April 02, 2008

New Y-chromosome haplogroup tree

UPDATE (Apr 2):

The report is now online. Unfortunately, the supplementary information is not yet online.

UPDATE 2:

I think that the Genographic Project has a lot of rewriting to do in their Atlas of the Human Journey given the proposed dates for the major haplogroups. For example, the oft-repeated claim that R1b has something to do with the Cro-Magnons is no longer tenable.

UPDATE 3:

The supplementary material can be found here (pdf).

Genome Research DOI: 10.1101/gr.7172008

New binary polymorphisms reshape and increase resolution of the human Y chromosomal haplogroup tree

Tatiana M. Karafet et al.

Markers on the non-recombining portion of the human Y chromosome continue to have applications in many fields including evolutionary biology, forensics, medical genetics, and genealogical reconstruction. In 2002, the Y Chromosome Consortium published a single parsimony tree showing the relationships among 153 haplogroups based on 243 binary markers and devised a standardized nomenclature system to name lineages nested within this tree. Here we present an extensively revised Y chromosome tree containing 311 distinct haplogroups, including two new major haplogroups (S and T), and incorporating approximately 600 binary markers. We describe major changes in the topology of the parsimony tree and provide names for new and rearranged lineages within the tree following the rules presented by the Y Chromosome Consortium in 2002. Several changes in the tree topology have important implications for studies of human ancestry. We also present demography-independent age estimates for 11 of the major clades in the new Y chromosome tree.

Link

A new Y-chromosome haplogroup tree will be published in Genome Research. Here is the public release:
The Y chromosome retains a remarkable record of human ancestry, since it is passed directly from father to son. In an article published online today in Genome Research (www.genome.org), scientists have utilized recently described genetic variations on the part of the Y chromosome that does not undergo recombination to significantly update and refine the Y chromosome haplogroup tree. The print version of this work will appear in the May issue of Genome Research, accompanied by a special poster of the new tree.

...

Hammer’s group integrated more than 300 new markers into the tree, which allowed the resolution of many features that were not yet discernable, as well as the revision of previous arrangements. “The major lineages within the most common African haplogroup, E, are now all sorted out, with the topology providing new interpretations on the geographical origin of ancient sub-clades,” describes Hammer. “When one polymorphism formerly described as unique, but recently shown to have reversed was replaced by recently reported markers, a sub-haplogroup of haplogroup O, the most common in China, was considerably rearranged,” explains Fernando Mendez, a co-author of the study.

In addition to improving the resolution of branches, the latest reconstruction of the tree allows estimates of time to the most recent common ancestor of several haplogroups. “The age of [haplogroup] DE is about 65,000 years, just a bit younger than the other major lineage to leave Africa, which is assumed to be about 70,000 years old,” says Hammer, describing an example of the fine resolution of age that is now possible. “Haplogroup E is older than previously estimated, originating approximately 50,000 years ago.”

Furthermore, Hammer explains that this work has resulted in the addition of two new major haplogroups, S and T, with novel insights into the ancestry of both. “Haplogroup T, the clade that Thomas Jefferson’s Y chromosome belongs to, has a Middle Eastern affinity, while haplogroup S is found in Indonesia and Oceania.”

43 comments:

  1. This new post verified what i have supported since i started commentating in this site!
    THAT IT VERY, VERY, VERY, EARLY TO ATTRIBUTE TO THE HUMAN GENETICS SCIENCE THE ROLE OF THE UNIQUE AND ABSOLUTE INTERPRETOR OF THE HUMAN BIOLOGICAL HISTORY.
    The discovery of two new Hgs of the Y-DNA signals that there is a lot of work yet to be done and that we need more samples from the world population, more research in the deciphering of the roots, identity and behavior of the various Hgs and the scientific methods we follow and that it is very naive, if not provocative, to try to substitute Archeology, Anthropology, Taxonomy and other sciences with Genetics!!!
    If we are not even sure how many different Hgs exist, if our methods of categorizing them is accurate and what forces and patterns affect them, how in heaven's name can we be so damn sure that i.e. Gravettians brought with them the I Hg and that this Hg was their only one, that all leptodolichomorphic skulls were of I Hg, that since I and R descend from Anatolia and Central Asia that means that the vast majority of the current European population descend from there (like if they could not have been other Hgs that they were extincted or assimilated), etc. etc.
    This issue also rings a bell about the problem of the possible Neanderthalian admixture to moderns and the contrast there is between fossils and skeletons (Oase, Mladec, etc.) from the one hand and the "evidence" that we have from Genetics from the other!!!
    How can we be so sure that although Genetics exclude some things like Neanderthalian admixture to moderns, non Caucasoid Hgs in Paleolithic Europe (i am wandering how our dear Geneticists can explain the existence of the famous Grimaldi fossils in Italy, in Voronezh of Russia, etc. and if they can possibly include them to the groups which carried the I and R Hgs), the certainty that Y-DNA and mtDNA did not go under natural or positive selection, etc. that these theses are true?
    Finally i believe that the Geneticists themselves must realize their accurate goals and role in the scientific community and not to try and exaggerate things!!!
    For example they try to convince the public by shows, newspapers, and other media that Humans are not so different from chimps and that since they share a very similar DNA that means that biologically they are closer to each other than any other species.
    But biology is not just what the various chains and molecules of the DNA are but also how do they combine themselves, what do they produce, the frequency of occurrence of these genes, etc.
    Because how many of you REALLY believe that the chimp as a being is closer to Man than to the Gorilla for example?
    In terms of phrenology, behavior, appearance, moral structure and many other things could anybody really believe that chimp is closer to Man than to the other apes?
    I think not! But geneticists (at least some of them) are trying to do so by canceling in a way other sciences like anatomy, taxonomy, etc.
    Geneticists must understand and accept their role!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Haplogroup E is not the Eurasian Adam.

    If any haplogroup could be called "the Eurasian Adam," that would have to be haplogroup CF. More than 90% of extra-African human males are direct patrilineal descendants of haplogroup CF.

    Also, this "haplogroup T" that Hammer has mentioned is not really a new haplogroup, antigonos. It is clear from the context that this haplogroup T is a new name for what we now know as haplogroup K2 (M70).

    I suspect that Hammer's "haplogroup S" will turn out to be a subclade of haplogroup K-M9 that unites at least some of the various M9-derived clades found among populations of Eastern Indonesia, New Guinea, Melanesia, and Australia. It seems that most people are not aware that M9-derived clades comprise the majority of Australasian (i.e. "Australoid") Y-DNA; only the Australian aborigines have a slight excess of haplogroup C derivatives, but even Australian aborigines have at least 40% M9-derived Y chromosomes. Among New Guineans and Melanesians, the frequency of M9-derivatives is overwhelmingly high; Hammer's new haplogroup S must contain at least some of these M9-derived Australasians.

    ReplyDelete
  3. other than S and T this is mostly same. The dates are changed.

    Not sure What is the need of S and T from their old groupings.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So let's summarize the most important changes:
    C6 -What is it?

    E3a*=E1b1a*
    E3b*=E1b1b1f
    So a basic division between the Eastern/Northern and Western branch of E3-lineage stays the same.
    I only wonder, where former E1 disappeared.

    I1b1 (Balkan/Western Mediterranean branch)=I2a
    I1b2a (NW Germany)=I2b
    I1a (Scandinavia)=I1
    So, basically, no fundamental changes of the relationship.

    I am not especially interested in J or M, so I will continue to N:

    The whole N (LLY22G)=N1
    N3a=N1c1
    N2=N1b
    N1=N1a
    Again, no dramatic changes. The basic division stays the same.

    I would say that it changed less than I thought. In fact, out of all changes, I was actually only attracted by the new division of R1.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Judging from the age estimates, CT would arise shortly after the Toba event. And subsequently CF left Africa for India...during an extremely cold and arid Ice Age. Frankly, Ice Ages just weren't the optimal times for long migrations. However, the ages of F and K fit almost perfectly the archeologically documented spreading of Blade industries during the Hengelo Interstadial. F must have been present in the Levant 47 000 years ago (the beginning of the Ahmarian culture).
    The age of IJ (38,5 kya ago) can also be accepted.

    But P - 34 kya, R - 26,8 kya, R1 - 18,5 kya???
    I think that here we should be careful. The link between Classical Aurignacian (spreaded in Europe by Cro-Magnons since ca. 36,5 kya), and Central Asian localities with Aurignacian features almost 40 kya old, is now practically accepted. Furthermore, the way to the west during the last Ice Age (27,5-14,5 kya) was probably blocked by giant glacial lakes. I can't simply accept such low data.

    ReplyDelete
  6. >> But P - 34 kya, R - 26,8 kya, R1 - 18,5 kya???
    I think that here we should be careful. The link between Classical Aurignacian (spreaded in Europe by Cro-Magnons since ca. 36,5 kya), and Central Asian localities with Aurignacian features almost 40 kya old, is now practically accepted.

    The Y chromosomes of the Aurignacian creators need not have persisted in the present-day population.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, but P is of Central Asian origin. R is of Central Asian origin. R1 is of Central Asian origin as well. The authors force us to assume that the bearers of R1 travelled to Europe on the top of the Ice Age - or even after the end of the Ice Age -, and were quickly able to occupy Western Europe, Eastern Europe and even Anatolia. One would say that such a migration would be archeologically visible.

    Common, let's think rationally. The age of R1 is even younger than the beginning of the Badegoulian culture in France (-25 kya, with expansion beginning -22 kya), from which Magdalenians (R1b) come from.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The exact origin of P,R, and R1 has not been determined conclusively.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So it is only a coincidence that P*, Q, R2 and R1b are present in Central Asia? It is not so difficult to tie them with the first Upper Paleolithic finds in Altai dated to -43 300 kya.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Central Asia has been a source as well as a destination of human migrations. The trick is to figure out whether genetic diversity is due to being a crossroads, or a source. There's probably no place on the planet that exhibits more genetic diversity than New York City, but that doesn't mean that people originated in New York City.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I wonder if it was haplogroup IJ that they found in some of those neolithic hunter gatherer bones in Sweden? It was appearently a haplogroup not found as of yet in any modern population. Of course there are many possible dead as well as dead end haplogroups.

    ReplyDelete
  12. But diversity of R1b decreases from Central Asia to Europe!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dear ebizur.

    If they decide to label under new names and stratification some of the already existing Hgs that means that they have a reason for doing so, don't they?
    It means that they found out evidence that does n't correlate these Hgs anymore with their previous roots, affinities, etc.!
    My point is that since Genetics is a new science and every now and then changes its data we should be careful how and WHY do some scientists, researchers, etc. do and say what they say and do!
    We should not consider Genetics to be the "philosopher's stone" on the discovery of our past. Genetics can't and WILL NEVER say everything that has to do with our past!
    We also need more physical anthropology studies, more phrenology and taxonomic studies in order to solve the puzzle!
    That's all.
    I can't really accept for example that the Gravettian industry is correlated with the appearance of leptodolichomorphic individuals!
    What common does the Pavlovian Gravettian has with the Anatolian one for example in terms of skeletons?
    Grimaldi were also Gravettian in terms of tools and culture!
    Can anybody correlate them with the Gravettians of Eastern Europe?
    What Hg did the Grimaldi carried?
    A non Caucasoid for sure!
    Thus, how can we say that Gravettians brought the I Hg to Europe which was the only Hg along with R at the continent for that period?
    I am sorry but i can't buy this crap just because some Geneticists want to be famous and fill their pockets with money from the funding of their...."magnificent" and "brilliant" projects!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. " War Lord said...
    But diversity of R1b decreases from Central Asia to Europe!"


    Do you have any reference for this?

    ReplyDelete
  15. >> It means that they found out evidence that does n't correlate these Hgs anymore with their previous roots, affinities, etc.!

    The Y chromosome phylogeny is an objective fact that has nothing to do with "roots" or affinities. The names of the various clades are simply references and could be named in any way one pleased; Y-DNA experts have agreed to follow a particular naming scheme to aid communication.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Grimaldi Skull was studied by Professor Coon and it was determined to have been Caucasoid. Also there is evidence that it was reconstructed wrong originally.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dienekes said:

    The Y chromosome phylogeny is an objective fact that has nothing to do with "roots" or affinities. The names of the various clades are simply references and could be named in any way one pleased; Y-DNA experts have agreed to follow a particular naming scheme to aid communication.

    So you believe that the labeling of the various Hgs occurred randomly?
    The reason that the various mutations are named under agreed letters of the alphabet is to show their affinities and roots!
    I thought that this thing was very simple to understand.
    The Hg that was named R1 has a stronger affinity with R2 than A for example. Do you think that this relationship is objective?
    That it is only in the eye of the beholder for example?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dear crimson guard.
    The Grimaldi skulls you refer to are the ones that were found in the Grotte des Enfants cave.
    They were fragmented and reconstruction was poor. That's why many were skeptical in recognizing the racial identity of these skulls.
    Coon my dear friend labeled them as having Negroid features.
    He did n't label them as Caucasoids!!!
    He labeled Combe-Capelle as Caucasoid but not the Grimaldis!
    You don't remember well!
    Read again the "Races of Europe", Chapter II: Pleistocene White Men, Section 7, Chronological and Geographical Differentiation of the European Aurignacian Group.
    The Professor wrote exactly the following:
    "Whence they came to Europe, in the van of the Upper Palaeolithic migrations, is likewise not, at the moment, worthy of extensive argument. They must have come from Africa or southwestern Asia, but until others of the same type have been found, the problem will remain open. They may represent an early negro-white mixture, or a generalized proto-negroid in the process of specialization. They are probably too late, however, in time, to have been contemporary members of the generalized stock which may have been mutually ancestral to the negroes and whites".
    Thus Coon perceived them as Negroid.
    But since they were very fragmented scientists hesitated to say the final verdict about their racial identity.
    Until new skeletons were found from the Iberian Peninsula to Lake Baykal in Siberia, passing through France, Austria, the Crimea, and the Basin of Don, etc. In these last two regions, the late Soviet Professor Mikhail Gerasimov, a scholar of rare objectivity, identified the Negroid type from skulls found there!!!
    Voronezh of Russia also has given very good samples of this type.
    Thus Grimaldi were not Caucasoids and thus they could n't possibly have Y-DNA I Hg.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Affinity" is a vague term, the Y chromosome tree represents objective phylogeny.

    The naming scheme is a methodical (but not unique) way of representing and communicating that phylogeny.

    The goal is to completely discover the objective and unique human Y chromosome phylogeny; the issue of names for its various clades is seconary.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Y-haplogroup I in all likelihood originated among Caucasoids, but that does not mean that a Negroid skull or individual could not have possessed. There are millions of Negroids who possess haplogroup I.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dear Antigonos,

    You should read his later work.

    From 1962's "Origin of the Races" by Carleton S. Coon

    THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC PEOPLE AND THEIR CULTURE

    IN EUROPE the Wurm I-II or Gottweig Interstadial,lasting from about 40,000 to about 29,000 B.C.,was a period of mild,but not hot,climate,like that of the present,and of favored spots like Palestine during Wurm I. It was a time of important racial and cultural change. During it,the Neanderthals were replaced by Upper Paleolithic people similar to modern Europeans,and the Mousterian flake culture was succeeded by a blade culture that endured,in many forms and under many names,to the end of the Pleistocene,around 8,000 B.C. Similar but not identical blade cultures have been found in Siberia,in northern Afghanistan,in the Zagros Mountains of Iraq and Iran,in Turkey,and in Lebanon,Syria,and Palestine.

    A favorite cliche of anthropology,as widespread as the image of the brutal Neanderthals,is that Upper Paleolithic Europeans belonged to three:the Cro-Magnon,which was Caucasoid;the Negroid Grimaldis;and the Eskimoid race of Chancelade. This concept is a product of the type-specimen procedure. There was, infact,only one Upper Paleolithic European race. It was Caucasoid and it inhabits Europe today. We know this not only from skeletons but also from the representations of the human body in Upper Paleolithic art.

    THE RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC EUROPEANS


    THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC EUROPEANS,who lived from about 30,000 to about 10,000 years ago,where modern Caucasoid's. Were they barbered and dressed in the current styles,they could sit in any western European restaurant without arousing particular comment except for their tables manners. A few very observant fellow customers might notice that they closed their deeply worn teeth with an edge-to-edge bite,and that their well-developed temporal and masseter muscles bulged they chewed.

    As von Bonin has shown,the men where not notably tall. The mean stature for twelve adult male skeletons is only five feet eight inches (173 cm.),shorter than modern Americans. The famous Old Man of Cro-Magnon,depicted in textbooks as a giant,was only five feet six (168.4 cm.). The two tallest men of the series,Grotte des Enfants and Barma Grande2,were five feet eleven and a half inches(181.8 cm.). The shortest Upper Paleolithic man was Chancelade. He was only five feet three (160 cm.),and was lived during a brief spell of intense cold. As we know ,intense cold tends to reduce stature.

    The Aurignacian Grimaldi woman,found in a double burial with her so-called Negroid son,had a long radius and a short humerus. Elongated shin bones were found in a skeleton of Combe-Capelle,who lived in mild Gottweig Interstadial,and in two Aurignacian Skeletons from the Riviera,one from Grotte du Cavillon and the other(not to be confused with the Grimaldi pair) from Baoussi. None of these men,nor Grimaldi mother and child, was exposed to great cold. Both Skhul 4 and Skhul 5 had similar limb proportions. The hands and feet of the Upper Paleolithic Europeans are better known to us from archeological than from osteological evidence. many negative silhouettes of hands,made spraying pigment out of a bone tube over hand held against a wall,have been found on walls of French caves,bare footprints have been found on cavern floors in France and Italy. Both the hands and the feet were normal for slenderly built Europeans.

    Morant's series of twenty male skulls and von Bonin's series of thirteen female skulls represent nearly all countries from France to Czechoslovakia,and all archeological culures. The male skulls are large,with a mean cranial capacity of 1,580cc.,about female skulls are much smaller,with a capacity of 1,370 cc.,about the size of a Swanscombe. The detailed measurements of these skulls reveal a very long,moderately broad and high brain case of fully modern proportions;a face of moderate to great length, and a considerable breadth. This was not the case among the Neanderthals,nor is it among most modern Europeans. Heavy chewing combined with relatively narrow brain case,is responsible for this archaic feature,found also among Eskimo. It has no racial significance.

    Most skulls are not prognathous,an exception being the recently discovered female skull from the Proto-Magdalenian of Abri Patuad. Brow ridges are of moderate size or they are missing in most of the skulls, except in Czechoslavokian ones of the early Auringacian,which come closest to Skhul 5 and Jebel Qafza 6. They,however,show no trace of Skhul 5's alveolar prognathism. The series of male skulls also resemble a late,Neolithic series from France,Iron Age skulls from Norway,and Anglo-Saxon ones from the east coast of England.

    Although most of the teeth are too worn to permit accurate observation,those of the so-called Negroid boy of Grimaldi are in perfect condition. His upper jaw shows irregular tooth eruptions, gaps,and malocclusion. The upper median incisors have vertical ridges on the lingual side,and a basal protuberance. These are dental characteristics of a Negro,but not exclusively. They are also on a number of teeth from Krapina and on those of Neanderthals, and also present,as we have just mentioned,in the Mount Carmel population. An upper canine from Magdalenian maxilla of Farincourt has the same features, The Grimaldi child was no more Negroid than the Palestinians of Skhul and many living Europeans of the Mediterranean region.

    The other alleged intruder in the European populations, Chancelade had wide zygomatic arches and flaring gonial angles,as befitted a heavy chewer living in extreme arctic conditions. But he had high-rooted nasal bones,face that was far from flat;and a completely Caucasoid configuration of the malars. He was as European as the rest of the Upper Paleolithic people."

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dear Crimson Guard

    I am familiar with the "Origin of Races" book of Coon SINCE IT WAS THE FIRST WORK BY HIM WHICH I READ IN MY LIFE.
    I also have a copy of the authentic book in my home (and not some download from the Net).
    It sorrows me that i have to tell you THAT THE "ORIGIN OF RACES" WORK OF COON IS nowadays invalid and outclassed.
    The results and comparisons that it makes are really out of space.
    It is not wise even to use this book for fossil references anymore.
    On the contrary Gerasimov, Keith and others have reexamined the fossils from Grotte des Enfants and found them Negroid AND MORE IMPORTANT THEY HAVE EXAMINED THE NEW FOSSILS THAT WERE FOUND FROM PORTUGAL TO RUSSIA AND FOUND THOSE NEGROID AS WELL!
    And these new skulls are not fragmented of poorly attested!

    Dear Dienekes

    Of course some non Caucasoids carry I Hgs because their ancestors have mixed with Caucasoids!!!
    It is as simple as that!!!
    The point is that Geneticists try to convince us that enormous industries like Gravettian, Solutrean, etc. carried ONLY ONE Hg and that they carried this to Europe!
    Since there is no proof of that and since we find very, very, different skeletons in racial terms and these skeletons are BOTH male and female how in Heaven's name could they imply that?
    Don't you see that a theory like this is catchy?
    That since we live in an open market Global society EVERYTHING is considered as a commodity?
    Everything is salable! A fancy theory will always sell more to electronic media, magazines, newspapers, etc. and its author will become famous!
    Becoming famous means more money and that is the name of the game unfortunately!
    Scientists like merchants are trying to read the market's signs and compete in the world of Productivism!
    You yourself has witnessed that in an old post of yours where you castigated Geneticists that they say to the public what it wants to hear and not unpleasant things i.e. they said to one person that he descends from the Kurgan people, the other that he descends from a Knight but they did not say that some of them might have an Erectus inversion or that they descend from Mongoloids etc.
    I determinedly believe that some of the Upper Paleolithic fossils do not belong in the proposed Hgs of R and I.
    Some of them might be unknown, and some might belong to Hgs which gone extinct!
    The reason is that some tribes annihilated others.
    Perhaps they don't want to come to such a result, i don't really know why there is n't EVEN ONE scientist to openly dispute these theories!
    In concluding i can't accept AS A FACT that the entire Gravettian industry with the so many DIFFERENTIATED skeletons and cultures which stretched from Western Europe till some say the Zagros Mountains belonged solely to one Y-DNA Hg!!!
    Geneticists are always very sure about themselves! They were very sure that ALL Modern Humans descend from the Mitochondrial Eve for example!
    But the Mungo fossil in Australia slapped their face with its sample!!!
    All i say is that we have to be very careful to what we hear and accept. And not to consider Genetics as the "Shangri-La", the "Golden Key" of discovering our past. There other sciences that can help us discover that lost past too i.e. anatomy, physical anthropology, etc.
    You also Dienekes have pointed that out in a past post in this site (that we need more physical anthropology with the new statistical methods that we have etc. etc.).

    ReplyDelete
  23. >> The point is that Geneticists try to convince us that enormous industries like Gravettian, Solutrean, etc. carried ONLY ONE Hg and that they carried this to Europe!

    Speaking about geneticists in general is no good. Which geneticist made such an outlandish statement?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Are you kidding Dienekes?
    The formal thesis of Geneticists is n't that Aurignacians brought R Hg to Europe and then Gravettians brought Hg I?
    Is n't their thesis that these two Hgs were the first modern sapiens Hgs to come to Europe?

    ReplyDelete
  25. >> The formal thesis of Geneticists ...

    Your claim was that "that enormous industries like Gravettian, Solutrean, etc. carried ONLY ONE Hg and that they carried this to Europe!".

    Which "geneticists" and where did they make that claim?

    ReplyDelete
  26. My interest is totally self-interested, that is I am only interested in Haplogroup J particularly J1. I am glad the R1 group has been divorced from the Cro Magnons and Palaeolithic Europeans. I have always thought odd that haplogroups like the R group, derivative in the mutation chain, were older than either I or J. I thought it stretching credibility but others had no problem with accepting the Cro Magnon theory. I also found the association of J with the Neolithic and especially our Semitic speaking cousins rather irksome. It is as plain as Shylock's nose that J1 and J2 for that matter are older than the Neolithic and ethnic groups like Jews or Arabs and their religious beliefs. It has always been my belief that J1 in Europe is older than J1 in Arabia or North Africa and the association with the Middle East based on frequencies was a facile and nobrainer conclusion. I am very content with the new figures for the J group.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I said that they want us to believe that entire industries like the Auricnacian and the Gravettian carried only one Hg and that from these two parental Hgs (R and I) the major body of Europeans descend!
    The American Journal of Human Genetics, Spencer Wells and Ornella Semino have said that.
    I will repeat myself for a last time.
    The formal thesis of Geneticists is that Gravettian carried I Hg. Aurignacian carried R. R in latter years..."went" to Solutreans exclusively!!!
    They have maps that show THE ENTIRE GRAVETTIAN INDUSTRY IN EUROPE FROM WHICH THE I HG AND ITS DERIVATIVES SPREAD WITH ONE COLOR AND THE ENTIRE SOLUTREAN INDUSTRY WITH ANOTHER SINGLE COLOR AS THE CARRIERS OF R HG!!!
    How in Heaven's name, without at the time being, been able to extract Y-DNA from Paleolithic bones could they make such conclusions?
    How is it possible the entire Gravettian industry with the so many racially different skeletons, female and male, to have only one Hg?
    The male Grimaldis did not carry any Hg?
    And although the Europoid Gravettians can be correlated with skeletons from the Near East can we correlate the Grimaldi ones as well?
    Grimaldis were Gravettians in cultural terms but Negroid in racial terms (and you were wrong that the older Negroid fossil is the Jebel Sahaba one from 14500 BP, some Grimaldi ones are older)!!!
    Geneticists say that R Hg was in Iberia and southern France WHERE THE INHABITANTS were carriers of an ancestral R Hg and from which various derivative R Hgs developed and that THE REST INHABITED EUROPE, WHICH WAS MOSTLY UNDER GRAVETTIAN POPULATIONS, was carrier of ancestral I Hg which also gave birth to various I derivatives.
    YOU CAN MAKE A SEARCH IN YAHOO!, ALTAVISTA, GOOGLE, ASK JEEVES, WIKIPEDIA, ETC. FOR THE KEY WORDS "GRAVETTIAN AND Y-DNA" AND YOU WILL SEE THE TRUTH OF MY WORDS.
    These two Hgs were the real European Hgs and ALL the rest are just non autochthonous invaders from either Anatolia (E,J) or from Northern Eurasia (N).
    Does this ring a bell?
    Does this remind you some stupid beliefs that Alpines and Nordics are the true Europeans and that the rest are non European even if they are Caucasoid?
    Does it remind you Nordicism a bit?
    When they say that 80% of the European stock is....Paleolithic while the rest 20% only is from the post Neolithic years what does this remind you?
    Since when just because a Hg originated in the Paleolithic that means that it reached its final boundaries in that period too?
    R1a might have originated in the Paleolithic but in numerous areas it appeared in the Bronze or the Iron age!!!
    Anyway back to our issue now, Gravettians and Solutreans were isolated from eachother and that's why R and I Hgs did not mix at that time and continued a separated life till the end of LGM. That's the thesis of Geneticists!!!
    Do you really believe that these two Hgs were the only Hgs back then or is it more reasonable that they were more Hgs which got extinct in the way?

    See below to witness what is the current thesis of people as far as Genetics is concerned!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_%28Y-DNA%29

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans#Genetics

    ReplyDelete
  28. >> I said that they want us to believe that entire industries like the Auricnacian and the Gravettian carried only one Hg

    Incorrect, the fact that some geneticists have suggested that a particular haplogroup is associated with the spread of particular industries of cultures is not equivalent to the statement that they carried only one haplogroup.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Come on mate!
    When they say that Gravettian (in general without differentiating for example the Pavlovian Gravettian or the Anatolian one etc.) carried the I Hg to Europe and they give as the racial reflection of that Hg the leptodolichomorphic skeletons of Eastern Europe WHY DO THEY HIGHLIGHT IN THEIR MAPS ALL THE GRAVETTIAN AREA AND NOT THE EASTERN EUROPEAN ONE?
    Were ALL Gravettians of Italy for example leptodolichomorphic?
    Were the Grimaldis dolichomorphic?
    Of course NOT!!!
    Then why the Hell do they highlight their area?
    Scientists nowadays try to acquire money, fame, seats, etc. through their work. In order to do so they try to make their researches' results as pleasant and political correct as possible!
    Humans are all descend from Adam and Eve i.e. Y-DNA Adam and mtDNA Eve so the Christian and generally Semitic religions which have the most followers are pleased, humans are all of the same stock i.e. no Neanderthal or any other Archaic Homo admixture took place (although we have bones and skeletons which CLEARLY show the opposite) thus Globalization's agenda is OK and Genetics are political correct, humans and chimps are almost the same thus anatomy and taxonomy don't say much that's why it is better to cancel them and have only Genetics as a tool for discovering our past i.e. buy buy physical anthropology and races are a myth and hence we can all live happily by mixing our blood and create a homogeneous global market with free movement of labor and goods and services and Mr Turner, Soros, Abramovic et al may live happily and luxuriously their short lives and who among them gives a dam about humankind and its biological future after 50 or 100 years!!!
    These men won't be here to experience the results!!!
    That's how they think.
    Science is biased unfortunately in our times!!!
    How will you explain Bernal's theories, Kemp's theories, or even in the near past Gunther's and Sergi's theories!
    And the sad think is that it is not only the political agenda that motivates their works but also self interest!!!
    Glory, recognition and above all money!!!
    Colin Renfrew for example although he made excellent things in his carrier like the radiocarbon revolution, his arcaeogenetics, etc. he did not accept glory and recognition untill he said his..."theory" about the Indoeuropean origins!!!
    A theory which is mostly mere and shallow suggestions than a real theory and albeit its contradiction with anthropological, arcaeological, linguistic and other facts it won him recognition because he said a political correct theory!
    A theory which...postulates I.E. in proto farmers from Palestine, Syria and Anatolia with a feminine, pathetic culture, and with a non warlike, non violent, non patriarchal society!!!
    Thus WHAT INSPIRED AND GUIDED MANY WHITE PEOPLE, WHAT MADE THEM PROUD OF THEIR PAST AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR FUTURE CEASED TO EXIST!!!
    Is it coincidental that albeit his prior achievements and works Renfrew, with the death of a relative of his, not only acquired a nobleman's title BUT HE WAS ALSO NOMINATED AS BARON RENFREW OF KAIMSTHORN AFTER HIS THEORY ABOUT THE I.E.?
    Is it coincidental that an unknown, insignificant archaeologist named Robert Drews earned seats and recognition with his ridiculous book about the coming of Greeks in 1600 BC?
    No my dear Dienekes! Things in the scientific world are not so innocent and pure as you and many other commentators want to believe!!!

    ReplyDelete
  30. I suggest that you read the primary sources. No geneticist that I know of has published work that suggests that haplogroup I was the only haplogroup associated with the Gravettian or that it was associated with leptodolichomorphics, or that ALL Gravettians were leptodolichomorphics.

    ReplyDelete
  31. >> A theory which...postulates I.E. in proto farmers from Palestine, Syria and Anatolia with a feminine, pathetic culture, and with a non warlike, non violent, non patriarchal society!!!

    I suggest that you read Renfrew before you criticize him. Renfrew does not derive the Proto-Indo-Europeans (or Pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans) from Syria or Palestine but from specific cultures of Anatolia.

    Your notion that Neolithic farmers were peaceful and non-violent suggests that you are influenced by imaginary reconstructions of Neolithic society by the Gimbutas school.

    >> Thus WHAT INSPIRED AND GUIDED MANY WHITE PEOPLE, WHAT MADE THEM PROUD OF THEIR PAST AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR FUTURE CEASED TO EXIST!!!

    Scientific theories are judged by their correspondence to reality and not by whether or not they "inspire" anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dienekes said:

    "I suggest that you read the primary sources. No geneticist that I know of has published work that suggests that haplogroup I was the only haplogroup associated with the Gravettian or that it was associated with leptodolichomorphics, or that ALL Gravettians were leptodolichomorphics".

    Hahahaha!!!
    Yeah! That's why in their maps and diagrams they have colored THE ENTIRE Gravettian area as the source of I Hg!!!
    Including Italy where the Grimaldis were found!
    Be reasonable mate!
    You say in other words that NO GENETICIST has published such work as the above mentioned by me!
    AND BY YOUR OPINION THE MEDIA AND ALL INTERNET SOURCES THAT DEAL WITH THESE AFFAIRS WROTE ALL THESE THINGS BY MERE INTUITION OR PERHAPS THE ONES THAT WROTE ALL THESE WERE...FISHERMEN OR NURSES OR SOMETHING?
    You did not answer ANY of my arguments above! How can racially different, male and female, skeletons share the same Hg and what is the origin of these individuals?
    Semino and Wells said that Gravettians brought this clearly "Europoid" Hg to Europe. And some also have said that Anatolia and generally the Near East is the source of the Gravettian culture!
    Really?
    And the Grimaldis did they originate in Anatolia or Near East too?
    Where is the fossil proof?
    Grimaldis are also present in Crimea, Voronezh, etc. and these Grimaldis there were also Gravettian in culture!
    But leptomorphic individuals never reached these lands until very later!
    How the Hell then since Grimaldis did not originate in Anatolia/Near East and they were Gravettian long before the appearance of leptomorphics to their lands did Gravettian originated and spread from Anatolia?

    You said:

    "I suggest that you read Renfrew before you criticize him. Renfrew does not derive the Proto-Indo-Europeans (or Pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans) from Syria or Palestine but from specific cultures of Anatolia".

    Really now?
    Is there any genetic (archaeologically speaking) difference between the Anatolian and the Levantine cultures?
    Don't they descend from the Natufian and before that the Kebarian culture?
    The Ubaid, Halafian, Hassunian, etc. cultures how different are they from Çatalhöyük, Çayönü, Nevali Cori, Hacilar, Göbekli Tepe, and Mersin?
    Are they or are they not correlated with Ain Mallaha and El-Wad?

    You said:

    "Your notion that Neolithic farmers were peaceful and non-violent suggests that you are influenced by imaginary reconstructions of Neolithic society by the Gimbutas school".

    Really?

    I don't give a dam about Gimbutas!!!
    She left her feelings and political doctrines to influence her in her judgment! Marija was excellent in gathering enormous quantities of data from research but when it was time to draw her conclusions then she was letting her feelings get in the way!
    I BELIEVE IT IS YOU WHO MUST FIRST STUDY THE REAL AND DEEP ANCESTRY OF THE INDOEUROPEAN ISSUE AND THEN SPEAK!!!
    Just because i support the Kurgan Hypothesis you accused me for being influenced by Gimbutas!!!
    Really, my predisposing friend?
    Is that what you believe?
    Well let me tell you a couple of things!
    Schrader in 1890 was the first proposer of this theory! They followed him, S. Feist, V. Gordon Childe, T. Sulimirski and G. Poisson!!!
    Marija was only one of the latest supporters of this theory.
    My thesis rises from the Journal of Indoeuropean Studies!
    Also from anthropological and other archaeological sources (like the French "Institut d'études indo-européennes" at the Jean Moulin University Lyon 3).
    Now for the beliefs and moral of the Anatolian cultures we have evidence from their rituals, statuettes, graves and art!
    Hermaphrodite statuettes from Crete, homosexual deities, superstitious cults, female ruling deities (Mother Earth i.e. Potnia in Greek)
    etc. are present there!

    FINALLY IT IS YOU WHO MUST ACCEPT THAT "scientific theories are judged by their correspondence to reality and not by whether or not they inspire anyone"!
    It would have been nice for us Mediterraneans to have the I.E. descending from us BUT UNFORTUNATELY THIS DOES NOT STAND!!!
    And I.E. were patriarchal, warlike, pastoral and hierarchical!!!
    That's why the system encourages scientists to try and dilute or if possible destroy this past in order for our democratic globe to live according to the system's wishes!!!
    And who knows, if you do what they say, you might become a Lord one day!!!


    P.S. Since you insult me of being prejudiced and that i am unaware of the various I.E. theories, Renfrew's included, I DARE YOU HERE IN YOUR SITE TO MAKE A POST AND ARGUE WITH ME ON THE ORIGIN OF I.E.!!!
    I AM WAITING YOUR ANSWER!!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. >> How can racially different, male and female, skeletons share the same Hg and what is the origin of these individuals?

    Females don't have Y-chromosomes, and of course racially different people can share the same haplogroup.

    >> Is there any genetic (archaeologically speaking) difference between the Anatolian and the Levantine cultures?

    Of course there are archaelogical differences between different cultures. The fact that Neolithic cultures from the Levant to the Atlantic can be traced to common Near Eastern predecessors does not mean they are identical.

    >> My thesis rises from the Journal of Indoeuropean Studies!

    Journals are venues for scientific discussion, they are not authorities.

    >> Hermaphrodite statuettes from Crete, homosexual deities, superstitious cults, female ruling deities (Mother Earth i.e. Potnia in Greek)

    Ancient Greek culture abounds with all the elements you mention; by your reckoning the Greeks were also not Indo-European.
    >> Since you insult me of being prejudiced and that i am unaware of the various I.E. theories, Renfrew's included, I DARE YOU HERE IN YOUR SITE TO MAKE A POST AND ARGUE WITH ME ON THE ORIGIN OF I.E.!!!
    I AM WAITING YOUR ANSWER!!!

    By all means, make your own blog or website and present your theory for the world to see. I will be happy to comment on it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. My, my, my!!!
    Are you retreating?
    And you are misinterpreting my comments by copying fragments selectively to produce a point which i did not make.

    I said how can Gravettians carry only one Hg since we can find fossils in their lands which do not belong in the same race and that we find both female and male non Caucasoid skeletons meaning Y-DNA from non Caucasoids along with non Caucasoid mtDNA as well!
    How can then the entire Gravettian area been attributed to I Hg as shown in Geneticists' maps?
    Where is the non Caucasoid Y-DNA Hg?
    You totally missed, in your desire to prove me wrong, the goal of my comment which is to clearly outline the biased and sometimes obscure meaning and reasoning of Genetics and other sciences!!!

    You said:

    "Of course there are archaelogical differences between different cultures. The fact that Neolithic cultures from the Levant to the Atlantic can be traced to common Near Eastern predecessors does not mean they are identical".

    AGAIN you totally missed the issue!!!
    Who said what you write above?
    Haha, not i for sure!
    I CLEARLY SPOKE ABOUT THE GENETIC RELATIONSHIP OF ANATOLIAN AND LEVANTINE CULTURES!!!
    Immigrants from the Levant went to Anatolia and created the various pure Neolithic cultures there!
    We have proof from both anthropology and archeology (burial customs) for this!!!

    You said:

    "Ancient Greek culture abounds with all the elements you mention; by your reckoning the Greeks were also not Indo-European."
    OUTLINE THE ELEMENTS YOU REFER TO!!!
    Proto-Greek language, customs, culture, burials, way of life, even till the Mycenaean years have nothing to do with all these.
    On the contrary, after the arrival of proto-Greeks these things slowly vanished and the very few which remained were radically transformed, acquired a new meaning, a new goal and served a new purpose!
    Only in the middle Archaic period and due to the contact of Greeks with Minor Asia and Levant through the various colonies or trade did Oriental elements infiltrate our culture and resulted in the deterioration of our civilization and moral which slowly but steadily resulted in the downfall of Ancient Greece (as it happened with Persia, Rome, and finally with generally the Aryan Nations which all either in the distant past or in the last centuries came to contact by means of trade, arts, philosophy, etc. with Near and Middle East and lost their quality)!!!
    Since you are a Christian, i can tell that from your icons and psalms which you post in religious festivals, you might consider Ancient Greece as a dogma or something!
    Ancient Greece was n't "the Heaven on Earth" culture. And in my experience and knowledge THERE IS NO SUCH A CULTURE in the World and probably will never be!
    Ancient Greece had its goods and bads and the point is to outline the bads and praise the goods in order to avoid repeating the mistakes which lead to its decline in the future!!!

    FINALLY you said:

    "By all means, make your own blog or website and present your theory for the world to see. I will be happy to comment on it".

    But my dear friend it does n't need the emergence of an entire new blog or website to prove me.....wrong and prejudiced!!!
    A simple post WILL MOST CERTAINLY DO!!!
    After all it is here that the issue took place and it is here that it is suitable to see finally who is really aware of Indoeuropean issues and who is simply bluffing!!!

    P.S. And i am not going to "present my theory for the world to see"!!!
    On the contrary i will present the latest, most accurate and totally checked facts of the I.E. issue.
    If i wanted to show of i would have created a blog in which i would have myself presented as a Global Authority in Anthropology, Genetics, Art, History and i would have interpreted things the way they suit me as many others are currently doing!!!
    This is not my desire. I just want to learn things and exchange opinions with others from around the planet!
    My comments, as you might have noticed these two years that i post here, are more to raise counter arguments than to impose an opinion. By doing this i enrich my knowledge from various sectors which i use in my political and scientific life.

    ReplyDelete
  35. My contribution is to suggest that y-chromosomes J and I are more recent arrivals, not survivors of Aurignacian or Cro-Magnon lines. They came in with the expansion of farming. Y-chromosome R1b came in with the Gravettian and replaced all earlier lines, including Neanderthal.

    As Dienekes said way back, "The Y chromosomes of the Aurignacian creators need not have persisted in the present-day population". Of course that doesn't mean at all that other of their genes don't survive to the present day.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Y-chromosome R1b came in with the Gravettian and replaced all earlier lines, including Neanderthal."

    That is not sypported by this latest issue. Even the haplogroup parent to R1b (R1) is only 18,000, thus not old enough to be linked to the Gravettian culture.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Rafinha, you're correct. R1b must have replaced Gravettian Y-chromosome lines as well. Y-chromosome lines are obviously replaced fairly regularly. Therefore the fact that no Neanderthal Y-chromosomes survive is totally useless as proof that all their genes died out.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Guys don't correlate entire industries with specific Hgs.
    At least not until we have some proofs!
    Now that we can take ancient Y-DNA from bones we will soon find out what is what!

    ReplyDelete
  39. True Antigonos. However technological and cultural expansion are usually connected in some way with some level of genetic expansiion, although they easily travel further than genes. And not all members of a particular Hg migrate in the same direction at the same time, and not only members of just a single Hg form part of any migration.

    But over time Hgs will be eliminated from any isolated population. Just one Hg could be left in just a few generations. So we can get some idea of historical migrations from examining Hg disribution.

    Which reminds me. This study claims haplogroup R evolved 26,800 years ago. It presumably separated from Q at that time, which does fit the Gravettian's development. Perhaps R1b sprang up in Europe from R* 18,000 years ago and then replaced it. Anyone see any evidence against this idea?

    ReplyDelete
  40. " haplogroup I was the only haplogroup associated with the Gravettian or that it was associated with leptodolichomorphics, or that ALL Gravettians were leptodolichomorphics"
    Leptodolichomorphic is basic Slavic antropological type and it is not at all connected with Hg I but with Hg R.Hg I is defenitely and without any doubt connected with Dinaric anthropological type
    which has domminated Europe before other main migrations.In fact it is so well documented in biological anthropology that it is without any doubt.If you like more
    than even cranial index is cpecific for this two tipes.Dinaric is only Brahicranial by definition.Leptodolimorfic is Mesocranial by definition.Values in measurment during the time has been changed ,but only in basic borders for basic indexing for each type.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I do terryt. R originated in Asia. R1 originated in Asia and R1b and R1a originated in Asia.

    There is no genesis for the R group in Europe except some subclades like that found in Basques and other Europeans which are about 4,000 years old. The further you go back with the previous mutations the closer to Asia you get.

    ReplyDelete

Stay on topic. Be polite. Use facts and arguments. Be Brief. Do not post back to back comments in the same thread, unless you absolutely have to. Don't quote excessively. Google before you ask.