Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Some branches of y haplogroup AShum Laka samples also had some Y-DNA A clade i think.
Shum Laka samples also had some Y-DNA A clade i think.
I see. Well actually autosomally Shum Laka itself was pred. Yoruba-like 63.36 %, and 35.64 % of A00 admixture. Also 1 % Eurasian. So there were some other influences there. This archaic admixture of A00 is far from being Shum Laka-like, it must be alot more divergent due to later Yoruba element. And ofc Bantus picked this up combined with hg A00000 (Denisovan was A0000) admixture. If A00 is so divergent the A00000 (might be Homo-Erectus like) admixture could be over 5 times more divergent than A00. At the very least 3 times. So just 3 % of such admixture does wonders to the PCA plot. And ofc none of this has got to do with the hg A, let alone E.
hahaha, let's stick to E-M35/E-M78 and ANA admixture, that's when the game intensifies.
I know you like to read about these stuffs, take a look at this: https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeum/reader/download/202/202-30-76688-1-10-20170119.pdf
Interesting, will read that. To add about J1's saying this and that. I don't deny they are proto-Semitics. They are like I-Y3120 is proto-Slavic. J-P58 mostly spread Semitic languages but obviously J1 has little to do with the other Afro-Asiatics.
Insofar E-M78 is concerned. Someone made this table based on Shum Laka paper but with the E-M78 Taforalt counted in. It shows even more A00 admixture for Bantus.
See Taforalt is here 54 % ANA + 46 % Eurasian. 0 % A00 and 0 % A00000 which E1b1a's picked up later. And they say Taforalt was "SSA" admixed. No, DE couldn't have been so much divergent from CF autosomally. "SSA" is defined by having A00 and A00000 admixture, (and Khoisans are very isolated themselves from all of others, they are "pure" A's). E-M35's are the true E's. Not Bantus. Taforalt got some Eurasian but had pure ANA. Bantu's are far from pure ANA's. Mota too got 29 % of A00.
Also regarding A00 and B. Take a look how Mbuti here derive just 6 % of ancestry of B, but 59 % from A00. Aka's also Pygmies derive 0 % from B and 42 % from A00. (you see B branched off from CT just to the right of South Africa HG). B is common in both Nilotics and Pygmies, Agaw Cushitic people derive much more ancestry from B. B could be proto-Nilotic and proto-Pygmy A00. Though A00 is very rare it's still present in their areas. Or A00 had some influence on Pygmy language considering how strong the autosomal imprint is. Though some say Nilotic languages are not a "real language" group but "mixture".
And also you can see Mota was almost identical to early Basal Eurasians when it received the A00 admixture. As was the ANA ancestor of Taforalt... ANA was close to basal Eurasians.. But ofc if you add A00 and A00000 to ANA it's going to appear "SSA", as would have Basal Eurasians with the same adxmiture..
So Shum-Laka study debunks what these trolls have been saying. E1b1a is an outlier not E1b1b.
This makes sense. The new argument of these losers is ANA is African like which you showed is not really true.
Yes and from a logical POV: DE separated from CT 68500 ybp, D separated from E 65200 ybp. C separated from F 65900 ybp. Assuming D left to Asia with others just after that, we know C was basal Eurasian yet it also separated from F quite a while ago, per YFull prior to DE split. E couldn't have been anything other than a basal Eurasian regardless whether it stayed or left Africa.
Obviously already 200 000 ybp several A00 groups diverged, and separately influenced various groups. One of these met A00000.. And only they got picked up by E1b1a's.
That diagram is also from the paper itself, Taforalt has zero of this archaic admixture so it is zero SSA, SSA is simply defined by archaic and ultra-archaic admixture.
Btw in K13 Croatian Neanderthal comes out as 90 % SSA, though result ofc can't be taken for granted due to divergence it just illustrates SSA autosomal is packed with this archaic admixture.
[h=2]DEATH AND BURIAL BETWEEN THE AEGEAN AND THE BALKANS[/h][h=3][/h]CULTURAL VARIABILITY AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION IN THE EARLY IRON AGE
Towards the beginning of the early Iron Age several transformations in the material culture of Greece are striking. Particularly the appearance of cremation and individual inhumation burials was long held as the main argument for numerous historical reconstruction of early Greek history, however, this phase has only rarely been viewed from a cultural anthropological angle.
Prothesis on an Attic krater, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (photo: OeAW-OeAI/S. Gimatzidis)
Some changes in Greek culture dating to the 12th and 11th centuries BCE have been traditionally perceived as evidence for an invasion of people from the north to Greece. These transformations are particularly perceptible in the burial rites of southern Greece, e.g. the change from multiple burials in champer tombs to single inhumations in cist tombs and shortly afterwards the widespread practice of cremation. This change was often identified as the legendary >Dorian invasion< mentioned by some historiographers of the classical period. These tales developed into historical facts and formed the departure point for many reconstructions of the past in Greece and the Balkans.
[h=4][/h]THE GEOGRAPHICAL FOCUS
The aim of this project is not to search for Dorians in the Greek and Balkan prehistory but instead to reanalyze the archaeological data that fully addresses the already mentioned changes in an up-to-date interpretation. The area of interest comprises Serbia, Kosovo, FYR of Macedonia, and northern Greece (especially Macedonia and Chalkidike, and Thessaly). In the past scholarly debate and exchange of knowledge was difficult for political reasons but the time has come to overcome national and ideological barriers and begin an international scientific discussion.
[h=4][/h]THE METHOD
In this project new archaeological data from recent excavations will be analyzed and presented. Recently published finds and contexts from the northern Aegean and the geographical ›hinterland‹, mainly the central Balkan, allow for comparative studies. Modern scientific methods will be used in order to define the biological sex as well as family and other kin relationships of individuals from selected necropoleis. Strontium isotope analyses aid in acquiring information about mobility and exogamy or migration of people (groups). Radiocarbon analyses, statistical, and additional historical analyses of the burial rites, individual finds, and contexts permit the reconstruction of the social organization of the local communities. Lead isotope analyses of the burial gifts made of lead will provide information on the exchange networks and trade relations.
[h=4]THE AIM[/h]
The research is focused on the socio-cultural aspects of every necropolis and its micro-regions that function as case studies. In this way it is the foundation for a new narrative of the interregional interaction in the area of ideology and ritual. Finally, new archaeological data and modern bioarcharchaeological analyses will lead to a modernized reconstruction of the regional social relationships in Greece and the Balkan.
https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/rese...h-and-burial-between-aegaean-and-the-balkans/
Yes and from a logical POV: DE separated from CT 68500 ybp, D separated from E 65200 ybp. C separated from F 65900 ybp. Assuming D left to Asia with others just after that, we know C was basal Eurasian yet it also separated from F quite a while ago, per YFull prior to DE split. E couldn't have been anything other than a basal Eurasian regardless whether it stayed or left Africa.
Obviously already 200 000 ybp several A00 groups diverged, and separately influenced various groups. One of these met A00000.. And only they got picked up by E1b1a's.
That diagram is also from the paper itself, Taforalt has zero of this archaic admixture so it is zero SSA, SSA is simply defined by archaic and ultra-archaic admixture.
Btw in K13 Croatian Neanderthal comes out as 90 % SSA, though result ofc can't be taken for granted due to divergence it just illustrates SSA autosomal is packed with this archaic admixture.
Thanks for the very informative link re Cypriot dna. There defiantly are some interesting points observed in regards to E-V13 and luckily has been dealt with extensively too. We seem to be drifting further and further away from an E-V13 crossing (island hopping) directly from North Africa as it has been suggested.
quote - In Europe, certain sub-haplogroups of G and specifically E-V13 were detected in ancient DNA, including Linear Band Keramik (LBK) remains from Central Europe (ca. 8000 y BP), Epicardial skeletons from Iberia (7000 y BP), South of France Late Neolithic (5000 y BP), and a Tyrol specimen (5300 y BP) [77, 78, 79, 80].- end quote
https://investigativegenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13323-016-0032-8
I don't think it was a Basal Eurasian lineage, whatever this admixture was or if it was real, it's clearly linked to ANA autosomal. Heavily admixed ANA populations by craniometry were being wrongly assumed to be European HG mixed because of marginal similarities which was probably due to convergent evolution. But on average ANA's were taller and more robust than the Eurasian HG's.
Isn't E more likely associated with ANA?
I've never heard of C being basal Eurasian. Aren't most clades of C associated with West Eurasians (C1a) or East Eurasians (C2) or ambiguous (C1b being found in Kosenteki and also common in South Asia(AASI?)).
Couldn't G and/or H be basal eurasian too?
Maleth buddy long time no catch, I was quite off for some time but I see that your post with EV13 has been progressing
My interest jumped on R1b, well since i tested out to be R1b Z2705 on 2016 lol, I do also believe that EV13 crossed directly from far north Africa very very long time ago, since from history read that pre ancient greek time there were people living on those surraoundings called Pelazgian, at that time since 2014 were I was still a rookie, and I still am https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...their-DNA-be-E-V13/page20?p=610287#post610287 and from this old post, tried to maybe these so called Pelazgic people mostly caried EV13.
I still believe in it, of course since there are only few anciant samples we can suppose and speculate I guess, I think we also find quite high EV13 on VINCA culture,
Studies and overviews beginning in the 1980s have shown that the distribution of pottery characterised by Cetina features takes in several Mediterranean regions, from the western Balkans (Adriatic Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Albania) to the Peloponnese, peninsular Italy, eastern Sicily, Malta and the Ae-olian Islands during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC (Della Casa 1995; Maran 1998, 2007; Cazzella 1999; KaIser, ForenBhaer 1999; raMBaCh 2004, 2007). It is now widely recognised that the spread of these pottery types across the central Mediterranean is evidence of intertwined interconnections, possibly reflecting the movement of small groups of seafarers
https://www.researchgate.net/public...lennium_BC_new_data_and_research_perspectives
Cetina thing looks interesting: https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/mak/mam/content/poster_schaff_abm_cetina.pdf
But, i think the origin was still more North and slightly more West than Cetina. I cannot explain those older E-V13 clades around Germany/Poland.
This E-V13 = Pre-Greeks garbage was postulated 15 years ago, when it was thought E-V13 was the main carrier of Neolithic revolution which it wasn't. Going by current data most Greek V13's are LBA/EIA arrivals so they can't be pre-Greek.
The reason many believed in it and still believe was because openly or subconsciously for them "E-V13 are all SSA's so we'll find some slave-like role for them". Well no E is ultimately SSA, so I'm glad we sorted that one out..
Also E-V13 spread with Cardial EEF's.
Well you might have not read all of my post, I never said E-V13 was the main carrier of the neolithic revolution, was talking about a later time or in smaller numbers, so in one word they came from far north Africa through Iberia Itali Greece, in around 6000 BC, gathered more in around Vinca,
So you think that EEF went north Africa 5000 BC and then brought couple of slaves into Cardial Ware?
G2 today is gone and we have so much E-V13 in Europe, or wait, slaves might have eate all their owners lol.
You can never conclude or generalize that all Vincas were G2a from only 2 samples found,
also Vinca seemed quite huge, how can they be only G2 were now it is almost vanished.
You also have a post of Maciamo i think where he manetioned that E-V13 might have been pretty high in numbers in Vinca.
So I think my suposition might have some relevance, that Pelasgic people might have migrated from Vinca to more south eastern Balkans around 5000 BC, before ancient Greece, at this time yes we might have had some G2 and H2, maybe very very few R1b and J2, then maybe with Ancient Greece there was a flood of migration, and maybe some more soffisticated individuals like R1b who came from Yamnaya
This thread has been viewed 238310 times.