Where did E-V13 originate ?

According to a new study by Trombetta et al.2015 (http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/06/23/gbe.evv118.short?rss=1), E-V13 (like E-V22) is now under a new E-V1083.

What is very interesting is that E-V1083* was found only in Eritrea (1.1%) and Sardinia (0.3%) and nowhere else among the 5 222 individuals from 116 populations from previous studies that were analysed.

So E-V13's parent clade (E-V1083) almost surely originated in East Africa, then from North Africa crossed the mediterranean to Sardinia. So the hypothesis that E-V13 and other E1b1b lineages came to the Balkans from the southern Levant via Anatolia during the Neolithic seems now obsolete... The absence of E-V1083* in the Middle East makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis.


  • E-M78
    • E-M78*
    • E-V1477
    • E-V1083.
      • E-V1083*. Found in Eritreans and Sardinians.
      • E-V13
      • E-V22
    • E-V1129
      • E-V12
        • E-V12*
        • E-V32
      • E-V264
        • E-V259. Found in North Cameroon.
        • E-V65

Thanks for posting this HQ. I had a quick look but will be reading it in detail later. Unfortunately the paper mostly seem to concentrates on the v1515 which co relates with sub saharan clades. There is no mention of E-V1038. (I try to look for this E-V1083 maybe in other sources. In regards to E-V13 it more or less confirms earlier studies, and it does not make any references to how it entered in Europe. Personally I do not consider the findings in Sardenia and Eritrea as a proof of a crossing of this subclade from North Africa to South Europe espesially in the absense of any E-V1038 in North Africa proper. If we have to use this logic then we can say that it flew there (from Eritrea to Sardenia) so to speak. This is of particular interest to E-V13 and confirmes earlier findings.

(quote). Another striking aspect of ourdating is the previously unappreciated large difference in the age between haplogroup EM215(38.6 kya; 95% CI 31.4-45.9 kya) and its sub-haplogroup E-M35 (25.0 kya; 95% CI20.0-30.0 kya). Within the E-V68 sub-clade, the M78 mutation arose in a time windowbetween 20.3 kya (95% CI 16.2-25.4 kya) and 14.M8 kya (95% CI 11.6-18.5 kya), namely the TMRCA for E-V68 and E-78, respectively. The TMRCA of E-V13 chromosomes (8.1 kya;95% CI 5.6-10.8 kya) is consistent with a previous hypothesis about a post-Neolithicexpansion of this haplogroup in Europe (Cruciani et al 2004; 2007).(unquote)

Another thing is that many past papers have been quoted and refered to so I very much doubt if anyone can say that previous findings could be considered obsolete
 
When BB entered Italy , it mixed with Remedello and became Polada culture

Well, the problem is that Remedello people are still EEF, so it would appear that Gimbutas was wrong, or these were very atypical "Indo-Europeans."
 
According to the new Trombetta et al paper, it is M78 which is held to have arisen in North Africa, not E-V13.

From the paper:
"A northern African location is favored for the node defining the M78 subclade (posterior probability O.76) supporting the previous hypothesis of Cruciani et al (2007).

As to their comment about E-V13, Maleth has already quoted it.

I think it's also just as well to clear up any confusion about E-V13. A sample was indeed found in a Neolithic sample from 5,000 BC. It was in the Avellaner Cave in Catalonia.

This is the link to the paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/45/18255.full.pdf?with-ds=yes

This is the table where it is clearly labeled as E-V13:
View attachment 7341

It also so appears in Jean Manco's online table of ancient DNA:
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/europeanneolithicdna.shtml

This is why the author said that it was definitely related to the E-V13 in the Balkans.

View attachment 7342


This is the map of the current distribution of E-V13. It may not be totally current, but the general parameters are clear.

So, we do indeed know that E-V13, and moreover an E-V13 related to the E-V13 now present in the Aegean and surrounding areas, was present in Neolithic Europe 5,000 BC in a Cardial context. Once again, Cardial was an east to west Neolithic migration that began in the Aegean and/or the Balkan area.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-V13.gif
Haplogroup-E-V13.gif


Given all of that, until some new piece of ancient DNA is proffered which would change the picture, the movement into Europe of E-V13 would seem to have been from east to west and probably during the Neolithic, as numerous scholars have posited.

I also think it has to be borne in mind that TMRCA should not be conflated with "date of arrival". The particular TMRCA of a certain group could be consistent with the arrival of a lineage long before.
 
According to the new Trombetta et al paper, it is M78 which is held to have arisen in North Africa, not E-V13.

From the paper:
"A northern African location is favored for the node defining the M78 subclade (posterior probability O.76) supporting the previous hypothesis of Cruciani et al (2007).

Indeed its a confirmation of an earlier paper, also Battaglia et al (2008) is still very relevant and the recent paper says nothing in contradiction.

This what Steve Bird (author of the Roman theory for E-V13 in Britian) has to say on the new paper from the E-V13 forum:-

(quote) We can improve on this estimate further, however, by recalling that a V13 aDNA skeleton, carbon dated to 7 kya, was found in northeastern Spain recently. This gives us a firm lower boundary for the appearance of V13. Since it is unlikely that the skeleton found in the Spanish cave was the founder of the V13 subclade, an older date of coalescence must be found. We can now say that V13 is AT LEAST 7,000 years old, and perhaps as old as 10,800 years old. The central estimate of 8.1 kya for the TMRCA actually fits quite nicely with the appearance of the V13 skeleton on the Mediterranean coast 7 kya. (It should also be noted that the rho estimate barely overlaps the known 7 kya lower fence but just barely, with the upper 95% CI at 7.3 kya). We are left with a strong estimate of the TMRCA for V13 of 7-10.8 kya (97.5% CI, since we can ignore the portion of the tail that is younger than 7 kya). There is only a 2.5% probability that the "true" TMRCA is older than 10.8 kya and there is zero probability that it is younger than 7 kya.

Another interesting finding is that of Figure S4 (Supplementary Figures). Using a posterior probability of ancestral geographic location, the authors predict a nearly 100% probability of the geographic origin of V13 being in Europe. The analysis includes one Druze male subject (from Israel), which accounts for the extremely small sliver of Asian probability seen in the pie chart of S4. This is very significant because it moves the theoretical origin of V13 from the Levant/Anatolia to the Balkan peninsula proper. (/quote)
 
For me it is almost unbelievable that E-V13 carriers came from North Western Africa via Gibraltar. For now only result is founded in Spain and it makes confusion but maybe we watching this result too much. Of course we need new ancient results in different epochs.

I think that fundamental paper is still: Cruciani et al., 2007. According authors:

"The low E-V13 frequency (0.9%) and microsatellite variance (0.13) in northern Africa do not support an antiquity greater than in western Asia. Thus, the most parsimonious and plausible scenario is that E-V13 originated in western Asia about 11 ky ago, and its presence in northern Africa is the result of a more recent introgression. Under this hypothesis, E-V13 chromosomes sampled in western Asia and their coalescence estimate detect a likely Paleolithic exit out of Africa of E-M78 chromosomes devoid of the V13 mutation, which later occurred somewhere in the Near East/Anatolia. "
 
There's now confirmed E1b1b1a1(2) in Neolithic Europe, so that part of the debate is over. There's also J2.

Anna Szcsenyi-Nagy
http://ubm.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2015/4075/pdf/doc.pdf


Ed. Sorry, I didn't add that one is M78, and one may already be E-V13.

The cultures are Lengyel and Sopot.The date is 4780-4700 BC.

The rest are G2a, F*, I2a1, J2, and C.

R1b and I2a2 don't show up until the Bronze Age.

Here's the map so you can see where they were:
European_Middle_Neolithic.gif
 
Last edited:
There's now confirmed E1b1b1a1(2) in Neolithic Europe, so that part of the debate is over. There's also J2.

Anna Szcsenyi-Nagy
http://ubm.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2015/4075/pdf/doc.pdf


Ed. Sorry, I didn't add that one is M78, and one may already be E-V13.

The cultures are Lengyel and Sopot.The date is 4780-4700 BC.

The rest are G2a, F*, I2a1, J2, and C.

R1b and I2a2 don't show up until the Bronze Age.

Here's the map so you can see where they were:
European_Middle_Neolithic.gif
Yes, J2 is Neolithic! Sile, take notice, I was right!

Was it late Neolithic? I don't have time to go through this monstrous paper yet.
 
Yes, J2 is Neolithic! Sile, take notice, I was right!

Was it late Neolithic? I don't have time to go through this monstrous paper yet.

Ok, ok, why don't you crow already?!:grin:

Seriously, kudos to you and Maciamo for holding out for it.

The J2 was from 4990-4850 BC. One was found in Lengyel and one in Sopot culture.

I'd love to say that it was late Neolithic because then I'd have come in under the wire by saying J2 could have come in during the Late Neolithic, but I've seen Lengyel described as a middle/late Neolithic culture.

Interestingly, Nagy suggests both of these haplogroups moved in from the southeast later than the other farmer yDna lineages. I'm going to post about it in the dedicated thread.

It is a monster paper. I've barely skimmed it and I've still spent an hour or two on it.
 
Yes, J2 is Neolithic! Sile, take notice, I was right!

Was it late Neolithic? I don't have time to go through this monstrous paper yet.

Are you baiting again?

I have always agreed with my ALPGEN project manager ChrisR there was J2 ( as ChrisR is J2 ) in Neolithic europe................why did you include my name............can you give yourself an infraction for another insult on me.!
 
There's now confirmed E1b1b1a1(2) in Neolithic Europe, so that part of the debate is over. There's also J2.

Anna Szcsenyi-Nagy
http://ubm.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2015/4075/pdf/doc.pdf


Ed. Sorry, I didn't add that one is M78, and one may already be E-V13.

The cultures are Lengyel and Sopot.The date is 4780-4700 BC.

The rest are G2a, F*, I2a1, J2, and C.

R1b and I2a2 don't show up until the Bronze Age.

Here's the map so you can see where they were:
European_Middle_Neolithic.gif

So J2 was found as far as North Poland. But rather late Neolithic(4700). The core of J2 seems to have come in Bronze Age context though. It is not much of a suprise to find individual cases earlier, as was the case with other Haplogroups too. Wished to see autosomal data of this J2 individuals.

If J2 reached some parts of Europe during late Neolithic, than it might really be connected to the "West Asian" component of various calculators.
 
Well, the problem is that Remedello people are still EEF, so it would appear that Gimbutas was wrong, or these were very atypical "Indo-Europeans."

And?

I have never believed like yourself the huge importance given to the hunters. I give more importance to farmers and herders
 
And?

I have never believed like yourself the huge importance given to the hunters. I give more importance to farmers and herders

You must be the only poster here who thinks I "favor" hunters over farmers. :) From the subtext, I rather think most people think the opposite!

In actuality, I don't "favor" any one ancient population group over any other. It's not like placing bets on football teams, and always "favoring" the home team. Plus, which is the home team? We're all descended from all of them, if some more than others.

Anyway, I just want to know what happened. That's it. I don't play around with the data or the interpretations.
 
Are you baiting again?

I have always agreed with my ALPGEN project manager ChrisR there was J2 ( as ChrisR is J2 ) in Neolithic europe................why did you include my name............can you give yourself an infraction for another insult on me.!
I was referring to your comment from about 2 weeks ago from another thread which said something like this: "LeBrok is never right". That's why I called your attention to an example where I was right.
 
According to the new Trombetta et al paper, it is M78 which is held to have arisen in North Africa, not E-V13.

From the paper:
"A northern African location is favored for the node defining the M78 subclade (posterior probability O.76) supporting the previous hypothesis of Cruciani et al (2007).

As to their comment about E-V13, Maleth has already quoted it.
.

Yes maybe that E-V13 has arisen in Southern Europe around 8,500 years ago but its parent E-V1083 very likely migrated directly from North Africa to South Europe sometime betwen 8,500 and 15,000 years ago. Indeed, the most important from this paper is the discovery of E-V1083 (also a parent of E-V22) and the fact that its absence of E-V1083* in the Middle East makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis. But in any case, we know now for sure that Proto AfroAsiatic speakers were in Europe much longer before Indo-European invaders who cannot be considered as native europeans due to the fact they only arrived 4,500 years ago.
 
1) North Africans displaced by Eurasian migrants that invaded North Africa.


or

2) Coastal North African aquatic hunter/gatherers. Changing climate enticed them to move up the coasts fishing, avoiding inland non-African humans. They eventually got absorbed by inland Europeans and Coastal Europeans, then Eurasians who rolled in with Asian agriculture.
 
Fascinating indeed, most especially the part about Eurasians invading North Africa in time for E-M78 to then make it all the way to the Balkans by 7000 BC.

I'd be most interested in reading the papers, and the evidence they cite, supporting this novel hypothesis. Just post the links and I'll be certain to read them over the week-end.
 
Yes maybe that E-V13 has arisen in Southern Europe around 8,500 years ago but its parent E-V1083 very likely migrated directly from North Africa to South Europe sometime betwen 8,500 and 15,000 years ago. Indeed, the most important from this paper is the discovery of E-V1083 (also a parent of E-V22) and the fact that its absence of E-V1083* in the Middle East makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis. But in any case, we know now for sure that Proto AfroAsiatic speakers were in Europe much longer before Indo-European invaders who cannot be considered as native europeans due to the fact they only arrived 4,500 years ago.
Yes maybe that E-V13 has arisen in Southern Europe around 8,500 years ago but its parent E-V1083 very likely migrated directly from North Africa to South Europe sometime betwen 8,500 and 15,000 years ago. Indeed, the most important from this paper is the discovery of E-V1083 (also a parent of E-V22) and the fact that its absence of E-V1083* in the Middle East makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis. But in any case, we know now for sure that Proto AfroAsiatic speakers were in Europe much longer before Indo-European invaders who cannot be considered as native europeans due to the fact they only arrived 4,500 years ago.

They may have not spoken proto-AfroAsiatic.

Berber language is in its own branch of the Afro-Asiatiic language tree but their language could have easily originated with early Eurasian migrants that reached North Africa in pre-history. Berbers have considerable Eurasian admixture.

Areas that speak Afro-Asiatic languages have a high degree of Eurasian influence.
 
You must be the only poster here who thinks I "favor" hunters over farmers. :) From the subtext, I rather think most people think the opposite!

In actuality, I don't "favor" any one ancient population group over any other. It's not like placing bets on football teams, and always "favoring" the home team. Plus, which is the home team? We're all descended from all of them, if some more than others.

Anyway, I just want to know what happened. That's it. I don't play around with the data or the interpretations.

The issue with hunters is that in these type of sites have vast number of ID's referring to many types of hunters, WHG, UHG, SHG etc etc........because no one has any clue on what this hunter represent.
We do not even know if the male line of farmers hunted and the females tended the crops, another variation
 

This thread has been viewed 236165 times.

Back
Top