Guess the Y-haplogroup(s) of Mesolithic Iberians (Braña 1 & 2)

What Y-DNA haplogroup(s) will be found in the Mesolithic Iberian samples?


  • Total voters
    24

Aberdeen

Regular Member
Messages
1,835
Reaction score
380
Points
0
Ethnic group
Scottish, English and German
Y-DNA haplogroup
I1
mtDNA haplogroup
H4
The Eurogenes Blog has pointed out that we will probably soon have the results of Y DNA from two Mesolithic Iberian hunter-gatherers, and has an interesting perspective the results might be.


"Last year Current Biology put out a paper on the partial genome sequences of two Mesolithic Iberian hunter-gatherers, dubbed Brana 1 and 2, which showed that they were genetically more similar to modern-day Northern Europeans than Iberians. According to Spanish news portal Leonoticias.com, the genome of Brana 1 has now been fully sequenced, and the more comprehensive new data not only back up the initial findings, but also suggest that this individual had blue eyes:

El mesolítico 'leonés' afín al ciudadano del norte de Europa

As per the link above, the new paper will be published in a few weeks. I suppose this means we'll finally see a Y-chromosome haplogroup result from pre-Neolithic Europe. I'm betting on hg R, considering that this was the Y-DNA hg of the Mal'ta boy from Upper Paleolithic South Siberia (seehere). Siberia might seem like a long way from Iberia, but in fact, for thousands of years both regions were connected by the Mammoth-Steppe, which was inhabited by highly mobile herds of animals and human hunters who followed them. However, I won't be surprised if it turns out that Brana 1 belonged to Y-DNA hg I or even Q."

Does anyone want to place any bets?
 
I or I1.
These were the survivors of the ice ages in Western Europe.
8000 years ago in Iberia, that was even before cardium print culture (G2a).
R1b only arrived in Western Europe in the copper or bronze ages.
 
Are these are the same whose autosomal and mtDNA have been analyzed by Dienekes here?: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/mesolithic-iberians-la-brana-arintero.html

Either way, very intriguing. I'd be more confident in guessing I2 if these samples were from France than from Spain, since modern I2 diversity drops off a bit once you enter Spain. Another interesting dynamic is that, if these are the same samples as before, they are fairly late for the Mesolithic; they would in fact be roughly contemporary with the Neolithic Epicardical samples we have from Iberia, which gave G2a and E1b. That leaves transmission from Neolithic migrants an open possibility, so I2, G2a, and E1b are all possible, along with some others. I wouldn't place R1b as particularly likely, though.
 
The Eurogenes Blog has pointed out that we will probably soon have the results of Y DNA from two Mesolithic Iberian hunter-gatherers, and has an interesting perspective the results might be.


"Last year Current Biology put out a paper on the partial genome sequences of two Mesolithic Iberian hunter-gatherers, dubbed Brana 1 and 2, which showed that they were genetically more similar to modern-day Northern Europeans than Iberians. According to Spanish news portal Leonoticias.com, the genome of Brana 1 has now been fully sequenced, and the more comprehensive new data not only back up the initial findings, but also suggest that this individual had blue eyes:
I remember musing in one thread that if mutation for blue/green eyes are older than 10k years it had to happen farther south around Black Sea or North Mediterranean coast. Due to Ice Age climate Mediterranean Sea had more resembled today's Baltic and North Sea area where light eyes are more prevalent today. Assuming that climate had something to do with eyes colour.


As per the link above, the new paper will be published in a few weeks. I suppose this means we'll finally see a Y-chromosome haplogroup result from pre-Neolithic Europe. I'm betting on hg R, considering that this was the Y-DNA hg of the Mal'ta boy from Upper Paleolithic South Siberia (seehere). Siberia might seem like a long way from Iberia, but in fact, for thousands of years both regions were connected by the Mammoth-Steppe, which was inhabited by highly mobile herds of animals and human hunters who followed them. However, I won't be surprised if it turns out that Brana 1 belonged to Y-DNA hg I or even Q."
I'm not sure if there were big migration from Asia to Europe at this time to see R presence in Iberia. Southern Europe was mostly woodlands during Ice Age and till Neolithic, with way of life and hunting techniques somewhat different than open steppes of the East. This probably dampened migratory trends. Therefore I would expect mostly hg I or maybe remnants of ancient IJ still in Iberia during Mesolithic.
But who knows maybe we will discover that E or T showed up in some areas as Hunter-Gatherers or herders before first farmers.
 
I think I'd go with F( or I), but I don't think predicting a G2a result is out of bounds...as someone posted on another forum, there's a very old, 12,000 year old cluster of G2a in northwestern Italy...much older than the others.

This is the Globe 13 breakdown for La Brana 1...25% Mediterranean.
View attachment 6136
 
It doesn't matter what dna the La Brana individuals have.

The La Brana site is a garbage pit in the floor of a cave with mix debris from different periods.
The burial, if you call it that, is out of context and dated to the edge of the neolithic, which is convenient when you're a timid archealogist trying to date a trash heap that you think might be Mesolithic.

As with more than half of the Spanish archealogy sites, wasting time trying to draw conclusions on piss research is a waste of time.

Let me take a stab on the results without being specific. The results will surprise everyone because they don't jive with everything else we know and we will waste several years debating false facts and points that don't matter as with Paglicci Cave in Italy.
 
Last edited:
Are these are the same whose autosomal and mtDNA have been analyzed by Dienekes here?: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/mesolithic-iberians-la-brana-arintero.html

Either way, very intriguing. I'd be more confident in guessing I2 if these samples were from France than from Spain, since modern I2 diversity drops off a bit once you enter Spain. Another interesting dynamic is that, if these are the same samples as before, they are fairly late for the Mesolithic; they would in fact be roughly contemporary with the Neolithic Epicardical samples we have from Iberia, which gave G2a and E1b. That leaves transmission from Neolithic migrants an open possibility, so I2, G2a, and E1b are all possible, along with some others. I wouldn't place R1b as particularly likely, though.

It looks like the same two, yes. And, in terms of autosomal DNA, they apparently clustered with Northern Europeans. Should be interesting.
 
It doesn't matter what dna the La Brana individuals have.

The La Brana site is a garbage pit in the floor of a cave with mix debris from different periods.
The burial, if you call it that, is out of context and dated to the edge of the neolithic, which is convenient when your a timid archealogist trying to date a trash heap that you think might be Mesolithic.

As with more than half of the Spanish archealogy sites, wasting time trying to draw conclusions on piss research is a waste of time.

Let me take a stab on the results without being specific. The results will surprise everyone because they don't jive with everything else we know and we will waste several years debating false facts and points that don't matter as with Paglicci Cave in Italy.

Okay, Grumpy Cat, so I guess you're saying that if the results don't fit some preconceived notion of what the results should be, they're wrong?
 
Y-DNA. Maybe I, F. Maybe G2, N1 or R1 (in forms now not found in western Europe). But i guess we'll see! My vote is for the I-team though to be honest, i'm biased. :D
 
Hey Aberdeen, mind if I use my mod powers to add a poll to this thread so we can vote like we did with Ötzi? I'm curious as to how the forum is leaning on this one.
 
I also find it interesting that the subject had blue eyes. It puts a knife into the theory that Europeans developed "paleness" due to agriculture and vitamin D deficiency. If true, it's looking likely that paleness was either a response to high latitude or sexual selection amongst Paleo-Europeans.

And I vote "F". But it wouldn't surprise me either if some older form of R was found.
 
Can someone please get lebrok off my back? He is consistently threatening to ban me and doesn't even contribute to the forum, he will remove points from me for this very comment as well I am assuming, it is ruining my life and putting me into a depression.
 
Hey Aberdeen, mind if I use my mod powers to add a poll to this thread so we can vote like we did with Ötzi? I'm curious as to how the forum is leaning on this one.

Thanks, that would be great.

I'm personally leaning toward I2 or T if the finds are in fact Mesolithic, and either E1, G or J2 if they're early Neolithic (but I suspect they're not). Although I do have a heretical theory about maritime R1b arriving in the Iberian Peninsula during the Neolithic, I think that happened a bit later. But you see the problem - whether or not my choices make sense, they're multiple. Are you going to allow for more than one choice, or do we have to bet all our money on one haplotype?
 
T would have entered Europe during the Neolithic not Mesolithic, period; the I subclades make much more sense.
 
T would have entered Europe during the Neolithic not Mesolithic, period; the I subclades make much more sense.

Well, perhaps early neolithic, but I think late mesolithic is possible.
 
Okay, Grumpy Cat, so I guess you're saying that if the results don't fit some preconceived notion of what the results should be, they're wrong?


Archeogentic testing should be done on individuals to whom we can confidently place within a timeline, otherwise the results are meaningless.

For example, if we want to know what dna mesolithic people had, we should take it from a burial that we can confidently argue and date as mesolithic.
La Brana doesn't cut the muster. It, like many of the caves in Spain, is a mixed pile of murder victims, animal feces, rubbish and bat guano that spans great lengths of time.
The dating of the popular Spanish cave art, in many cases, is a sad joke that people uncritically eat up. I hate to be a hater, but that's the truth.
 
Thanks, that would be great.

I'm personally leaning toward I2 or T if the finds are in fact Mesolithic, and either E1, G or J2 if they're early Neolithic (but I suspect they're not). Although I do have a heretical theory about maritime R1b arriving in the Iberian Peninsula during the Neolithic, I think that happened a bit later. But you see the problem - whether or not my choices make sense, they're multiple. Are you going to allow for more than one choice, or do we have to bet all our money on one haplotype?

OK, done. I made it multiple choice, but since there are only 2 samples, let's limit ourselves to only 1 or 2 guesses. Let's make it so that we all give +rep to anybody who guesses exactly what the samples are. Like, if they're both C, and somebody guesses only C, then they get +rep; if they guessed C and something else, they don't. But if one is C and the other is E1b, then just guessing one of those won't get +rep.
 
OK, done. I made it multiple choice, but since there are only 2 samples, let's limit ourselves to only 1 or 2 guesses. Let's make it so that we all give +rep to anybody who guesses exactly what the samples are. Like, if they're both C, and somebody guesses only C, then they get +rep; if they guessed C and something else, they don't. But if one is C and the other is E1b, then just guessing one of those won't get +rep.

you could have throw the K in the mix
 
My first vote is G2a and my second is an early form of I... however TM brought up an important issue. There is quite a cluster in some of these caves. And I'll bring forward an additional factor that is unpleasant to ponder. Bias.

It might be helpful if all researchers include their own personal Y-DNA in their reports from now on. For example, if the lead team members involved in this particular Iberian cave hunt are all members of R1b (statistically well within reason) and if their conclusions-- out of this hodge podge of layerings-- point to say R* or R1b... well I think you all can see where I'm going with this.

If there is a more politically charged endeavor of study than historical Y-DNA tribal movements, I'd like to hear of it. And yes I'm as biased as the next guy. Hopefully there is enough in this case though for both accurate carbon dating and proper STR identification.

I wonder if it would make sense to turn this entire paleo-archelogy stuff over to the ladies? :) Afterall, they don't really have a dog in this fight.
 
Last edited:
And if this report does conclude that both are members of R* or R1b, I'm going to sit tight until I hear the boys at Max Planck weigh in. Paabo has proven over time that he and his team are the most accurate sleuths in these matters.

Again, I'm biased. Very biased.
 

This thread has been viewed 2213597 times.

Back
Top