13 it's almost not shown up from these Neolithic sites. Why Albanians have almost nothing G2? They must have some few. Actually we have G2 in Europe in isolated areas where the Neolithics got hidden from the IE warriors. There is a big gap between Ev13 and G2 in ethnic Albans. It doesn't fit to the logic
Click to expand...
 
Angela said:
As for the Welsh pockets of E-V13, Wales was for thousands of years a famous mining area. I would think the more parsimonious explanation is that it's some founder effect in an isolated area from the Atlantic Bronze Age
Click to expand...

You could be right, at least partly, but I notice that on the 'Genetic History of the British & Irish' page here on Eupedia the highest rates of E1b generally are found in Cumbria and the East Midlands. I recall reading that there was a small-but-influential Greek population in Roman Luguvalium, modern-day Carlisle, whilst the East Midlands had a number of Roman towns and settlements (including those that became Lincoln and Leicester) which are roughly equidistant between York and London on 'Ermine Street', whilst also being proximate to the Fosse Way. I'd say that a good percentage of the E1b in Britain arrived in the Roman era.
 
Alcuin said:
You could be right, at least partly, but I notice that on the 'Genetic History of the British & Irish' page here on Eupedia the highest rates of E1b generally are found in Cumbria and the East Midlands. I recall reading that there was a small-but-influential Greek population in Roman Luguvalium, modern-day Carlisle, whilst the East Midlands had a number of Roman towns and settlements (including those that became Lincoln and Leicester) which are roughly equidistant between York and London on 'Ermine Street', whilst also being proximate to the Fosse Way. I'd say that a good percentage of the E1b in Britain arrived in the Roman era.
Click to expand...

That would be interesting. Are they Roman and Greek subclades?
 
Alcuin said:
I'd also like to know!
Click to expand...

Guaranteed most E1b in the British Isles are V13 but there is a small pocket of E81 in Northern Wales:

IMG_2329.JPG
 
Angela said:
The G2a disappeared all over Europe: y dna haplogroups come and go with big migrations. In big migrations, particularly, but not only if male mediated, the newcomers ensure one way or another that they have more reproductive "success". That's the way of it whether we like it or not.
Click to expand...
This is not true. Look at the core of Europe, like Switzerland, Austria, or in Romania where barbarian hordes have passed again and again.
 
gidai said:
This is not true. Look at the core of Europe, like Switzerland, Austria, or in Romania where barbarian hordes have passed again and again.
Click to expand...

I have no idea to what you're objecting.

You don't think G2a levels drastically decreased? That is a fact.

In Europe first we had C, then I, then G2a, then resurgence of some I2a, then huge increases of R1b and R1a. At some point E appeared, which got lucky and expanded quite late.

Now, either they killed the "native men" whom they encountered or they just made them less likely to reproduce by elite dominance.

This is all the consensus. If you're going to downvote statements about it and post that you disagree then produce your evidence by citing ancient dna and the population genetics academic papers.
 
Sorry. But is not true that "The G2a disappeared all over Europe" But are spread now all over, even in... Italy :) or in China. Is it right ?
 
gidai said:
Sorry. But is not true that "The G2a disappeared all over Europe" But are spread now all over, even in... Italy :) or in China. Is it right ?
Click to expand...


"Disappeared" may have been hyperbole, but G2a went from being the majority haplogroup to being a few percent in some countries. Where "farmer" ancestry wasn't as decimated, as in Italy, the percentages are higher, but nowhere near where they were.

You also have to look at sub-clades.

A G2a line was picked up by the Indo-Europeans and absorbed by them, so that complicates matters. In northern Italu for example, as in Germany, a lot of the G2a is of this variety, so it doesn't invalidate the claim of replacement. It was spread by Indo-European groups.

Also, in southern Italy, in particular, much of the G2a may have come from Anatolia in the Bronze Age, so again it's replacement 5-6,000 years ago.

Of the G2a sub-lineage carried by the ancient farmer Otzi, for example, there's almost none left. The I2a that had been absorbed by the farmers is also at very low percentages. The places where you can find the highest frequency of some of these farmer yDna lineages is in isolated Sardinia. The I2a which shows up in the Balkans and Eastern Europe is once again a lineage picked up by the Indo-Europeans.

You have to know the history of the sub-clades involved. You can't just look at I2a or G2a.

There's just no denying that there was massive yDna line replacement in Europe over and over again. The causes we can argue about.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...per-2014-Sarno-Boattini-et-al?highlight=Sarno
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...in-Italy-(Boattini-et-al-)?highlight=Boattini
 
It is accepted fact the G, I2 ydna was replaced by R1b yet could it be possible the pre R1b europe had very little population and the incoming IEs had simply higher population from the begining so there weren't need to dissimate the local male line? or is it combination of the two.
 
Parafarne said:
It is accepted fact the G, I2 ydna was replaced by R1b yet could it be possible the pre R1b europe had very little population and the incoming IEs had simply higher population from the begining so there weren't need to dissimate the local male line? or is it combination of the two.
Click to expand...

There are lots of other possible factors: population crashes in central Europe due to climate change, and the plague which the Indo-Europeans brought with them, for example, However, the mtDna lineages of the women survived. So, there had to be some selective advantage of elite lineages in terms of breeding opportunities etc. unless it was also a case that the children of "native" women inherited some useful immunity to the new diseases? If you use our search engine you can find lots of threads where we discuss all these things at length.

However, I think it's informative to look at the fact that even within the downstream R1b and R1a clades, so within these tribes, there's a lot of pruning. If they didn't kill the men with whom they were competing, they put them at a severe disadvantage. I don't think we can get away from the fact that some of that must have gone on. Anyway, that's what it looks like to me at the moment.

Ed. Neolithic Europe is a bit different. There may have been some "warfare", but Europe was so unpopulated at the time that I think there was a lot of mutual co-existence of the two groups, especially because their economies were so massively different. It's just that farmers always massively out produce hunter-gatherers in terms of population growth. That's not to say the farmers couldn't be violent. There are a lot of examples of violence in the late Neolithic when resources decreased because of climate change.

The I2a farmer lineages may have come about through absorption of some hunter-gatherer men and then just drift. We need to learn more about that period.
 
I try to see what happens if at one point in time, two diferent populations, each with its own Y haplogruop, 1 and 2, mix together, let's say in proportion of 10 to 90. At the initial moment the haplogrup 1 population represent 10% of the mixture, and fertility is the same for both populations, but because of any biological reasons there is a difference between the number of boys and girls who are born in families of men of haplogrup 1 and 2. I assumed that from 10 offsprings, males 1 have 6 boys and 4 girls, and males 2 have 4 boys and 6 girls.
Then I calculated what would happen with the frequency of this two haplogroups in the mixed population over a few next generations.

1 .......... 2
(%) (%)
10........90
14,29...85,71 --> generation I (after 25-30 years)
20........80
27,27...72,73
36........64
45,76...54,24
55,86...44,14 --> generation VI (150-180 years)
65,5.....34,5
74,01...25,99
81.03...18,97
86,5.....13,5
90,57...9,43 --> generation XI (275-330 years)
93,51...6,49
95,58...4,42
97,01...2.99
97,99...2,01
98,65...1,45
99,09...0,91 --> generation XVII (425-510 years)

Since the sixth generation (150-180years), the haplogroups proportion already has changed in favor of Y haplogroup 1.
In about 275-330 years (eleventh generation), the proportion of haplogrope 1 (90,57%) already exceeds initial proportion of haplogroup 2 (90%).

Other important effects:
- Mitochondrial haplogroup of the population 2, which represented 90% at the beginning, will increase, reaching very close to 100% in a short time.
-Although haplogroup 1 has become overwhelming, in fact the initial autosomal genetic heritage proportion of the mixture is kept, 10 to 90.

If it has a correspondent in reality, this can explain many "sudden population extinctions" if we take into account only the chromosome Y. But these extinctions do not exist autosomaly!
I think it be one explainations of the fast expansion at high proportion of R1b, R1a, or other Y haplogroups.
So, probably, mixing with other small groups, many populations like Neolithic Farmers switch Y chromosome, but their genetic heritage remain at high level until today.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
gidai said:
I try to see what happens if at one point in time, two diferent populations, each with its own Y haplogruop, 1 and 2, mix together, let's say in proportion of 10 to 90. (...) What do you think?
Click to expand...
A nice example how it is wrong to draw conclusions about a past solely based on on present day frequencies of Y-DNA haplogroups without any insight into autosomal and ancient data.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 704781 times.

Back
Top