Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 110

Thread: Eneolithic aDNA from Lake Baikal Siberia

  1. #26
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,194
    Points
    28,146
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,146, Level: 51
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 504
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    So your evidence for an alleged 'EHG' (that's awfully specific for a haplogroup of this age) migration all across Eurasia is a single U5a in Lokomotiv? Just stop.
    There's also loads of U4 and U2e from other pre-farming Siberians. Those are the signature EHG mtDNA haplogroups. R1a1 and R1b1 are the signature EHG Y DNA haplogroups, so it is no surprise to find R1a1 Y DNA in the same people who had some U5a mtDNA.

  2. #27
    MarkoZ
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    There's also loads of U4 and U2e from other pre-farming Siberians. Those are the signature EHG mtDNA haplogroups. R1a1 and R1b1 are the signature EHG Y DNA haplogroups, so it is no surprise to find R1a1 Y DNA in the same people who had some U5a mtDNA.
    Cheddar Gorge/Loschbour are 'EHGs'?

    R1b1 is an 'EHG' marker?

    I'd ask you to explain your reasoning behind these claims, but that's just too absurd.

  3. #28
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    23-07-11
    Posts
    131
    Points
    6,293
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,293, Level: 23
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 257
    Overall activity: 5.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a

    Country: Russian Federation



    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    If Eneolithic Siberia was Q1a before R1a1 or anything else. How can some individuals still claim R1 Haplogroups reached the Steppes directly from Siberia via the "North Eurasian route"? I bet my money on South_Central Asia being the homeland of R1a in the Steppes.
    Surely R1 folks migrated from Siberia via Central Asia and entered Europe from the Iranian Plateau.


  4. #29
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,689
    Points
    680,326
    Level
    100
    Points: 680,326, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpenjager View Post
    Maciamo, haplogroup T-M184 has been only found in some Lithuanian populations but not Estonian. In Estonia is found L2-L595 and L1-M22.

    About mtDNA in Kazakhs from
    Kosh-Agachsky District are found:
    R = 43.7% (R0 = 13.1%, R10 = 1.4%, F = 3,5%, U = 14%, JT = 5.5%, B = 6.2%) and N = 17.8% (N1 = 5.5%, N9 = 6% and A= 6.3%).


    R = 43.7%

    R0 = 13.1%
    13.1% H

    1.4% R10

    3.5% F =>Found together R1a1 in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=

    U = 14%
    3.5% pre-K
    0.7 U
    0.7 U1b
    1.4% U3
    0.7% U4
    5.6% U5 =>Found in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=
    1.4% U7

    JT = 5.5%
    0.7 J
    4.8% T2a

    6.2% B

    N = 17.8%

    N1 = 5.5%
    3.4% I
    2.1% N1a

    N9 = 6%
    5.3% N9
    0.7% Y

    6.3% A
    =>Found together C3 in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<= =>Found together K* in Early Neolithic Shamanka II<=


    mtDNA modern Buryats from Lake Baikal (Pakendorf 2003);

    Sample 1 = 61
    R = 8.1%
    F = 1.6% =>Found together R1a1 in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=
    B = 4.9%
    H = 1.6%

    N = 1.6%

    Sample 2 = 25
    R = 28%
    B = 4%
    H = 4%
    V = 4%
    J = 4%
    U = 12% =>Found in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=

    Sample 3 = 295
    R = 21.7%
    B = 3.4%
    F = 3.1% =>Found together R1a1 in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=
    R* = 0.3%
    H = 6.8%
    HV = 1%
    J = 0.7%
    T = 1%
    UK = 5.4% =>Found in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=

    N = 9.4%
    N* = 2.4%
    A = 5% =>Found together C3 in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<= =>Found together K* in Early Neolithic Shamanka II<=
    Y = 1.4%
    I = 0.3%
    X = 0.3%


    It's interesting that HV and U3 also show up in that region alongside N1a and I. These are the haplogroups that I linked to the original T1a Neolithic tribes based on data from Northeast Africa (see above link).

    Y-haplogroup T was found in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levant and in the LBK culture, so it surely played a major role in the early development of agriculture, or more specifically goat/sheep domestication as it is found at high frequencies in the Horn of Africa, where people have been goat/sheep and cattle herders since the Neolithic (cattle would have been brought by R1b-V88, found at high frequency in the Hausa of Sudan).
    My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

  5. #30
    Baron Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-06-12
    Posts
    332
    Points
    7,281
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,281, Level: 25
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 269
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-BY593
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2

    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Surely people are aware of R1b-L754 and its relation to R1a on the R1 tree? Since finding Neadertal admixture in Villabruna L754+[12 200-11 800 BC] sample in non trivial amounts. Suggesting an area inhabited by Neadertal. Villabruna (Italia), Epigravettian, 12 200-11 800 BC I0122, Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara (Russia), 5200-4000 BCE

  6. #31
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,689
    Points
    240,397
    Level
    100
    Points: 240,397, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Has this paper been posted yet? It's 2016, so pretty up to date...

    See:
    "Biogeochemical data from the Shamanka II Early Neolithic cemetery on southwest Baikal: Chronological and dietary patterns."

    "Abstract

    A data set of 116 AMS radiocarbon dates on human skeletal remains from an Early Neolithic (c. 7500–6700 cal BP) Shamanka II cemetery on Lake Baikal, Siberia, and associated carbon and nitrogen stable isotope values are analyzed for insights about site chronology and dietary variation of this group of hunter–gatherers. All dates are corrected for the Freshwater Reservoir Effect (FRE) according to the correction equations developed using paired radiocarbon dates on human and terrestrial faunal remains from the same graves (Bronk Ramsey et al., 2014; Schulting et al., 2014). Further examination of the data set provides the following main findings. First, it identified the presence of two phases of cemetery use at Shamanka II, each of quite different duration, separated by a relatively long period of disuse lasting as much as 300–550 years. Second, it demonstrated presence of four groups of people during the long Phase 1 each with a slightly different dietary pattern: three displaying a temporal change toward greater reliance on aquatic foods and one group, which apparently did not experience a diet shift. Third, the results show that all individuals from the short Phase 2 evince a clear chronological trend towards increased dietary contribution of aquatic food and that this pattern repeats closely one of the three trends present in Phase 1. While a generally similar chronological dietary trend has been found recently also among the Early Neolithic groups from the nearby Angara valley (Weber et al., 2015), the Shamanka II population appears to be much more diverse in dietary terms than its neighbours to the northeast."

    I think the difference may have been based on regional resource variation.

    There's also this book with a nice section on the Lake Baikal Neolithic settlements. The craniometry seems to indicate the arrival of a new group in the late Neolithic, which they date to 6200 BP.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=QN...ements&f=false

    There doesn't seem to have been any substantial change in lifestyle or culture with the advent of the metal ages, other than that they incorporated some copper alloy tools and ornaments.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  7. #32
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,463
    Points
    56,443
    Level
    73
    Points: 56,443, Level: 73
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 607
    Overall activity: 18.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    The rc-dates for Lokomotiv I've seen range from 8100-6900 BP.
    Where did you see these dates ??? I've seen 72506040 years BP (61254885 years BC).

    This is from Mooder et al. 2006 who published some mtDNA from the Lokomotiv cemetery:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16323184

    Quote: "Noncalibrated radiocarbon dates (Isotrace, University of Toronto) from Lokomotiv suggest that this cemetery was used from approximately 7250–6040 BP. These dates correspond to the period between 6125–4885 BC when calibrated with the methodology of Stuiver et al. (1998)"

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    Can you provide a source for that?
    See Extended Data Table 1 from Fu et al., "The Genetic History of Ice Age Europe", 2016:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Ice_Age_Europe

    Karelian R1a is dated to 88007950 years BP in this study: https://s21.postimg.io/4z3cnibiv/Karelian_HG.png

    "Ancestral Journeys" dates it to 68506000 years BC: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml


  8. #33
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,463
    Points
    56,443
    Level
    73
    Points: 56,443, Level: 73
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 607
    Overall activity: 18.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    R1b1 is an 'EHG' marker?
    Yes.

    Samples from Haak 2015, Mathieson 2015 and Lazaridis 2016:

    https://s13.postimg.io/8bzf0tdw7/EHG_R1b.png

    Samara HG was genetically an EHG (identical to Karelian HG).

    Khvalynsk culture was in vast majority EHG-descended as well.



    Screenshots from: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org

    ============
    Edit:

    For some reason I cannot add attachments to my posts any more.

    Do you, other users, also have this problem?
    Last edited by Tomenable; 04-09-16 at 20:51.

  9. #34
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    isn't the Buthanese T2 ?

    this is Ray Banks :

    T2 PH110 (2913966 G->T) Armenians, ?Bhutanese

    I guess in Y Full it is T*

    TL452 * CTS573 * CTS11511/PF5582+240 SNPsformed 42600 ybp, TMRCA 26800 ybpinfo
    • T*
      • id:YF03586

    • T-L206CTS10618 * Y3821/Z19862 * L490+91 SNPsformed 26800 ybp, TMRCA 16000 ybp


    split from T1-L206 26800 years ago
    T2 - PH110 and all the others SNP's found with it is a new line only discovered this year.................too early to decipher anything
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  10. #35
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    It's interesting that HV and U3 also show up in that region alongside N1a and I. These are the haplogroups that I linked to the original T1a Neolithic tribes based on data from Northeast Africa (see above link).

    Y-haplogroup T was found in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levant and in the LBK culture, so it surely played a major role in the early development of agriculture, or more specifically goat/sheep domestication as it is found at high frequencies in the Horn of Africa, where people have been goat/sheep and cattle herders since the Neolithic (cattle would have been brought by R1b-V88, found at high frequency in the Hausa of Sudan).
    The only "herder" marker which makes sense due to age and geography from the ancient times is R1b-V88 .......they came from north of the zargos mountains and travelled through the levant into egypt, east-africa, north africa, sub-sahara, west africa, arabian peninsula and more..................its the only marker which could have herded cattle, sheep and goats and has no "farming" finds to them.

  11. #36
    MarkoZ
    Guest


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    Where did you see these dates ??? I've seen 72506040 years BP (61254885 years BC).

    This is from Mooder et al. 2006 who published some mtDNA from the Lokomotiv cemetery:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16323184

    Quote: "Noncalibrated radiocarbon dates (Isotrace, University of Toronto) from Lokomotiv suggest that this cemetery was used from approximately 7250–6040 BP. These dates correspond to the period between 6125–4885 BC when calibrated with the methodology of Stuiver et al. (1998)"



    See Extended Data Table 1 from Fu et al., "The Genetic History of Ice Age Europe", 2016:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Ice_Age_Europe

    Karelian R1a is dated to 88007950 years BP in this study: https://s21.postimg.io/4z3cnibiv/Karelian_HG.png

    "Ancestral Journeys" dates it to 68506000 years BC: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml

    Fair enough, I think I had the uncalibrated dates in mind. However, I could not confirm the dates postulated in this image of yours for the hunter gatherer from the Oleni Ostrov cemetery. The actual date appears to be 7,500 BP.

    Also, R1b1 is emphatically not an 'EHG' marker - it's too old to be assigned to any kind of autosomal makeup. The fact that you insist that it is only reveals your bias.

  12. #37
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-03-11
    Posts
    246
    Points
    9,303
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,303, Level: 28
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 47
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Spain - Asturias



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Y-chromosome data from different localities of Hulun Buir Aimak, Inner Mongolia (Malyarchuk 2016):

    Barghuts (n=76)
    C2c1a1a1-M407 55.3%
    N1c1-Tat 27.6%
    C2-M217 10.5%
    T1a-M70 1.3%
    R2a-M124 1.3%
    O2-M122 1.3%
    J2a-M410 1.3%
    G-M201 1.3%

    "In the 12–13th centuries, the Barga (Barghuts) Mongols appeared as tribes near Lake Baikal, named Bargujin."
    Last edited by Alpenjager; 04-09-16 at 23:29.

  13. #38
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,463
    Points
    56,443
    Level
    73
    Points: 56,443, Level: 73
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 607
    Overall activity: 18.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    Fair enough, I think I had the uncalibrated dates in mind. However, I could not confirm the dates postulated in this image of yours for the hunter gatherer from the Oleni Ostrov cemetery. The actual date appears to be 7,500 BP.
    This is inaccurate, obsolete dating. More recent dating done with more accurate techniques shows 8800-8000 BP.

    Let's stick to the most recent available dates. This 8800-8000 BP has been published in 2016, a few months ago.

    By the way - even 7500 BP would be still older than Lokomotiv (which was dated to 7250-6040 BP).

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    Also, R1b1 is emphatically not an 'EHG' marker - it's too old to be assigned to any kind of autosomal makeup.
    The most striking evidence that R1b is an EHG marker is the almost total lack of R1b in aDNA from places other than Russia before the Bronze Age. The majority of Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age samples of R1b are from Russia. The "Big Picture" which emerges from aDNA when it comes to dominant haplogroups in various regions prior to the Neolithization of Europe, is this:

    Region: dominant "indigeneous" Y-DNA haplogroups

    1. Western and Central Europe: I2a, I1, I2c, C1a2
    2. European part of Russia: R1a, R1b, Q1a
    3. Caucasus region (Georgia): J1b, J2a
    4. Western Asia*: G2, E1, J2, R2, T, G1, H2, L1, F3


    *Mostly samples from Anatolia, the Levant and from Iran.

    The most mysterious - due to their scarcity in aDNA so far - are haplogroups J1 and N1c. We have J1b in a hunter-gatherer from Georgia, but then there is a long "gap" and the next relevant sample - J1a dated to 2500-1950 BC - is from the Levant (Ain Ghazal, Early Bronze Age). When it comes to N1c the oldest sample in Europe, dated to 2500 BC, is from the region of Smolensk.

    It seems, that J1 was a relatively minor lineage until it became associated with Proto-Semitic people and then spread with them. Today, many subclades of J1a and also some subclades of J1b correlate strongly with populations of Semitic origin.

    any kind of autosomal makeup.
    I used the term "EHG" in its geographical meaning. EHG = Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer. No matter what autosomal makeup someone had, if he lived in Eastern Europe (including the European part of Russia) and was a hunter-gatherer (or descended primarily from local Eastern hunter-gatherers), then I use the term "EHG" to denote such a prehistoric person. It is possible indeed, that there were several hunter-gatherer groups with different autosomal makeups living in prehistoric Easternmost Europe.

    So I'm not saying that "autosomally EHG people" were the only group of hunter-gatherers in Mesolithic Eastern Europe. There could be some autosomally Non-EHG groups in that region as well. However, there is no evidence for this so far.

  14. #39
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-03-11
    Posts
    246
    Points
    9,303
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,303, Level: 28
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 47
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Spain - Asturias



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post

    Region: dominant "indigeneous" Y-DNA haplogroups

    1. Western and Central Europe: I2a, I1, I2c, C1a2
    2. European part of Russia: R1a, R1b, Q1a
    3. Caucasus region (Georgia): J1b, J2a
    4. Western Asia*: G2, E1, J2, R2, T, G1, H2, L1, F3


    *Mostly samples from Anatolia, the Levant and from Iran.
    I would do some changes to your list:


    1. Western and Central Europe: I2a, I2c, C1a2, C1b
    2. Southeastern Europe / Anatolia: G2, I1, T1a, H2, L1a, I2c, R1b, C1a2
    3. Scandinavia: I2a, I2c
    4. European part of Russia: J1, R1a, R1b
    5. Caucasus region (Georgia): J1b, J2a
    6. Western Asia: R2, G1, J2
    7. Africa / Levant: E1b

  15. #40
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,463
    Points
    56,443
    Level
    73
    Points: 56,443, Level: 73
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 607
    Overall activity: 18.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    3. Scandinavia: I2a, I2c
    And I1 as well. Stora Förvar sample StF11 dated to 5500-5250 BC has been confirmed to be I1-M253.

    European part of Russia: J1, R1a, R1b
    Why is J1 listed first when we have more samples of both R1a and R1b? And we have one Q1a sample as well.

    That J1 singleton / outlier was probably an extinct subclade - so I didn't consider it as part of the "Big Picture".

    2. Southeastern Europe / Anatolia: G2, I1, T1a, H2, L1a, I2c, R1b
    There are actually no any samples of either I1 or R1b from Anatolia that are older than the Bronze Age.

    I2c in Anatolia was the result of admixture with WHG (Western Anatolians had ~15% of WHG ancestry).

    =================================

    StF11 from Scandinavia has been confirmed to be I1-M253 by several researchers (including Genetiker).

    Here is a list of several samples of I and C (it doesn't include most recent samples from Fu et al. 2016):

    The two oldest samples of I1 are from Scandinavia (Stora Karlsö) and from Central Europe (Hungary):

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

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

    Last edited by Tomenable; 05-09-16 at 00:15.

  16. #41
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,463
    Points
    56,443
    Level
    73
    Points: 56,443, Level: 73
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 607
    Overall activity: 18.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Southeastern Europe / Anatolia: (...) I2c (...) C1a2
    Please open Google Maps and check where are Mentese and Barcin located.

    These are two places in westernmost Turkey, almost at the gates of Europe.

    I consider I2c and C1a2 in that area as the result of gene flow from Europe.

    This gene flow is confirmed in autosomal DNA, which shows 10-15% WHG.

    ==============================

    As for C1a2 - it was probably Southern European (from Iberia to the Balkans).

    C1b
    Which sample was C1b ???

    Southeastern Europe / Anatolia
    IMHO there is not enough evidence that people in those regions were similar to each other to count them as one.

    A few samples of I2c and C1a2 in Anatolia only prove that there was some limited gene flow, but nothing more.

    We actually have not enough samples from Southeastern Europe. That single R1b from Villabruna was buried in Northern Italy, so it doesn't count as Southeastern Europe (even if his lineage originated from that region, as David Reich speculated).

  17. #42
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,463
    Points
    56,443
    Level
    73
    Points: 56,443, Level: 73
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 607
    Overall activity: 18.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    BTW - I2a1a and I2a1b could be treated as two separate haplogroups, because:

    I2a1a-L158 is 18300 years old - https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L158/
    I2a1b-M423 is 18300 years old - https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-M423/

    So I2a1a separated from I2a1b almost as long ago as R1a from R1b, for example.

    And I2c-L596 is 21700 years old - https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L596/

  18. #43
    MarkoZ
    Guest


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    This is inaccurate, obsolete dating. More recent dating done with more accurate techniques shows 8800-8000 BP.

    Let's stick to the most recent available dates. This 8800-8000 BP has been published in 2016, a few months ago.

    By the way - even 7500 BP would be still older than Lokomotiv (which was dated to 7250-6040 BP).



    The most striking evidence that R1b is an EHG marker is the almost total lack of R1b in aDNA from places other than Russia before the Bronze Age. The majority of Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age samples of R1b are from Russia. The "Big Picture" which emerges from aDNA when it comes to dominant haplogroups in various regions prior to the Neolithization of Europe, is this:

    Region: dominant "indigeneous" Y-DNA haplogroups

    1. Western and Central Europe: I2a, I1, I2c, C1a2
    2. European part of Russia: R1a, R1b, Q1a
    3. Caucasus region (Georgia): J1b, J2a
    4. Western Asia*: G2, E1, J2, R2, T, G1, H2, L1, F3


    *Mostly samples from Anatolia, the Levant and from Iran.

    The most mysterious - due to their scarcity in aDNA so far - are haplogroups J1 and N1c. We have J1b in a hunter-gatherer from Georgia, but then there is a long "gap" and the next relevant sample - J1a dated to 2500-1950 BC - is from the Levant (Ain Ghazal, Early Bronze Age). When it comes to N1c the oldest sample in Europe, dated to 2500 BC, is from the region of Smolensk.

    It seems, that J1 was a relatively minor lineage until it became associated with Proto-Semitic people and then spread with them. Today, many subclades of J1a and also some subclades of J1b correlate strongly with populations of Semitic origin.



    I used the term "EHG" in its geographical meaning. EHG = Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer. No matter what autosomal makeup someone had, if he lived in Eastern Europe (including the European part of Russia) and was a hunter-gatherer (or descended primarily from local Eastern hunter-gatherers), then I use the term "EHG" to denote such a prehistoric person. It is possible indeed, that there were several hunter-gatherer groups with different autosomal makeups living in prehistoric Easternmost Europe.

    So I'm not saying that "autosomally EHG people" were the only group of hunter-gatherers in Mesolithic Eastern Europe. There could be some autosomally Non-EHG groups in that region as well. However, there is no evidence for this so far.
    It is not the dating per se that leads to the observed discrepancies, it is the calibration. So the very same reservations apply to the findings pertaining to the cultures south of the Baikal. The most significant shift in paradigm, as far as I know, was Intcal09 - comparisons of findings from before and after this date necessarily fall short.

    Your claims about the 'big picture' can safely be discarded - the sampling of Eurasia is far too discrepant to allow for sweeping generalizations like this. However, you're specifically wrong about the connection of R1b1 and 'EHG' - this is geographically and genetically untenable as evidenced by the Italian Epigravettian and the specimen from Kura-Araxes which you conveniently ignored.

    I also take issue with your careless equating of uniparental markers and language families. A cursory reading of the modern distributions of haplotypes doesn't render void decades of research in linguistics & archeology. Grandiose claims like that betray a highly pseudoscientific mindset.

  19. #44
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    761
    Points
    7,357
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,357, Level: 25
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 193
    Overall activity: 3.0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoZ View Post
    It is not the dating per se that leads to the observed discrepancies, it is the calibration. So the very same reservations apply to the findings pertaining to the cultures south of the Baikal. The most significant shift in paradigm, as far as I know, was Intcal09 - comparisons of findings from before and after this date necessarily fall short.

    Your claims about the 'big picture' can safely be discarded - the sampling of Eurasia is far too discrepant to allow for sweeping generalizations like this. However, you're specifically wrong about the connection of R1b1 and 'EHG' - this is geographically and genetically untenable as evidenced by the Italian Epigravettian and the specimen from Kura-Araxes which you conveniently ignored.

    I also take issue with your careless equating of uniparental markers and language families. A cursory reading of the modern distributions of haplotypes doesn't render void decades of research in linguistics & archeology. Grandiose claims like that betray a highly pseudoscientific mindset.
    Karelia is still older, but not by much. It doesn't matter though. To say that R1b appears to have originated among hunters in Europe and on the Eurasian steppe is a correct statement.

    Villabruna is a proto-EHG.

    Please convince me otherwise. I think the best you'll get is for me to change my statement to "Villabruna looks exactly like one would expect a proto-EHG to look like."

    And we have R* in Siberia 20k bp, which appears to be unrelated to Villabruna. This just tells me that R has been on the Eurasian steppe following herds from, at the latest the LGM, all the way to the Mesolithic. Long enough to have been a Y-HG in many different populations. In fact, MA-1 appears to share a common ancestor with all of the ice age populations of Europe.

    **EDIT** Kura axes is the oldest R1b found yet in West Asia. This is seen after we see a sharp rise in admixture between all these populations.

  20. #45
    MarkoZ
    Guest


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    Karelia is still older, but not by much. It doesn't matter though. To say that R1b appears to have originated among hunters in Europe and on the Eurasian steppe is a correct statement.

    Villabruna is a proto-EHG.

    Please convince me otherwise. I think the best you'll get is for me to change my statement to "Villabruna looks exactly like one would expect a proto-EHG to look like."

    And we have R* in Siberia 20k bp, which appears to be unrelated to Villabruna. This just tells me that R has been on the Eurasian steppe following herds from, at the latest the LGM, all the way to the Mesolithic. Long enough to have been a Y-HG in many different populations. In fact, MA-1 appears to share a common ancestor with all of the ice age populations of Europe.

    **EDIT** Kura axes is the oldest R1b found yet in West Asia. This is seen after we see a sharp rise in admixture between all these populations.
    The Epigravettian is a partial continuance of the Central European Gravettian. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Villabruna is much closer to the hunter gatherers of Western Europe. In fact, it is the later Western Hunter Gatherers that show closer affinity to the hunter-gatherers of Eastern Europe and ultimately something related to the Afontova Gora specimen relative to the Epigravettians. This is even more evident in the Scandinavian hunter gatherers, who represent the next gradation with yet more eastern affinity. The hunter gatherers from the Oleni Ostrov cemetery are the most eastern transitional population within the geographic boundaries of Europe, as is expected from their location. It's only a matter of finding the right ancestral populations, although somewhere in the middle of the Villabruna-Afontova pole appears to be accurate enough.

    I'm not sure what your point is with regards to the Mal'ta-Buret burial. Clearly, a single R* in the Siberian fridge is hardly informative. This environment favours preservation too well, so all kinds of odd things pile up there. You wouldn't argue that K2* is Siberian because of Ust'-Ishim, would you?

  21. #46
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,463
    Points
    56,443
    Level
    73
    Points: 56,443, Level: 73
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 607
    Overall activity: 18.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    MarkoZ,
    However, you're specifically wrong about the connection of R1b1 and 'EHG' - this is geographically and genetically untenable as evidenced by the Italian Epigravettian and the specimen from Kura-Araxes which you conveniently ignored.
    You should pay more attention to subclades to which they belonged. The vast majority of modern R1b in Eurasia is M269+. Villabruna hunter from North Italy was R1b1a-L278 but it was also derived for several additional SNPs which are on a separate branch of R1b, not the one leading to M269. Samara EHG from Russia was R1b1a-P297+ (which is the very branch leading to M269): https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P297/ He was on the branch leading to M269, even though he was not derived for it himself. But still that EHG subclade was closer in the tree to R1b-M269 than Villabruna one. Kura-Araxes I1635 from Kalavan (2619-2465 BC) was R1b1a1b-CTS3187. This means that Kura-Araxes was negative for M269 mutation, despite being such a recent sample. This CTS3187 is present in some ethnic Armenians today, but it is very rare.
    I also take issue with your careless equating of uniparental markers and language families. A cursory reading of the modern distributions of haplotypes doesn't render void decades of research in linguistics & archeology.
    Of course that Y-DNA subclades can be linked with languages because language - just like Y-DNA - is usually transmitted paternally from father to son. So there clearly is a strong correlation. And archaeological cultures have been linked with languages as well. For example Khvalynsk culture has been linked by Marija Gimbutas and several other scholars with Early Proto-Indo-Europeans. That was long before ancient DNA studies became available. Currently ancient DNA shows that Khvalynsk people had R1a and R1b haplogroups. These people have been previously linked with Proto-Indo-European language. Scholars claimed that Khvalynsk people were PIE-speakers long ago. Currently we have learned what Y-DNA haplogroups did Khvalynsk people carry. Thanks to this, we can also link their Y-DNA haplogroups with PIE language.

  22. #47
    MarkoZ
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    MarkoZ, You should pay more attention to subclades to which they belonged. Remember that the vast majority of modern R1b in Eurasia is M269+. Villabruna hunter from North Italy was R1b1a-L278 but it was also derived for several additional SNPs which are on a separate branch of R1b, not the one leading to M269. Samara EHG from Russia was R1b1a-P297+ (which is the very branch leading to M269): https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P297/ He was on the branch leading to M269, even though he was not derived for it himself. But still that EHG subclade was closer in the tree to R1b-M269 than Villabruna one. Kura-Araxes I1635 from Kalavan (2619-2465 BC) was R1b1a1b-CTS3187. This means that Kura-Araxes was negative for M269 mutation, despite being such a recent sample. This CTS3187 is present in some ethnic Armenians today, but it is very rare.
    I am well aware of the subclades - if you took the time to read the last few posts you'll notice that I was contesting the supposition that R1b1 is an 'EHG' marker.

    You followed up on with an even more extremist position:

    The most striking evidence that R1b is an EHG marker is the almost total lack of R1b in aDNA from places other than Russia before the Bronze Age.


    Evidently, it is you who should have paid attention to the subclades.



  23. #48
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,463
    Points
    56,443
    Level
    73
    Points: 56,443, Level: 73
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 607
    Overall activity: 18.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    As for the "Y-DNA and language are both passed from father to son as a package" thing:

    Of course there are exceptions to this rule, which are known as "ethno-linguistic assimilation".

    This happened for example in the Roman Empire (adoption of Latin language by "barbarians" = Latinization; this is how half of Europe started to speak Romance languages) and in the HRE (adoption of German language by Non-German peoples, Slavs, Balts, etc. = Germanization), as well as in case of adoption of Spanish and Portuguese languages by Native Americans, and also adoption of English language by every immigrant in the USA. Etc., etc. However, such assimilation is most likely to happen in highly civilized societies, such as Rome or Germany; or in Hellenistic kingdoms and later in the Byzantine Empire (where Greek language was adopted by many of originally Non-Greek peoples). In more primitive societies - such as kinship-based, patriarchal tribes - that was a less common occurence, even though it also happened on some occasions.

    That's why ancient DNA is needed to provide evidence on ethno-linguistic origins of various lineages.

    Just because some lineage is common among speakers of "Language X" today, does not necessarily mean that it was common already among speakers of "Proto-Language X", since it could be assimilated. We can see this e.g. among Turkic-speaking groups.

  24. #49
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,463
    Points
    56,443
    Level
    73
    Points: 56,443, Level: 73
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 607
    Overall activity: 18.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Evidently, it is you who should have paid attention to the subclades.
    I do pay attention. I wrote that EHG subclades are most closely related to M269.

    Then M269+ (but already mostly Z2103) "suddenly" shows up in Yamnaya culture.

    Where did that M269>L23>Z2103 found in Yamnaya come from ???

    There is no evidence of any M269+ outside of Russia before Yamnaya.

    So IMHO it was just one particularly succesful EHG lineage / "clan".

    As for R1a M198>M417 - it can't be found in EHG either, it only shows up - also very "suddenly" - in Corded Ware for the first time. However, just like in case of M269>L23, I assume that M198>M417 was a particularly successful EHG lineage. Some other EHG lineages became extinct.

    That was probably due to the violent nature of Early PIE societies.

    There was constant competition between "clans" and many EHG lineages got extinct, while a few succeeded.

  25. #50
    MarkoZ
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    Of course that Y-DNA subclades can be linked with languages because language - just like Y-DNA - is usually transmitted paternally from father to son. So there clearly is a strong correlation. And archaeological cultures have been linked with languages as well. For example Khvalynsk culture has been linked by Marija Gimbutas and several other scholars with Early Proto-Indo-Europeans. That was long before ancient DNA studies became available. Currently ancient DNA shows that Khvalynsk people had R1a and R1b haplogroups. These people have been previously linked with Proto-Indo-European language. Scholars claimed that Khvalynsk people were PIE-speakers long ago. Currently we have learned what Y-DNA haplogroups did Khvalynsk people carry. Thanks to this, we can also link their Y-DNA haplogroups with PIE language.

    It's a gross simplification to say that language is usually transmitted from father to son. The imposition of languages by elite dominance of males became common from the iron age onwards, but this was a function of advanced military & political organization rather than paternity.

    Regarding Khvalynsk: there's nothing about the material culture that indicates any kind of linguistic affiliation. Though I'm sure you've made up your mind already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    As for the "Y-DNA and language are both passed from father to son as a package" thing:

    Of course there are exceptions to this rule, which are known as "ethno-linguistic assimilation".

    This happened for example in the Roman Empire (adoption of Latin language by "barbarians" = Latinization; this is how half of Europe started to speak Romance languages) and in the HRE (adoption of German language by Non-German peoples, Slavs, Balts, etc. = Germanization), as well as in case of adoption of Spanish and Portuguese languages by Native Americans, and also adoption of English language by every immigrant in the USA. Etc., etc. However, such assimilation is most likely to happen in highly civilized societies, such as Rome or Germany; or in Hellenistic kingdoms and later in the Byzantine Empire (where Greek language was adopted by many of originally Non-Greek peoples). In more primitive societies - such as kinship-based, patriarchal tribes - that was a less common occurence, even though it also happened on some occasions.

    That's why ancient DNA is needed to provide evidence on ethno-linguistic origins of various lineages.

    Just because some lineage is common among speakers of "Language X" today, does not necessarily mean that it was common already among speakers of "Proto-Language X", since it could be assimilated. We can see this e.g. among Turkic-speaking groups.
    History and pre-history can hardly be compared in this case. But thanks for stating what everyone knows already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post


    I do pay attention. I wrote that EHG subclades are most closely related to M269.

    Read again.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •