Hitler's Y-DNA?

[LeBrok]

Okay. Where are these papers?

Can anyone provide link or reference? From what I've been reading it was haplogroup G that had a dominant presence in neolithic times.

In ancient times slavery was the norm. Farmers were territorial, they still are. Throughout history agricultural peoples have treated hunter-gatherers as pests. Ancient times were brutal. Mesopotamians had slaves. In the earliest records of mankind, slavery was being documented.

Lots of people are defensive about the E haplogroup y-chromosome issue.

E1b1b is apparently did not develop from E haplogroups that could have been present in Neolithic Europe.

here is one:http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31362-Neolithic-western-Carpathian-Basin-356-pages

The truth is that probably no major haplogroup developed in Europe, except maybe I? We don't have enough data yet to conclude true European haplogroup. They all might be from immigrants.
Also keep in mind that Y chromosome is just 2% of whole human genome and have very little to do if any with how people behave. It is mostly about differentiation between sexes.

 

[Salmon]

here is one:http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31362-Neolithic-western-Carpathian-Basin-356-pages

The truth is that probably no major haplogroup developed in Europe, except maybe I? We don't have enough data yet to conclude true European haplogroup. They all might be from immigrants.
Also keep in mind that Y chromosome is just 2% of whole human genome and have very little to do if any with how people behave. It is mostly about differentiation between sexes.

The area in question is in Hungary.

This researcher concludes that the subjects in the Carpathian Basin originated in the Near East and hunter gatherers had negligible contribution to the maternal and paternal gene pool. They were rather homogeneous. Early Neolithic people there belonged to G, F, and I. During them middle/late neolithic period foreign populations moved in. Three new y-chromosome haplogroups were seen... J, C, and E1b1b at certain sites. 5000BC to 4000BC.


32 individuals tested. Two remains had E1b1b out of 32 total. There were found at 2 sites. 1 at Sopot and 1 at Lengyel. These 2 sites had the most "diverse" bodies lying around. The E1b1b y-haplogroup originates in Africa and author of the paper makes note of that.

All the samples are dated between 5790 BC and 3900 BC.

E1b1b remains were found among cultures that lived between 5000-4800 BC and 5000-4300BC.

According to other data and other research the author of the paper concludes that the E1b1b did not have a significant presence in the area. The neolithic farmers were of Asian/Eurasian origin.

Nothing in the study contradicts what I wrote before.

 

[LeBrok]

The area in question is in Hungary.

This researcher concludes that the subjects in the Carpathian Basin originated in the Near East and hunter gatherers had negligible contribution to the maternal and paternal gene pool. They were rather homogeneous. Early Neolithic people there belonged to G, F, and I. During them middle/late neolithic period foreign populations moved in. Three new y-chromosome haplogroups were seen... J, C, and E1b1b at certain sites. 5000BC to 4000BC.


32 individuals tested. Two remains had E1b1b out of 32 total. There were found at 2 sites. 1 at Sopot and 1 at Lengyel. These 2 sites had the most "diverse" bodies lying around. The E1b1b y-haplogroup originates in Africa and author of the paper makes note of that.

All the samples are dated between 5790 BC and 3900 BC.

E1b1b remains were found among cultures that lived between 5000-4800 BC and 5000-4300BC.

According to other data and other research the author of the paper concludes that the E1b1b did not have a significant presence in the area. The neolithic farmers were of Asian/Eurasian origin.

Nothing in the study contradicts what I wrote before.

Technically it doesn't. My point was that E was found in Neolithic Europe. I had a feeling that you hoped that it wasn't.

Edit:
Actually you did say the contradiction, but in different thread:

They were not in Europe before 4900-3000 BC.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-U5-haplogroup?p=461211&viewfull=1#post461211

 

[Salmon]

Technically it doesn't. My point was that E was found in Neolithic Europe. I had a feeling that you hoped that it wasn't.

Edit:
Actually you did say the contradiction, but in different thread:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-U5-haplogroup?p=461211&viewfull=1#post461211

They were not there in the early Neolithic. This is no evidence of a sizable population, just 2 bodies found in Hungary that could have come from anywhere. They could have been taken there by J haplogroup dominated groups that wandered there from North Africa and the Middle East.


Eurasian crops and livestock had reached the Middle East and North Africa prior to 5000BC. Eurasians invaded North Africa 12,000-10,000 years ago, long before these people in the Carpathian Basin lived.

The Eurasian agricultural practices and animals were important in Ancient Egyptian culture. They grew wheat, barley, Eurasian legumes, and they had dogs (which originated in Eurasia). Before the Egyptians there were likely Eurasians farming the land with their Eurasian crops and livestock.

If Eurasians walked into Africa 12,000-10,000 B.C. they had a long time to set up routes and networks into Eurasia. There could have been trade or interaction between the people in the Carpathian Basin and people in other places. Native Africans had 5000 years to learn Eurasian ways. By the time 5000-3000 BC came along, some E1b1b haplogroup males could have hitched a ride with a caravan.

 

[Maleth]

They were not there in the early Neolithic. This is no evidence of a sizable population, just 2 bodies found in Hungary that could have come from anywhere.

I dont think that thousands of skeletons have been studied so far :grin:

They could have been taken there by J haplogroup dominated groups that wandered there from North Africa and the Middle East.

Like hoovered the caves and fed the dogs :grin:

Eurasian crops and livestock had reached the Middle East and North Africa prior to 5000BC. Eurasians invaded North Africa 12,000-10,000 years ago, long before these people in the Carpathian Basin lived.

How interesting.

If Eurasians walked into Africa 12,000-10,000 B.C. they had a long time to set up routes and networks into Eurasia. There could have been trade or interaction between the people in the Carpathian Basin and people in other places. Native Africans had 5000 years to learn Eurasian ways. By the time 5000-3000 BC came along, some E1b1b haplogroup males could have hitched a ride with a caravan.

or maybe got a free ride on the train...you never know

 

[LeBrok]

They were not there in the early Neolithic. This is no evidence of a sizable population, just 2 bodies found in Hungary that could have come from anywhere. They could have been taken there by J haplogroup dominated groups that wandered there from North Africa and the Middle East.

Well, you said Neolithic before, now you claim you meant Early Neolithic. In this case you base your argument on pure assumption.

Eurasian crops and livestock had reached the Middle East and North Africa prior to 5000BC. Eurasians invaded North Africa 12,000-10,000 years ago, long before these people in the Carpathian Basin lived.

So what, do you have their haplogroups?

The Eurasian agricultural practices and animals were important in Ancient Egyptian culture. They grew wheat, barley, Eurasian legumes, and they had dogs (which originated in Eurasia). Before the Egyptians there were likely Eurasians farming the land with their Eurasian crops and livestock.

The earliest example of domestication of dog/wolf comes is from 20kya from Europe, hunter gatherer society. It has nothing to do with Near Eastern husbandry. Otherwise I don't know where you going with this example.

If Eurasians walked into Africa 12,000-10,000 B.C. they had a long time to set up routes and networks into Eurasia. There could have been trade or interaction between the people in the Carpathian Basin and people in other places. Native Africans had 5000 years to learn Eurasian ways. By the time 5000-3000 BC came along, some E1b1b haplogroup males could have hitched a ride with a caravan.

It is possible that E1b1b went into Europe with consecutive Neolithic waves of farmers during Neolithic. It is as valid, at the moment, as them being in first wave, in small undetectable so far, proportions. We don't have enough samples to be completely sure. It is also possible that they showed up during Mesolithic as hunter gatherers in South Europe, and where picked up by farmers, the same way I2 was. All we know for sure they were in Central Europe during mid Neolithic, that's the fact. The rest is only speculation.
What I can't get is why you are so strongly clinging to your speculation, ignoring equally possible other scenarios? For some reason you hate the idea that E1b1b could have been in Europe earlier. Why is that?

 

[Salmon]

Well, you said Neolithic before, now you claim you meant Early Neolithic. In this case you base your argument on pure assumption.


So what, do you have their haplogroups?

The earliest example of domestication of dog/wolf comes is from 20kya from Europe, hunter gatherer society. It has nothing to do with Near Eastern husbandry. Otherwise I don't know where you going with this example.

It is possible that E1b1b went into Europe with consecutive Neolithic waves of farmers during Neolithic. It is as valid, at the moment, as them being in first wave, in small undetectable so far, proportions. We don't have enough samples to be completely sure. It is also possible that they showed up during Mesolithic as hunter gatherers in South Europe, and where picked up by farmers, the same way I2 was. All we know for sure they were in Central Europe during mid Neolithic, that's the fact. The rest is only speculation.
What I can't get is why you are so strongly clinging to your speculation, ignoring equally possible other scenarios? For some reason you hate the idea that E1b1b could have been in Europe earlier. Why is that?

The domestication of dogs is controversial. Many studies link dogs to Central Asia around 50,000-30,000 years ago.
http://gu.com/p/495my/stw
Study that claims dogs could have been domesticated 35,000 years ago.


http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v108/n5/full/hdy2011114a.html
Here is a study claiming they come from Southern East Asia.



E1b1b is not present in Europe prior or near the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution in Eurasia. It's just not there. In the Carpathian study it shows up between 5000-3000 BC, 5000-7000 years after the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution.

 

[LeBrok]

The domestication of dogs is controversial. Many studies link dogs to Central Asia around 50,000-30,000 years ago.
http://gu.com/p/495my/stw
Study that claims dogs could have been domesticated 35,000 years ago.


http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v108/n5/full/hdy2011114a.html
Here is a study claiming they come from Southern East Asia.

Yes we are still learning, and the point was that dogs were domesticated by hunter gatherers. The rest of animals by farmers, and at least 10 thousands years later. Other words, domestication of dog has nothing to do with domestication of farm animals. It means that nobody looked at domesticated dog and figured out how to domesticate pigs. Dogs were hunting with people, dogs were not in enclosure to be eaten. A very different function and purpose.

E1b1b is not present in Europe prior or near the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution in Eurasia. It's just not there.

Oh, because we didn't find it yet it didn't exist?! You have to admit, it is not very sound logic, nor a scientific approach. Moment ago you claimed that it didn't exist in Neolithic in Europe, till you learned that it was just found. You should have learned by your first mistake.

In the Carpathian study it shows up between 5000-3000 BC, 5000-7000 years after the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution.

What this has to do with haplogroup E? We still don't know if it was one of minority original farmer clade or was picked up from hunter gatherers in Europe, Near East or Africa, maybe picked up few times independently by farmers on different continents? Please don't create a fact from unknown history. At the moment we can talk about hypothetical scenarios, many of them, not only the one you believe in.

 

[Salmon]

Yes we are still learning, and the point was that dogs were domesticated by hunter gatherers. The rest of animals by farmers, and at least 10 thousands years later. Other words, domestication of dog has nothing to do with domestication of farm animals. It means that nobody looked at domesticated dog and figured out how to domesticate pigs. Dogs were hunting with people, dogs were not in enclosure to be eaten. A very different function and purpose.



Oh, because we didn't find it yet it didn't exist?! You have to admit, it is not very sound logic, nor a scientific approach. Moment ago you claimed that it didn't exist in Neolithic in Europe, till you learned that it was just found. You should have learned by your first mistake.

What this has to do with haplogroup E? We still don't know if it was one of minority original farmer clade or was picked up from hunter gatherers in Europe, Near East or Africa, maybe picked up few times independently by farmers on different continents? Please don't create a fact from unknown history. At the moment we can talk about hypothetical scenarios, many of them, not only the one you believe in.

The people who domesticated dogs went on to become farmers. Dog domestication was the first step to agriculture.

From breeding dogs, prehistoric man likely learned to breed other animals.

All agricultural civilizations have dogs, even the meso-americans had dogs. The Aztecs, Incas, Mayans had dogs, yet lacked sheep, goats, cows that weren't available in the Americas. They used them for hunting, protection, and for food. They went on to domesticate native American animals like llamas, turkeys, salamanders. They also domesticated American plant species that give us maize, tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, quinoa, etc.

Meso-American civilization were very successful farmers even though they lacked beasts of burden like oxen, donkeys, and horses. The only domesticated species they had from Eurasia was the dog.


As for haplogroup E, we can't assume they existed in pre-Neolothic or early Neolothic Europe because there is no evidence of them being present.

We have a few skeletons that date around 5000-3000 BC... towards the very end of the Neolithic, towards the Bronze Age.

 

[LeBrok]

The people who domesticated dogs went on to become farmers. Dog domestication was the first step to agriculture.

From breeding dogs, prehistoric man likely learned to breed other animals.

All agricultural civilizations have dogs, even the meso-americans had dogs. The Aztecs, Incas, Mayans had dog when they lacked sheep, goats, cows that weren't available in the Americas. They used them for hunting, protection, and for food.

You mean that people looked at dogs for at least 10 thousand years if not 30 (by some research) before they got the idea to domesticate others?! Man, I'm losing hope in human genius.

 

[Angela]

There's one down side to this increase in our knowledge...the fact that E-V13 was in Europe for probably at least 7,000 years and maybe more would have given Hitler, that spawn of Satan, some comfort.

 

[Salmon]

You mean that people looked at dogs for at least 10 thousand years if not 30 (by some research) before they got the idea to domesticate others?! Man, I'm losing hope in human genius.

It's probably how it happened. Took a long time to get to the next step.

 

[LeBrok]

There's one down side to this increase in our knowledge...the fact that E-V13 was in Europe for probably at least 7,000 years and maybe more would have given Hitler, that spawn of Satan, some comfort.

lol, good one.

 

[Maleth]

There's one down side to this increase in our knowledge...the fact that E-V13 was in Europe for probably at least 7,000 years and maybe more would have given Hitler, that spawn of Satan, some comfort.

:grin:....need to get the next episode :grin:

 

[Fluffy]

:grin:....need to get the next episode :grin:

Lol nice Maleth.

 

[Maleth]

Lol nice Maleth.

:grin: credit goes to Hautville who posted it earlier on this thread. This is somehow a different version tho :grin:

 

[Sonnenburg]

I think that genetics may work deeper( just an idea). In a 'cartoonish' way: WWII was about R1a against R1b; G and E 'directored' as an 'outsiders' to each chosen R. I1 didn't like any of them ( being 'original' to the Land); D supported E still having own 'ideas' about who is smarter.
If Napoleon was E, that makes it even more interesting: Adolf, Napoleon...Einstein ( who 'promoted' A-Bomb so much). It is not serious, I know, just what would happen if we could test every past and present 'leader' and give some of them advice not disregard advice from their Generals about the wars they about to start?

 

[Fluffy]

I think that genetics may work deeper( just an idea). In a 'cartoonish' way: WWII was about R1a against R1b; G and E 'directored' as an 'outsiders' to each chosen R. I1 didn't like any of them ( being 'original' to the Land); D supported E still having own 'ideas' about who is smarter.
If Napoleon was E, that makes it even more interesting: Adolf, Napoleon...Einstein ( who 'promoted' A-Bomb so much). It is not serious, I know, just what would happen if we could test every past and present 'leader' and give some of them advice not disregard advice from their Generals about the wars they about to start?

Interesting read. Great post man!

 

[MtDNA]

Wait, weren't ancient egyptians bringing many sub-saharan african men to be mercanaries? And, there was also African coming to europe for a long time, via the nautical trade routes. Y-dna is like that, one man can completely change the composition, since each man has a larger reproductive potential than each woman. For E being in Jews, what if Jewish woman, who can marry non-Jews, chose to marry these mercanaries, maybe because of their attractiveness or financial resources. Also, back then, a man could have many wives. Also, for E being prevalent in South Europe, It can be described by traders from Africa having many Europeean wives because of their wealth or manly strong physique.

 

[RobertColumbia]

I think that genetics may work deeper( just an idea). In a 'cartoonish' way: WWII was about R1a against R1b; G and E 'directored' as an 'outsiders' to each chosen R. I1 didn't like any of them ( being 'original' to the Land); D supported E still having own 'ideas' about who is smarter.
If Napoleon was E, that makes it even more interesting: Adolf, Napoleon...Einstein ( who 'promoted' A-Bomb so much). It is not serious, I know, just what would happen if we could test every past and present 'leader' and give some of them advice not disregard advice from their Generals about the wars they about to start?

Interesting idea, but I'm not so sure it was an R1a vs. R1b battle. Let's look into the major players and their major haplogroups:

Allies:

USA: R1b, I1
UK: R1b, I1
France: R1b
USSR: R1a, N (though Stalin himself was a G)

Axis:

Germany: R1b, R1a (both), I1, I2
Italy: R1b, J
Japan: O