MtDna from the Bronze Age Caucasus, including Maykop

berun said:
Thank you Angela for the ref; even so, as the 2015 paper with 1180 mtDNA didn't found any M52 I looked at the sources of the paper that you add; the paper finds 9 cases of M52 among 472 Indian Muslims (2%), but everybody will guess that this pop is not the best to know ancient mtDNA... and such high number is in fact more an orange alarm than other thing; for the Indian non-Musliams they have got 796 mtDNA samples from a 2004 paper, 752 from a 2003 paper and 550 from a 1999 paper (total 2098), they don't give the numbers of Indian M52 found neither Tharu M52, but the M52 Tharus are... one case among 472 samples. So it's a big deal to say that M52 is "frequent"... what would be the case if per example we would sample 3000 Iranians? I think that the biased data by the number of samples taken in each pop could point another history.
Click to expand...

I had critized this approach on various Haplogroups such as yDNA R2 already. On the WIkipedia page some people wrote R2 "originated" in India because the highest number of R2 individuals has been found there, not realizing that naturally you will find higher number of one Haplogroup in a population of a billion people in comparison to a population with maybe 10-100 million. With other words it doesn't really matter how high the number/frequency is, especially in India where Caste Systems play a huge role and end up in high Frequencies in single Haplogroups (Founder effect).

As I said I personally don't believe M originated in India just out of the logic that M is the sister clade of N and M if found both in India, as well North Africa what makes an origin inbetween most likely IMO. I think M has been moved around by Neolithic farmers/herders both to India as well North Africa. But I could be wrong and it is possible that there is an ancient South Asian contribution into West Asia. As we know there is interaction between South_Central Asia and West Asia from ancient times.
 
Alan said:
As I said I personally don't believe M originated in India just out of the logic that M is the sister clade of N and M if found both in India, as well North Africa what makes an origin inbetween most likely IMO. I think M has been moved around by Neolithic farmers/herders both to India as well North Africa. But I could be wrong and it is possible that there is an ancient South Asian contribution into West Asia. As we know there is interaction between South_Central Asia and West Asia from ancient times.
Click to expand...

Mt-haplogroups N and M represent the Out-of-Africa migrations that colonised Eurasia, Oceania and later the Americas. We shouldn't forget that, bar a tiny number of haplogroup L in the Middle East and southern Europe, all non-Africans belong to either N or M, and virtually all Europeans are descended from N. That's the problem with a phylogenetic tree that uses some letters to name haplogroups under other letters. People don't instinctively realise that if they belong to haplogroup HV, H, V, J, T or U, they automatically belong to haplogroup L3, N and R too. Someone who belongs to K also belongs to U. It's not either/or. We don't suddenly cut out a part of our ancestry and of the defining mutations accumulated over time by our ancestors when we switch from N to R to HV to H. Some who is H is L3+N+R+HV+H. It's a package deal.

When we say that someone belongs to haplogroup L, we mean only L, without the mutations for N and M, but with many other mutations instead. The nomenclature is made to clearly separate Africans from non-Africans. But it's purely arbitrary too. Eurasians could have just had deep subclades of L3 instead of their own letters. It's also completely arbitrary to decide that with haplogroup N1a, suddenly N1a1b2 should be renamed haplogroup I, or that U8b2 should be called haplogroup K.

All this to say that haplogroup M52 is just a minor side branch of M that didn't get its own name, unlike mt-haplogroups C, D, E, G, Q and Z under M. In fact, since genetics started in Western countries, most mitochondrial haplogroup letters were attributed to European haplogroups and their Middle Eastern Palaeolithic ancestors (such as R). There weren't enough letters in the alphabet for Asian branches, so only two subclades of M got their own name letter, but others just got a number after the M, including the very major haplogroup M7, which is found about 10% of East Asians and therefore has over 150 million carriers today. Other major East Asian haplogroups include M8, M9 and M10. But it's important to understand that M7 and not closer to M8, M9 or M52 than to other branches of M that got their own name, like haplogroup D, F or G. They all sprouted from M*. There are some exceptions. Haplogroups C and Z, for example, are subclades of M8.

So it doesn't make any sense to say that M52 is Middle Eastern or South Asian simply because the first Out-of-Africa migration that carried mt-haplogroup M (alongside Y-haplogroup D) followed the coasts of Arabia and South Asia all the way to East Asia and Oceania. We have no idea at present when and where the mutation for M52 first occurred. It could have been anywhere in Asia. But it could also have been in the Caucasus for all we know.
 
I have to ask some of you, but doesn't some of this haplogroup stuff seem a bit far-fetched and outlandish? Some of these theories or explanations are next to impossible. I am not trying to be mean or unproductive, I really mean no offense by this. But...if guys may be debating on small trivial things and theories that might not even be true- You are not getting to the bigger picture, but are wasting your time on mere delusions, and cannot figure out the explanation.

Everyone is debating on the technical and complex on these on these haplogroup findings, instead of the Occam's Razor. Put all these haplogroups together (mtdna and Y-DNA) with an ancient documented population, and voila. We've already seen Guanche people of Canary Islands before (before Spanish conquest..) and they were fair-skinned Caucasoids? And they carried most of these haplogroups, you guys have mentioned here. They had haplogroup J1 (predominant) and E-M81, and looked as white as a Nord or Greek.

 ed8036bad391d848f0c120d4a2396372.jpg
And yes, I think those are definitely Punic looking tattoos.^ And these people do not look Sub-Saharan African. My own theory, is that there is enough evidence to conclude that there may have been a back-migration of these individuals from Europe into Africa. (pre-Berberids.) (this could also explain why Afro-Asiatic is almost absent from across the Saharan African desert and only North Africa and Near East. -- it was a European language group that thrived better in Northern Africa and died in Europe, come Indo-European invasion.)

(remember, Afro-Asiatic is just a word, or categorization. Proto-Afro-Asiatic language group may have actually began, in even Southern Europe.)


(also, nobody seemed to have commented on the fascinating, recent discovery of the oldest clade found of haplogroup U6 being found in Romania, about 35,000 ybp.) While it seemed to have almost virtually disappeared in Europe and is in North Africa. (how the heck did that thing originate there? And these women then become predominant in Northwest Africa???)

Dienekes-

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2016/05/35000-year-old-mtdna-haplogroup-u6-from.html

Oh (on the contrary, sorry guys, but) it seems there has already been a post on this here, neat-

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ithic-Europe-to-Africa-through-Basal-mtDna-U6
 
This may explain why there are findings of E-M81 in the Albanian populations as well as other Balkanic areas and Southern Europe. (Italy?) (just archaic haplogroups may be able to prove this. If you can compare DNA from Albanians to Canary Island Guanches, that would be interesting. Who knows, there may be a significant find here. And the Romanian finding of West African U6 might be the gateway-portal and clue to a definite back-migration.)

Maybe European proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers had a massive migration (by boat) from Balkans (or other Southern Europe). Or, perhaps ancient Europeans crossed the oceans into Africa when it was more icier. They became the Berberids and the Egyptians etc. (thinking too far into this, but what if?)

I am hypothesizing/surmising this happened about or around during the LGM. There may have been an extremely larger group of language in Europe, but due to a smaller population and isolation they later evolved into proto-Afro-Asiatic, proto-Vasconic, proto-Indo-European, proto-Kartvelian, about every other language group you can think of. etc)
 
Finaly the discussion about M52 seems sterile as Bernard in Anthrogenetica has found that the sample is not showing other mutations related to such haplo. Well, no surprise if the authors label such haplo "frequent" in south Asia; allways it's good to check sources and use own logics as out there are many people with university degree got from good memory alone. The conclusion seems by now that NW Caucasus was colonized by Anatolian farmers delivering there pre-proto-Kartvelian or NW Caucasian. Also it will be necessary to check more to distinguish their expected substrate CHG DNA from the similar Iran_Neolithic DNA from Azerbadjan (latu sensu) spread in the Copper Age, otherwise we will continue to discuss from data worked with the ass.
 
Virtue said:
I have to ask some of you, but doesn't some of this haplogroup stuff seem a bit far-fetched and outlandish? Some of these theories or explanations are next to impossible. I am not trying to be mean or unproductive, I really mean no offense by this. But...if guys may be debating on small trivial things and theories that might not even be true- You are not getting to the bigger picture, but are wasting your time on mere delusions, and cannot figure out the explanation.

Everyone is debating on the technical and complex on these on these haplogroup findings, instead of the Occam's Razor. Put all these haplogroups together (mtdna and Y-DNA) with an ancient documented population, and voila. We've already seen Guanche people of Canary Islands before (before Spanish conquest..) and they were fair-skinned Caucasoids? And they carried most of these haplogroups, you guys have mentioned here. They had haplogroup J1 (predominant) and E-M81, and looked as white as a Nord or Greek.

View attachment 7951
And yes, I think those are definitely Punic looking tattoos.^ And these people do not look Sub-Saharan African. My own theory, is that there is enough evidence to conclude that there may have been a back-migration of these individuals from Europe into Africa. (pre-Berberids.) (this could also explain why Afro-Asiatic is almost absent from across the Saharan African desert and only North Africa and Near East. -- it was a European language group that thrived better in Northern Africa and died in Europe, come Indo-European invasion.)

(remember, Afro-Asiatic is just a word, or categorization. Proto-Afro-Asiatic language group may have actually began, in even Southern Europe.)


(also, nobody seemed to have commented on the fascinating, recent discovery of the oldest clade found of haplogroup U6 being found in Romania, about 35,000 ybp.) While it seemed to have almost virtually disappeared in Europe and is in North Africa. (how the heck did that thing originate there? And these women then become predominant in Northwest Africa???)

Dienekes-

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2016/05/35000-year-old-mtdna-haplogroup-u6-from.html

Oh (on the contrary, sorry guys, but) it seems there has already been a post on this here, neat-

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ithic-Europe-to-Africa-through-Basal-mtDna-U6
Click to expand...

If I recall well there is something strange about Guanche on Canary Islands.
Don't they have R1b without metallurgy?

It is the same as

berun said:
Finaly the discussion about M52 seems sterile as Bernard in Anthrogenetica has found that the sample is not showing other mutations related to such haplo.
Click to expand...

some lost atypical branch of the clade.
 
bicicleur said:
If I recall well there is something strange about Guanche on Canary Islands.
Don't they have R1b without metallurgy?

It is the same as



some lost atypical branch of the clade.
Click to expand...
yep R1b as well as P* (unknown clades) were found on a sample of Guanche mummies.

http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2009/08/ancient-guanche-y-dna.html

[h=2]WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2009[/h][h=3]Ancient Guanche Y-DNA[/h]

Via Dienekes I have just come to know of a fascinating new research on ancient Y-DNA from the Canary Islands. It is most precious information, as it informs us not only of the patrilineal genetics of the aboriginal Guanches (the matrilineages had already been researched previously) but also, by extension, about the pre-Arabic Y-DNA of North Africa to some extent.

Rosa Fregel et al., Demographic history of Canary Islands male gene-pool:
replacement of native lineages by European. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 2009 (provisional PDF - open access).

The authors managed to extract Y-DNA from 30 individuals, most of them from La Palma, from the pre-colonial period. Additionally 42 individuals from the period of Castilian conquest were also sampled succefully.

The aboriginal Guanches (n=30) had the following haplogroups (sorted by numerical importance):

E1b1b1b (M81) - 8 - 26.7%
E1b1b1a (M78) - 7 - 23.3%
J1 (M267) - 5 - 16.7%
R1b1b2 (M269) - 3 - 10%
K(xP) (M9) - 3 - 10%
I (M170) - 2 - 6.7%
E1a (M33) - 1 - 3.3%
P(xR1) - 1 - 3.3%



 
@Virtue,
Any further off topic posts on this thread will be deleted.
 
Virtue said:
Science has been a joke ever since the Guggenheim Fellowship altered it in the early 20th century.

You guys know Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Schlegel were the original Indo-Europeanists and believed the IE urheimat was in India? Yep, That's the stuff. Stick with those guys, that know their stuff. And the Basque people (whom speak a "proto-language", not a "language".)

Jewish people told me personally. Of course this is a joke and I am totally crazy, and nobody would ever believe me.
Click to expand...


I think some new things happened in science after Voltaire and Emmanuel Kant, did they not?
The Indic I-Ean languages show rather an influence of native languages (dravidian for the most, if I remember well) and local deities upon an Indo-Iranic linguistic and cultural basis than the contrary.
I-Ean question taken apart, the flow of genetic influences seems rather from Iran to India through Pakistan, since Neolithic, what doesn't discard totally some converse lighter flow into Iran and even Caucasus-Near-East. But it seems to me the first light POSSIBLE genetic influences from (North?) India to Near-East date rather from the great metallurgy rising: exchanges on both directions, I think. The Y-R1a ligneages of today South India came from or across Afghanistan, seemingly. Sooner, Y-J2 and others came the same way. I-Eans could have originated far from Europe, but then rather from South-Central Asia than from genuine India, whatever the lands they crossed to reach other places of Eurasia.
What doesn't exclude Harappa cultural influences at some times, + the possibility of an South-Iran origin of the true Sumerians (come by sea, supposed). All guess for this last bet. I say that because apparently, the Sumerian language and the Elamite languages could be, not cousins of dravidian, but far isolated "oncles" formed upon a very archaïc proto-language ancestor to dravidian too. The problem is that the few words we have for these ancient languages could be linked to trade more than to intime life, so comprising a lot of loan-words for goods, so not too informative: here I make guesses, because I have not the detail of the concerned studies.
Concerning basque, I cannot consider it as a proto-language. "proto-" has sense only when compared to subsequent affiliated languages, it has nothing to do with the supposed "level" of languages. Basques of today are not poor lyevolved people unable to ameliorate their language to answer to their needs. And I don't think an ergative or non-ergative language can be the mark of nomadism or sedentism.
Good afternoon.
 
Angela said:
@Virtue,
Any further off topic posts on this thread will be deleted.
Click to expand...
How is it off-topic? My point was that people are debating on unnecessary content, and whether they realize it or not, these things have already been posted and discussed before..


I don't believe the Kurgan hypothesis, but it may have truth to it most def, but only half-truths. And if Marija Gimbutas were alive today, she may have even altered it and admitted that it was no longer a relevant theory. Sorry Angela, but I think even she (Marija) herself would admit that. She died in 1994, 22 years ago, long before haplogroup science came to the mainstream. So the theory is obviously outdated, and if she kept up with the current findings she would definitely change her theory to the point where it wouldn't even be called "Kurgan" anymore.


Marija Gimbutus and Colin Renfrew weren't the first Indo-Europeanists, either. Voltaire, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schlegel- and they were the originators of the Indo-European invasion theory and the latter Out-of-India theory. Surprisingly, I have Basque anthropologist and linguist friends who agree, and believe the Out-of-India theory is the most realistic, and that the Kurgan and Anatolian theories for Indo-European invasion makes no sense. (And personally, I don't believe 3 of those aforementioned brilliant minds, can be wrong either.) :useless:

And knowing Basques and their non-IE language, they could tell in an instant whether the mainstream theories (Kurgan or Anatolian) are crap, Angela... They can compare their language to that of the proto-Indo-European one, and instantly know instinctively.

"What Marija Gimbautus was saying, makes no sense." Maju told me. I showed him how the Basques became R1b and he thought it was a pretty legit theory. But he disagrees with both the Kurgan and Anatolian hypothesis.)




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Renfrew,_Baron_Renfrew_of_Kaimsthorn


Also, Colin Renfrew is a member of the British Royal Academy, which is affiliated to the Guggenheim Fellowship. (a group infamous in scientific circles for their poor reputation and of bringing nonsense theories to science, and their debunked pseudo-sciences.) >> So his credibility as an archaeologist is pretty bad.
 
MOESAN said:
I think some new things happened in science after Voltaire and Emmanuel Kant, did they not?
Click to expand...
Yep, some things definitely did happen - forgery by the Guggenheim Fellowship in order to further their pseudoscientific cause.

Did you know if Voltaire was alive today, he would be jailed for the perspectives and theories he's told about? You're from France and you should know this.

(He was flirting with Queen Ekaterina II (Catherine II) of Russia for over 20 years by postal mail, I got some of those letters right in the closet in the room right next to me. lol)

Also, Immanuel Kant was the first man to suggest that the Earth revolved around the Sun, in a time when most Europeans thought it was the exact opposite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

Haplogroup_F_(Y-DNA).PNG




Funny how haplogroup F is pictured in the mid there in India, the biggest bubble. But now this map is outdated and not relevant, apparently. (something tells me some corrupt people aren't telling the truth. And I wouldn't be surprised if haplogroup R1a, R1b and R2 are actually haplogroup F or haplogroup K. Am I suggesting Haplogroup science is fixed by people with an agenda? Conspiracy theory? Yep.)
 
Basque has around a 60% of loanwords, mainly from Spanish as I remember, but of course my memory is not the best, so you can check out what said an expert as Voltaire about it.
 
berun said:
Basque has around a 60% of loanwords, mainly from Spanish as I remember, but of course my memory is not the best, so you can check out what said an expert as Voltaire about it.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Berun, you answered in my place. It's true I don't speak Basque language (we say 'Euskareg' in modern breton!) bit I red some simple explanations about ergative language, and I've at hand two basque language booklets and can easily see the modern Castillan borrowed words in it, it doesn't need being a specialist! Without speaking about older loanwords which need deeper knowledge.

@Virtue: I never said I was an expert of Basque. But I maintain 'ergative' is not the mark of some "primitivity" in language or of some way of life specificity; it seems it could be a kind of "passivity" or "destiny undercoming" philosophy of life, in an intuitive analysis (not too scientific, I avow). Even some accusative languages have some specific syntaxic variants evocating same tendancies, spite their accusative status (Celtics by instance).
But we are far here from the present thread and that could be kept on in a thread open in Linguistic, even if I lack time to read and answer every matter in this rich forum, helas.
No offense, of course!
 
I think that I will never visit Louisiana after checking how its hot sun is so hard as to demyelinate so fast a bunch of inner wires.
 
Thanks for sharing, Angela.

About the absence of autosomal and Y DNA, they may keep it for another paper. mt-DNA is much easier and faster to read.
 
berun said:
Finaly the discussion about M52 seems sterile as Bernard in Anthrogenetica has found that the sample is not showing other mutations related to such haplo. Well, no surprise if the authors label such haplo "frequent" in south Asia; allways it's good to check sources and use own logics as out there are many people with university degree got from good memory alone. The conclusion seems by now that NW Caucasus was colonized by Anatolian farmers delivering there pre-proto-Kartvelian or NW Caucasian. Also it will be necessary to check more to distinguish their expected substrate CHG DNA from the similar Iran_Neolithic DNA from Azerbadjan (latu sensu) spread in the Copper Age, otherwise we will continue to discuss from data worked with the ass.
Click to expand...

I honestly doubt Maykop were descend of Anatolian farmers. A few mtDNA resembling those of Anatolian Farmers don't tell much. I would be suprised if Maykop didn't turn out as CHG/Iran_Neo with more Villabruna like and less BE and some Anatolian_Neo admixture. yDNA will be quite interesting also. Since it doesn't seem that the CHG/Iran_Neo in Yamna came via Caucasus wifes alone.
 
Last edited:
Alan said:
I honestly doubt Maykop were descend of Anatolian farmers. A few mtDNA resembling those of Anatolian Farmers don't tell much. I would be suprised if Maykop didn't turn out as CHG/Iran_Neo with more Villabruna like and less Basal admixture. yDNA will be quite interesting also. Since it doesn't seem that the CHG/Iran_Neo in Yamna came via Caucasus wifes alone.
Click to expand...

I admit that I have thought about early R1b cattle herders coming from Iran instead of eastern Anatolia/Armenia. It would make more sense in the light of the Middle Easter admixture found in Yamna being mainly CHG-like and not Anatolian Farmer-like. Cows were domesticated c. 8500 BCE, but didn't appear in the Pontic Steppe/North Caucasus until about 5500 BCE, I think. That leaves an awful lot of time for cattle herders to have first ventured east to Iran before crossing the Caucasus. In fact that may be why we see more R1b (both M269 and M73) in Daghestan than around Maykop in the Northwest Caucasus. So it increasingly looks like I missed a step when I drew an arrow from Kurdistan to the Steppe in my R1b migration map. I should probably have had R1b backtrack east to Iran first, then pass along the Caspian coast through Azerbaijan and Daghestan, which is the typical route to cross the Caucasus.
 
I still doubt proto IE crossed the Caucasus with cattle.
Didn't cattle arrive on the Pontic steppe along with Balkan copper?
 
@Alan

It's not a few mtDNA linking Maykop with Anatolia but four in five, it's an impressive proportion. To that its possible to add up the high freq of G2a, also charactetistic of Anatolian Neolithics. Occam's razor makes the rest. Of course I'm not denying "Iranian" genes from Leylatepe but it will be necessary to wait for Y-DNA and admixtures, but allways taking into account the possible CHG Mesolithics living before all it.
 
Maverick said:
I dont take offense, I just hate ignorance
Click to expand...

A mental transfer from Virtue to Maverick? Or another man of the same sect?

Your nerves blind you, you are too sharp-reacting (and a bit respectless)! It's a pity because otherwise you could maybe tell us some interesting things about Baskic? In a linguistic thread. And here I'm not moking you.
I'm ignorant as all the people are ignorant in a big part, even the scholars, even YOU. But I'm not stupid (I hope).
Speaking about Baskic and loans or no loans, you HAD TO precise if you were speaking about ancient Baskic (or proto-B) or about current Baskic. If you compare ancient Baskic to present day English, you're mistaking; you would have to speak about Anglo-Saxon or even old Germanic. Just a point.
I suppose the Maverick's future will be short enough here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 26359 times.

Back
Top