I-haplogroup Neolithic with G-Haplogroup Y-dna

[Jason Neuharth]

I seen a lot of ancient y-dna with I haplogroups and G haplogroups. It is in the time frame of early neolithic. Why is it that they say I haplogroup is not neolithic but WHG I see this as false. With ancient y-dna we see C1 as the the WHG and cro-magnon time not I haplogroup.

[Aberdeen]

I seen a lot of ancient y-dna with I haplogroups and G haplogroups. It is in the time frame of early neolithic. Why is it that they say I haplogroup is not neolithic but WHG I see this as false. With ancient y-dna we see C1 as the the WHG and cro-magnon time not I haplogroup.

If you go to the Ancestral Journeys website and look under "Ancient DNA", you'll find that there are seven Mesolithic Y DNA samples for western Europe. Only one is C1 and the other six are all I2. Therefore the thinking is that Y haplotype I was common in Europe prior to the Neolithic and the I2 found in Europe from the Neolithic period represents the descendants of European hunter gatherers who made friends with the farmers moving in from the Middle East and learned farming from them. There could also still have been pockets of I2 hunter gatherers or fishing folk in Europe during the Neolithic, but the thinking is that they would have eventually have either learned farming from their neighbours or died out.

[Jason Neuharth]

Mesolithic Western Eurasian DNA

Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome haplogroups extracted from prehistoric hunter-gathers after the Last Glacial Maximum in Europe and related remains in Asia, arranged chronologically. Pitted Ware sites are classed as Mesolithic here, because of their hunter-gatherer economy, though they fall within the Neolithic period. Also with Briton finding seeds that push neolithic farming to 6200bc in northwest Europe. As of yet no Palaeolthic y-dna of I haplogroup in Europe why are we guessing they were WHG?

[LeBrok]

Mesolithic Western Eurasian DNA

Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome haplogroups extracted from prehistoric hunter-gathers after the Last Glacial Maximum in Europe and related remains in Asia, arranged chronologically. Pitted Ware sites are classed as Mesolithic here, because of their hunter-gatherer economy, though they fall within the Neolithic period. Also with Briton finding seeds that push neolithic farming to 6200bc in northwest Europe.

Relativism of epochs, isn't it? There is still Paleolithic time in Amazon jungle where last pure hunter gatherers hid.

[Jason Neuharth]

Relativism of epochs, isn't it? There is still Paleolithic time in Amazon jungle where last pure hunter gatherers hid.

True still some hunter gatherers in the world. But saying my haplogroup I y-dna was first in Europe is starting to be proved false.

[LeBrok]

True still some hunter gatherers in the world. But saying my haplogroup I y-dna was first in Europe is starting to be proved false.

It is hard to say at the moment. It certainly started somewhere, and at this point in our knowledge, this somewhere could have been in Europe as well. We need more true Paleolithic DNA from Europe to be certain of the past.

[sparkey]

Just as a guess, I'd think that Haplogroup C is older in Europe than Haplogroup I, but both came during the Paleolithic.

In terms of what we know, both are at least Mesolithic. The Pitted Ware samples aren't the only hunter-gatherer I2 carriers we've found. There have also been several truly Mesolithic I2 samples, including Loschbour (actually the oldest Y-DNA sample from Europe west of Russia so far), Motala 2, Motala 3, Motala 6, Motala 9, and Motala 12. Only La Braña 1 was C1 in terms of Mesolithic samples. It is our second-oldest Mesolithic European sample behind Loschbour. There was also the Paleolithic Kostenki 14 sample that tested as C1, but that one was all the way at the Don River.

[Jason Neuharth]

Remarkable new archaeological discoveries are likely to completely rewrite a key part of British prehistory.
Scientific tests suggest that a major aspect of the Neolithic agricultural revolution may have reached Britain 2000 years earlier than previously thought.
The research - carried out by scientists at the universities of Bradford, Birmingham and Warwick - reveal that wheat, probably already ground into flour, was being used at a Mesolithic Stone Age site in around 6000 BC. Which is close to Luxembourg Loschbour, Heffingen [LSB 1] dark hair, 50% probability of blue eyes, darker skin than Neolithic sample M 6220-5990 BC I2a1

[Angela]

Remarkable new archaeological discoveries are likely to completely rewrite a key part of British prehistory.
Scientific tests suggest that a major aspect of the Neolithic agricultural revolution may have reached Britain 2000 years earlier than previously thought.
The research - carried out by scientists at the universities of Bradford, Birmingham and Warwick - reveal that wheat, probably already ground into flour, was being used at a Mesolithic Stone Age site in around 6000 BC. Which is close to Luxembourg Loschbour, Heffingen [LSB 1] dark hair, 50% probability of blue eyes, darker skin than Neolithic sample M 6220-5990 BC I2a1

We have a thread about the finding of these seeds in Britain.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...-British-Wheat

They are einkhorn wheat, first domesticated in the Near East. It's difficult to know the context of their appearance in Britain, but certainly studies in land use show that there was not widespread farming in Britain at this early date. Indeed, given the climate and soil types, it wasn't terribly successful even much later. I think that is the larger pattern in central and especially northern Europe, i.e. at the early stages, the "Neolithic" package wasn't adapted to local soil and climate conditions, or, for that matter, to large scale climate fluctuations that perhaps affected that part of the world disproportionately.

In the linked thread there is a link to the work of Michael Frachetti, who shows how the first appearance of wheat in the Botai was through trade, and the seeds had a ritual significance. It was the same with the appearance of domesticated animals.

[Silesian]

I seen a lot of ancient y-dna with I haplogroups and G haplogroups. It is in the time frame of early neolithic. Why is it that they say I haplogroup is not neolithic but WHG I see this as false. With ancient y-dna we see C1 as the the WHG and cro-magnon time not I haplogroup.

Haplogroup I is really bother clade to the very successful Middle Eastern clade J. IJ share same snp mutation [m429] that is so common in middle eastern countries[countries like Saudi Arabia and Somalia]. Oldest dated, to be in 7000-8000+/- b.p. range in my opinion all other dates are speculative without any ancient dna.

[Jason Neuharth]

Yeap J and I haplogroups are cousin clades and with the wheat einkhorn in the north makes me wonder about the Natufians. Does anyone know if they have done ancient dna on these people as of yet? I haven't see any. Maybe the answers lay with those people.

[Aberdeen]

Mesolithic Western Eurasian DNA

Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome haplogroups extracted from prehistoric hunter-gathers after the Last Glacial Maximum in Europe and related remains in Asia, arranged chronologically. Pitted Ware sites are classed as Mesolithic here, because of their hunter-gatherer economy, though they fall within the Neolithic period. Also with Briton finding seeds that push neolithic farming to 6200bc in northwest Europe. As of yet no Palaeolthic y-dna of I haplogroup in Europe why are we guessing they were WHG?

As of yet, we have only three Paleolithic Y DNA samples, two from Siberia and one from Russia. There's lots of evidence that there were people living in western Europe during the Paleolithic and we have a few mtDNA samples but no Y DNA. Are you saying that an absence of data proves those people couldn't have been Y haplotype I? If so, what haplotype does the absence of evidence prove them to be?

[Jason Neuharth]

As of yet, we have only three Paleolithic Y DNA samples, two from Siberia and one from Russia. There's lots of evidence that there were people living in western Europe during the Paleolithic and we have a few mtDNA samples but no Y DNA. Are you saying that an absence of data proves those people couldn't have been Y haplotype I? If so, what haplotype does the absence of evidence prove them to be?

As for no evidence prove nothing either way as of yet. But most jump on I y-dna haplogroup as been there since paleolithic with no evidence just because of location. I also found on the page you direct me to about a I1 haplotype in Hungary kinda cool i thought.