tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post6460687938447217619..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: The history of mtDNA haplogroup U6Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11748507361924618232014-11-18T21:14:32.721+02:002014-11-18T21:14:32.721+02:00Does anyone know what the frequencies are based on...Does anyone know what the frequencies are based on because this study shows much higher frequencies than any previous study I've seen. A frequency of 30-40% U6 in Ethiopia seems like too much, but it doesn't seem to say anywhere how many samples were used for each location. Has anyone else found this? Thanks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05093072661686539626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-20718947295053937992014-06-16T18:48:53.604+03:002014-06-16T18:48:53.604+03:00"Even E1b1b-M215 is far more widespread with ..."Even E1b1b-M215 is far more widespread with more basal branches within Africa than are present in Eurasia."<br /><br />None of the sub-clades of E-M215 (there are only two of them, actually) is absent from Eurasia. There's even ancestral E-M215* in Eurasia but not in Africa. I have not checked it properly, but looking again in my "database" it appears that there's even more E-M35* in Eurasia than in Africa, and possibly also E-M78* shows the same pattern, not to mention the two Sardinian V68* found in one study and the two Dutch V68* in the E-M35 Phylogeny Project, the Spaniards, Corsicans and Sardinians who are V257* and the M123* individuals who are widespread in Eurasia and found as far as Central Asia with highest world concentration in Northern Portugal and Galicia.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096774136070274675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51638258005004209562014-06-16T06:11:39.332+03:002014-06-16T06:11:39.332+03:00"its closest relations (his brother E-P2* and..."its closest relations (his brother E-P2* and his nephew E-M215*) are in Eurasia". <br /><br />I can't understand how you come to that conclusion although I agree branches of them are actually present 'in Eurasia'. But they could hardly be claimed as primarily Eurasian. Even E1b1b-M215 is far more widespread with more basal branches within Africa than are present in Eurasia. And E-M215's brother, E1b1a-V38, is even more predominately African. <br /><br />"The evidence just speaks by itself and is happily catering for me". <br /><br />The 'evidence' is obviously open to interpretation then. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53051739170287902852014-06-15T17:25:18.631+03:002014-06-15T17:25:18.631+03:00"No. It points to an (apparently) exclusively..."No. It points to an (apparently) exclusively Eurasian modern distribution. Unfortunately for your claim its closest relations are not Eurasian but African."<br /><br />Wrong. E-P75 is Eurasian and its closest relations (his brother E-P2* and his nephew E-M215*) are in Eurasia. To understand what I mean, I address you to my latest comment on the article about the ancient Eurasian admixture in HOA populations.<br /><br />"I get the distinct impression you have started out hoping to find evidence of a Eurasian origin. And one usually finds evidence to support what one is looking for."<br /><br />Sorry, but I don't have to hope anything. The evidence just speaks by itself and is happily catering for me.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096774136070274675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11867302932831338162014-06-15T08:07:13.335+03:002014-06-15T08:07:13.335+03:00"Does he have evidence for what he says? Did ..."Does he have evidence for what he says? Did he analyse STR diversity of K-M9 and the other haplogroups he has provided datings for?" <br /><br />I think the dates are based on the findings of the recent paper on Y-DNA K. I also presume he has based his dates on reasonable grounds, although I am loath to take them as absolutely correct. <br /><br />"If haplogroup dating is not accurate, why do you favour Rokus' datings more than others' (which are more reliable)?" <br /><br />Rokus' dates are not too far removed from several others. <br /><br />"The quotes from the discussion are irrelevant to the topic we are discussing". <br /><br />I disagree. You are trying to understand what Y-DNA might have accompanied mt-DNA U6 into Africa. You have claimed Y-DNA E fits the bill whereas I believe it is an unlikely candidate. <br /><br />"The use of geographic labels applied to E sub-clades by the forum members is merely on the basis of distribution and frequency". <br /><br />Which gives a reasonable guide to prehistoric distribution unless you're postulating wholesale haplogroup replacement. Once you start using that as an explanation for haplogroup distribution it's possible to postulate almost any scenario. Such as German's out of America claim. <br /><br />"And if you really think that frequency is important, would you even try to think of R1b as Cameroonian or Irish in origin? I don't think you would". <br /><br />Of course I wouldn't think of it as Irish. It is a completely different clade. The fact its name starts with the same letter merely indicates ancient connection. <br /><br />"You can see that Canary Islanders less than 2000 years ago had 53% Y-DNA E" <br /><br />And they must have reached those islands by sea. They certainly didn't walk there. <br /><br />"against modern Moroccans' ~80%; Moroccans are thought to stem from the same ancestral population who gave origin to the Islanders" <br /><br />So, what's your point? <br /><br />"All this (together with the unusual Y-DNAs of recently-analysed Egyptian pharaohs) demonstrates that Y-DNA E becomes much less common in Africa the more back in time one goes". <br /><br />In the parts on mainly northern Africa so far studied. We have no information on the ancient Sahel population. <br /><br />"This distribution points exclusively at an Eurasian origin". <br /><br />No. It points to an (apparently) exclusively Eurasian modern distribution. Unfortunately for your claim its closest relations are not Eurasian but African. <br /><br />"I have gathered too much evidence to ignore it". <br /><br />I get the distinct impression you have started out hoping to find evidence of a Eurasian origin. And one usually finds evidence to support what one is looking for. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45856217371028126522014-06-15T05:06:40.760+03:002014-06-15T05:06:40.760+03:00The quotes from the discussion are irrelevant to t...The quotes from the discussion are irrelevant to the topic we are discussing. The use of geographic labels applied to E sub-clades by the forum members is merely on the basis of distribution and frequency. Before 3-4 kya most of Africa had much lower frequency and a much more limited distribution than at present. And if you really think that frequency is important, would you even try to think of R1b as Cameroonian or Irish in origin? I don't think you would. <br />You can see that Canary Islanders less than 2000 years ago had 53% Y-DNA E (against modern Moroccans' ~80%; Moroccans are thought to stem from the same ancestral population who gave origin to the Islanders) and much higher frequency for rare lineages in today's Maghreb. <br />From the University of Khartoum report on Ancient Nubia we know that "Haplogroups A-M13 was found at high frequencies among Neolithic samples. Haplogroup F-M89 and YAP appeared to be more frequent among Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods. Haplogroup B-M60 was not observed in the sample analyzed." Y-DNA E was therefore much lower (or absent? The report is unclear) in Neolithic Nubia (which began 10-6 kya according to sources) and rises in frequency at much later times (this also suggests A-M13 in the Neolithic was pushed south by incoming peoples from the North, i.e. haplogroup E sub-clades, IMO E-V12 and E-V22) and the very common B-M60 (in today's Sudan) was absent back then.<br />All this (together with the unusual Y-DNAs of recently-analysed Egyptian pharaohs) demonstrates that Y-DNA E becomes much less common in Africa the more back in time one goes.<br /><br />"That distribution is just as consistent with a West African origin for the haplogroup."<br /><br />Nothing is more wrong than what you have written. This distribution points exclusively at an Eurasian origin.<br /><br />"I cannot understand how you can be so confident when making that statement."<br /><br />I have gathered too much evidence to ignore it. Distribution of ancestral sub-clades and STR variance of the main sub-clades of haplogroup E, among others, are the main elements for which I suggest a Levantine/West Asian origin for E-M96 and most of its ancient sub-clades. One day, if you show me even one decisive proof for what you say (African origin theory), I will cease to defend my theory instantly. But until that day, I will always support what I (and the current evidence) say.<br /><br />"We know haplogroups are hardly rigidly defined by autosomal DNA. We could be dealing with a considerably admixed population that spread around the Mediterranean." <br /><br />I find that unlikely. If E-M35 was really African, we would see much more African autosomal ancestry in modern West Eurasians, whatever the degree of admixed ancestry (which is unlikely to have been so considerable as you suggest) E-M35 carried.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096774136070274675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-59716630802763607302014-06-14T03:53:40.618+03:002014-06-14T03:53:40.618+03:00Thanks for the link regarding E1b2-P75. From the ...Thanks for the link regarding E1b2-P75. From the link: <br /><br />"E1b1-PN2 is very likely to have arisen in Eastern Africa (Trombetta et al. 2011 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016073))". <br /><br />I find that difficult to believe as E1b1a-V38 is almost entirely West African. Just the sub-branch E1b1b-M215 can be reasonably considered East African. Therefore it is difficult to draw any conclusion as to which was its region of origin. Especially when we consider another comment in the link: <br /><br />"E1a is primarily West African (but present in Sudan as well)". <br /><br />So that places E1a in West Africa as well as E1b1a. <br /><br />Your comment: <br /><br />"E1b2-P75 also originated in the Levant and migrated into Europe. ... Four people there are P75+ and their locations are ..." <br /><br />That distribution is just as consistent with a West African origin for the haplogroup. <br /><br />"E1b1-P2, E1b2-P75 and almost all major sub-clades of E-M96 (itself included) originated in the Levant or in other parts of Eurasia". <br /><br />I cannot understand how you can be so confident when making that statement. <br /><br />"Anyway, among other things, why do we not observe significant levels of African admixture in Eurasia as it would have been expected if E began to spread out of Africa merely 10.000 years ago?" <br /><br />We know haplogroups are hardly rigidly defined by autosomal DNA. We could be dealing with a considerably admixed population that spread around the Mediterranean. The haplogroup distribution definitely tells us that some E haplogroups reached islands in the Mediterranean at some time. We also know that most Mediterranean islands were uninhabited until the Early Neolithic. Those are facts to which we must accommodate the haplogroup evidence. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32320269286980071272014-06-13T18:53:38.698+03:002014-06-13T18:53:38.698+03:00"I ignored it because I don't think haplo..."I ignored it because I don't think haplogroup dating is very accurate yet, and probably never will be. But according to dates Rokus supplied at the relevant post K-M9 is 47,500 years old. Therefore haplogroup IJ must be older than that, and must have been present somewhere in SW Asia."<br /><br />I have read his comment. Does he have evidence for what he says? Did he analyse STR diversity of K-M9 and the other haplogroups he has provided datings for? If haplogroup dating is not accurate, why do you favour Rokus' datings more than others' (which are more reliable)?<br />IJ* has only been found in Iran and most people agree with a dating of 35-40 ky.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096774136070274675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53189366686127624142014-06-13T11:48:51.729+03:002014-06-13T11:48:51.729+03:00"Thinking E1b1-P2 may have originated there i..."Thinking E1b1-P2 may have originated there is OK. But where has E1b2-P75 been found? That would provide a much better indication as to where the two of them originated."<br /><br />E1b2-P75 also originated in the Levant and migrated into Europe. There is no study from which we have information on its distribution, but I have found this forum discussion: http://www.anthrogenica.com/archive/index.php/t-99.html<br /><br />Four people there are P75+ and their locations are:<br /><br />- Canary Islands<br />- Rafidya, Palestine<br />- Suffolk, England<br />- Nottingham, England<br /><br />As the majority of them are Eurasians and we know that Canary Islands' male population was almost wiped out completely by the Spanish colonists, it would be not so crazy to assume that the individual is probably of Spanish descent.<br /><br />E1b1-P2, E1b2-P75 and almost all major sub-clades of E-M96 (itself included) originated in the Levant or in other parts of Eurasia. Anyway, among other things, why do we not observe significant levels of African admixture in Eurasia as it would have been expected if E began to spread out of Africa merely 10.000 years ago?<br />Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096774136070274675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69770329518955682192014-06-12T04:36:27.673+03:002014-06-12T04:36:27.673+03:00"E-V38's other major clade E-M329 is obse..."E-V38's other major clade E-M329 is observed exclusively in East Africa" <br /><br />I see in the latest phylogeny at ISOGG E-M329 has been downgraded to a separate branch within E1b1a-V38. That makes complete sense. We have separate West African (E1b1a1) and East African (E1b1a2) branches within E1b1-P2. <br /><br />"E-M215* has been observed once only in Khorasan, North-East Iran". <br /><br />But as a whole E1b1b-M215 primarily Northeast Africa. The presence of a lonely E-M215* in Khorasan is hardly convincing proof of origin there. We know that E1b1b-M215 became very widespread from eastern to western Mediterranean and inland from there. <br /><br />"So I think that E-P2 originated somewhere between Khorasan and East Africa, i.e. Levant". <br /><br />Thinking E1b1-P2 may have originated there is OK. But where has E1b2-P75 been found? That would provide a much better indication as to where the two of them originated. It's mentioned in this paper as being 'newly discovered' but the authors don't say where as far as I can see: <br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2336805/<br /><br />"I see you have completely ignored my paragraph on K-M526". <br /><br />I ignored it because I don't think haplogroup dating is very accurate yet, and probably never will be. But according to dates Rokus supplied at the relevant post K-M9 is 47,500 years old. Therefore haplogroup IJ must be older than that, and must have been present somewhere in SW Asia. <br /><br />"You have failed to suggest other haplogroups as candidates for the spread of UP cultures in West Eurasia" <br /><br />There you go: IJ. And G is presumably much the same age, or at least its ancestral version. G was probably the first F-derived haplogroup to split off. <br /><br />"you continue to ignore the evidence I have provided: ancestral E-M96* and E-M33* in the Levant and Europe" <br /><br />I haven't ignored it. I have always provided reasons why the very limited presence of those haplogroups outside Africa is hardly convincing proof for an origin outside Africa. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32518351075443672892014-06-10T11:01:05.563+03:002014-06-10T11:01:05.563+03:00@ Terry.
By aDNA I mean ancient DNA (not autosoma...@ Terry. <br />By aDNA I mean ancient DNA (not autosomal DNA = atDN). <br />Sorry for any confusion<br />Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166839601638241857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86160718537429226352014-06-10T10:28:48.556+03:002014-06-10T10:28:48.556+03:00"That makes an East African origin unlikely a..."That makes an East African origin unlikely and shifts E-V38's centre into West Africa."<br /><br />Not at all. E-V38's other major clade E-M329 is observed exclusively in East Africa. E-M215* has been observed once only in Khorasan, North-East Iran. So I think that E-P2 originated somewhere between Khorasan and East Africa, i.e. Levant.<br /><br />"Are you suggesting the UP originated in Africa?"<br /><br />Don't put in my mouth words I have never spoken. West Eurasian UP originated in the Levant, because datings to the East, West, North and South of the Levantine region are more recent than datings in the Levant. I suggest that the UP in West Eurasia (Aurignacian and Gravettian) and in Africa (Dabban and Iberomaurusian) had a common origin in the Levant and were the product of multiple migratory events from the Levant at different times. The populations who produced these lithic industries were either carriers of Y-DNA DE or E (and sub-clades). <br /><br />I see you have completely ignored my paragraph on K-M526. You have failed to suggest other haplogroups as candidates for the spread of UP cultures in West Eurasia and you continue to ignore the evidence I have provided: ancestral E-M96* and E-M33* in the Levant and Europe, the impossibility of K-M526 as having had any role in West Eurasian UP until the Solutrean period (23 kya). Yeah, the Solutrean, because there is a lot of evidence for population shifting in the European EUP-to-LUP transition. Individuals living before the LGM were tropical-adapted and possessed long limbs and athletic body types, and were usually over 1.80 cm tall. Post-LGM individuals were instead short-statured (1.65 cm), cold-adapted with short limbs, and among them there was a definite brachycephalic element which was absent in pre-LGM individuals (who were virtually all dolichocephalic). Plus, we observe for the first time high crania, which also were absent in pre-LGM populations. All this means that, apart isolated cases of stand-out individuals in pre-LGM Europe (Grimaldi, probably Y-DNA A, and Kostenki 14, Y-DNA C) the pre-LGM population was homogeneous and probably monophyletic, while during and after the LGM we observe a relatively mixed population in which the pre-LGM element is virtually absent or at best very diluted. That's why we don't see so many traces of E-M96* in Europe today.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096774136070274675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83235625125806453642014-06-10T09:51:19.203+03:002014-06-10T09:51:19.203+03:00"haplogroup K could still have arisen further..."haplogroup K could still have arisen further west, ie India, then spread further east as part of an already partly differentiated population". <br /><br />Haplogroup K as a whole (including IJ and LT) almost ceetainly did arise further west. But it is extremely unlikely the haplogroups considered in this paper arose anywhere other than SE Asia. Each haplogroup considered in the paper (apart from NO and P) is confined to a very restricted geographic region. If they had moved east as an already partly differentiated population we would expect to find remnant haplogroups distributed along the route. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12445110074445043222014-06-09T09:37:42.728+03:002014-06-09T09:37:42.728+03:00haplogroup K could still have arisen further west,...haplogroup K could still have arisen further west, ie India, then spread further east as part of an already partly differentiated population. Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166839601638241857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-13717721221428510102014-06-09T06:42:07.180+03:002014-06-09T06:42:07.180+03:00"There is currently no sample of E-P2*"...."There is currently no sample of E-P2*". <br /><br />That makes an East African origin unlikely and shifts E-V38's centre into West Africa. <br /><br />"West Eurasia simply lacks ancestral clades except E-M96*, and this means something in my opinion". <br /><br />Are you suggesting the UP originated in Africa? <br /><br />"The same can be said for you and the African origin theory". <br /><br />So we have to wait for more evidence one way or the other. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21036385508900614302014-06-09T05:55:18.193+03:002014-06-09T05:55:18.193+03:00" Until you show me aDNA from Sardinia, I'..." Until you show me aDNA from Sardinia, I'll be happy to point out that modern Sardinians are not so 'ancient' as we think" <br /><br />I don't follow your reasoning here. We all surely know that aDNA is a better indication of overall ancestry that is haploid DNA but here we are specifically discussing Y-DNA E. I have no doubt that Sardinia was settled some time during the Neolithic. We know that E-V68 is present on the island and is unlikely to have entered before the early Neolithic. We can also be sure it must have arrived by sea. Therefore we can be reasonably sure that a population containing that haplogroup must have been capable of sea voyaging, probably during the early Neolithic. <br /><br />" you cannot invent your own theories when no data exists to account for it". <br /><br />I have not 'invented a theory'. I have looked at the data and come to a conclusion, which is not what you appear to have done. You look to have invented a theory and have yet provided no data to support that theory. The overall distribution of E haplogroups makes it very difficult to maintain an origin for the haplogroup anywhere but within Africa. <br /><br />"NO archaeological evidence exists for any direct contacts between north Africa and Europe" <br /><br />The presence of Y-DNA E-V68 in Sardinia is alone evidence for such contact. I agree the contact may be very recent of course but I am yet to see any such claim. Besides which several other Y-DNA E haplogroups have been discovered in Europe, notably E-V13 in the Balkans. That too argues eloquently for some E haplogroups having voyaged around the Mediterranean. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90441792033941292422014-06-08T23:28:24.219+03:002014-06-08T23:28:24.219+03:00"I was certainly under the impression it had ..."I was certainly under the impression it had been found in Ethiopia."<br /><br />Your impression is wrong. There is currently no sample of E-P2*.<br /><br />"Very sporadically compared to their widespread presence in regions of Africa." <br /><br />Sporadic but definitely present, unlike ancestral haplogroups which you indicate as potential markers of UP populations in West Eurasia. West Eurasia simply lacks ancestral clades except E-M96*, and this means something in my opinion. Why do we not observe ancestral haplogroups compatible in age to the initial UP in West Eurasia other than E-M96*?<br /><br />"I don't think you have yet made a convincing case for E having first developed anywhere but within Africa."<br /><br />The same can be said for you and the African origin theory.<br /><br />"Have you checked out Dienekes' latest post concerning Y-DNA K: <br /><br />http://dienekes.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/refined-structure-in-haplogroup-k-m526.html<br /><br />K's expansion is obviously pre Upper Paleolithic and so P and its descendants as well as C1 were quite probably responsible for the development and spread of the UP in Eurasia. And R certainly reached Africa."<br /><br />K-M526 originated in Southeast Asia 40 kya (range: 35-45 ky). This is definitely out of the initial period of the UP in Europe (47 kya) and spacially too far removed from it, therefore K-M526 and all its sub-clades can be excluded as markers of the initial UP populations in West Eurasia. <br />Regarding Y-DNA C-V20 and upstream sub-clades of C, I think that an introduction in Europe in UP times is possible, but at the moment we don't have enough data to confirm it at least mathematically. However, I tend to view Y-DNA C as a newcomer from Central Asia in Eastern Europe 40-35 kya. Kostenki 14 carried C-V20 or other clades of C, in my opinion. Experts indicate a similarity to modern Melanesians in cranial traits for Kostenki 14, while the majority of contemporary specimen from the rest of Europe are relatively different from Kostenki 14 and resemble closely African specimens (Mechta-Afalou, Hofmeyr) which were the product of the back-migration of DE* and E* into Africa.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096774136070274675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-39456823990386353632014-06-07T04:09:23.672+03:002014-06-07T04:09:23.672+03:00@ Terry T
" It is unlikely that Sardinian E ...@ Terry T<br /><br />" It is unlikely that Sardinian E is anything other than a very early arrival there. "<br /><br />-> Speculation does not make for proof. Until you show me aDNA from Sardinia, I'll be happy to point out that modern Sardinians are not so 'ancient' as we think, and are just as mixed and novel as other peoples - not to mention the very recent north African and Arab admixture in them, which might account for their apparent "Neolithicness". <br /><br />You might be correct about Hg E and norther Africa, or not. Whatever the case, you cannot invent your own theories when no data exists to account for it. NO archaeological evidence exists for any direct contacts between north Africa and Europe, even southern / Aegean Europe. (and no, the Bell Beakers did not come from north Africa , either)Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166839601638241857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26446594584018463642014-06-06T09:47:57.691+03:002014-06-06T09:47:57.691+03:00"so far no E1b1-P2* has been found, as shown ..."so far no E1b1-P2* has been found, as shown by Trombetta et al. (2011)". <br /><br />I was certainly under the impression it had been found in Ethiopia. <br /><br />"The descendants of a past Syrian prime minister (Al-Bitar) have tested their DNA and found out to be DE-M1*. See here http://www.familytreedna.com/public/lebanon-syria-dna/default.aspx?section=yresults" <br /><br />I looked. One example. Seems strange. <br /><br />"About E-M33*, it has been found in 5 Portuguese individuals by Gonçalves et al. (2005)" <br /><br />Unlikely downstream mutations were checked thoroughly at that time. <br /><br />" it seems that there is hardly an exclusive presence of E-V68 and sub-clades in Eurasia (I think you mean E-M35, because besides DE-M1*, E-M96* and E-M33*, haplotypes of E-M35*, E-M123*, E-V257*, E-V68*, E-M78*, E-L618* etc. have all been found in Europe and Asia, too" <br /><br />Very sporadically compared to their widespread presence in regions of Africa. As is the case with these, often single examples: <br /><br />"Karachanak et al. (2013) found an E-M96* in Varna, Bulgaria. They tested E-M35 and downstream sub-clades and E-M2. I compared the haplotype to E-M33* and E-M75 haplotypes in the literature and I didn't find a similarity. So that haplotype is probably a genuine E-M96*. Also, Ferri et al. (2010) found an E-M96* in their Gheg Albanian sample. They tested only for E-M35. I compared the haplotype to the same haplotypes as above and found no similarity. Badro et al. (2013) found 2 E-M96* in their Turkish sample, and Zalloua et al. (2008) found several Lebanese, Cypriots, Syrians and Palestinians to be E-M96*". <br /><br />I don't think you have yet made a convincing case for E having first developed anywhere but within Africa. <br /><br />"can't you also tell what Y-DNA haplogroups were responsible for the start of UP cultures in the Levant, Europe and Africa if not E-M96 and its sub-clades?" <br /><br />Have you checked out Dienekes' latest post concerning Y-DNA K: <br /><br />http://dienekes.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/refined-structure-in-haplogroup-k-m526.html<br /><br />K's expansion is obviously pre Upper Paleolithic and so P and its descendants as well as C1 were quite probably responsible for the development and spread of the UP in Eurasia. And R certainly reached Africa. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-66664816705564153592014-06-05T19:51:07.501+03:002014-06-05T19:51:07.501+03:00"Has it been found there? What study discover..."Has it been found there? What study discovered it there?"<br /><br />The descendants of a past Syrian prime minister (Al-Bitar) have tested their DNA and found out to be DE-M1*. See here http://www.familytreedna.com/public/lebanon-syria-dna/default.aspx?section=yresults<br /><br />"Which studies? Was any effort made to find any downstream mutations to more closely define the particular haplogroups involved? As far as I'm aware the only E clades found in either the Middle East or Europe are subclades of E-V68 (still E1b1b1a?)."<br /><br />Karachanak et al. (2013) found an E-M96* in Varna, Bulgaria. They tested E-M35 and downstream sub-clades and E-M2. I compared the haplotype to E-M33* and E-M75 haplotypes in the literature and I didn't find a similarity. So that haplotype is probably a genuine E-M96*. Also, Ferri et al. (2010) found an E-M96* in their Gheg Albanian sample. They tested only for E-M35. I compared the haplotype to the same haplotypes as above and found no similarity. Badro et al. (2013) found 2 E-M96* in their Turkish sample, and Zalloua et al. (2008) found several Lebanese, Cypriots, Syrians and Palestinians to be E-M96*. <br /><br />About E-M33*, it has been found in 5 Portuguese individuals by Gonçalves et al. (2005), in some Syrians by Zalloua et al. (2008), in North-Eastern Italy by Battaglia et al. (2008), in Costanta, Romania by Bosch et al. (2006), in both Italian- and Albanian-speaking individuals from Calabria, Italy by Semino et al. (2004). 2 E-M33* haplotypes were also found in Reutte, Austria by Erhart et al. (2012). They were labeled E-M96, but I compared them to other E-M33 haplotypes and found that they were similar. Niederstätter et al. (2012) also found an E-M33 in East Tyrol. The haplotype was identical to one of those found by Erhart et al.<br /><br />So, it seems that there is hardly an exclusive presence of E-V68 and sub-clades in Eurasia (I think you mean E-M35, because besides DE-M1*, E-M96* and E-M33*, haplotypes of E-M35*, E-M123*, E-V257*, E-V68*, E-M78*, E-L618* etc. have all been found in Europe and Asia, too, and continue to be reported in studies dealing with European and Asian populations). <br /><br />Apart from those two questions you asked, can't you also tell what Y-DNA haplogroups were responsible for the start of UP cultures in the Levant, Europe and Africa if not E-M96 and its sub-clades?Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096774136070274675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82893972702776538612014-06-05T12:07:32.619+03:002014-06-05T12:07:32.619+03:00"the 'nice distributions' are palimps..."the 'nice distributions' are palimpsests and not necessarily the result of an initial sea-borne 'sweep'". <br /><br />I doubt they are 'palimpsests'. The fact that two haplogroups, E1b1b1-M35 and E1b1b1a1-M78, share the distribution makes your interpretation unlikely. The distribution could hardly be considered random, which is what we would expect if intermediate regions had been cleared of the haplogroups. In fact Spain, Italy, the Balkans and the Levant look to be intermediate regions of an original expansion, which includes the Mediterranean. <br /><br />"even as late as the Bronze Age, there appears to have been no trans-mediterranean voyages. Eg objects of Epyptian provenance appearing in Crete did so via down-the-line trade" <br /><br />Your idea fails to take the Sardinian E haplogroups into account. I agree that voyaging was probably coastal rather than direct but the haplogroup distributions show definitely a movement of populations around the Mediterranean at some time. It is unlikely that Sardinian E is anything other than a very early arrival there. <br /><br />"The time I am referring to is the Early Upper Paleolithic, when most of the dominant haplogroups of today's Levant (for example, J1 or J2 etc.) were either confined to relatively distant areas or non-existent in their derived form (for example I and J were still IJ, and IJ was in Central Asia when it originated)". <br /><br />Agreed. But: <br /><br />"If this was the case, haplogroup E and its oldest downstream clades may have been the only candidates as markers of the Levantine (and probably African and European) UP populations". <br /><br />I note you said, 'may have been'. Because: <br /><br />"haplogroup F was in India together with its clades". <br /><br />Not all 'its clades'. It is unlikely G or its ancestors were ever in India and the same may be true for H2-P96, a 'brother' to H1-M69. Both these haplogroups look native to somewhere in Southwest Asia. <br /><br />"the presence itself of DE* in the Levant" <br /><br />Has it been found there? What study discovered it there? <br /><br />"ancestral clades of E in Europe and the Levant (E-M96*, E-M33*)" <br /><br />Which studies? Was any effort made to find any downstream mutations to more closely define the particular haplogroups involved? As far as I'm aware the only E clades found in either the Middle East or Europe are subclades of E-V68 (still E1b1b1a?). terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51052153601584863532014-06-05T10:10:17.017+03:002014-06-05T10:10:17.017+03:00Point one: haplogroup E back-migrated to Africa. W...Point one: haplogroup E back-migrated to Africa. West Eurasian admixture is present virtually everywhere and in every ethnic group (farmers, pastoralists, hunter-gatherers). The only thing in common between all these ethnic groups is haplogroup E. Read this article and its author's opinion http://dienekes.blogspot.it/2012/03/effects-of-ascertainment-on-admixture.html?m=1<br /><br />Point two: so far no E1b1-P2* has been found, as shown by Trombetta et al. (2011).Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096774136070274675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19601286708570406562014-06-02T15:08:24.156+03:002014-06-02T15:08:24.156+03:00@ Vincent, did CT* DE* and E* back migrate from Eu...@ Vincent, did CT* DE* and E* back migrate from Eurasia before of after Eurasians interbred with Neanderthal, Denisovan and other yet to be named archaic humanoids who have left genetic signatures in Eurasians and not Africans?<br /><br />Also what about E1b1* This ancestral clade is found in East Africa, West Africa as well as the Sahel. Did this backmigrate too?astenbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06946446840115831804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5839834606246995092014-06-02T08:46:07.931+03:002014-06-02T08:46:07.931+03:00Terry - the 'nice distributions' are palim...Terry - the 'nice distributions' are palimpsests and not necessarily the result of an initial sea-borne 'sweep'. I am not an expert in marine palaeo-archaeology, however, even as late as the Bronze Age, there appears to have been no trans-mediterranean voyages. Eg objects of Epyptian provenance appearing in Crete did so via down-the-line trade , going from port to port, rather than directly. Its all about prevailing currents and technological capabilities of the period in question. On the other hand, direct seafaring from Crete to Egypt *could theoretically* have been possible, but not vice-versa ! So we need to be careful with what we speculate,...Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166839601638241857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62161220936504810452014-06-02T00:14:10.006+03:002014-06-02T00:14:10.006+03:00"Perhaps so. But neither branch has a particu..."Perhaps so. But neither branch has a particularly noticeable representation in the Levant."<br /><br />I don't understand what this means. Frequency is irrelevant, because it undergoes numberless variations in time. This means that some time in the past these lineages may have been at least statistically relevant. The time I am referring to is the Early Upper Paleolithic, when most of the dominant haplogroups of today's Levant (for example, J1 or J2 etc.) were either confined to relatively distant areas or non-existent in their derived form (for example I and J were still IJ, and IJ was in Central Asia when it originated). If this was the case, haplogroup E and its oldest downstream clades may have been the only candidates as markers of the Levantine (and probably African and European) UP populations. Think about this, it is not impossible that this may have actually taken place: haplogroup C was in Southeast Asia 50 kya, haplogroup F was in India together with its clades. IJK is not compatible as European or Levantine UP marker because it is too young and because it was confined to South Asia initially. The only serious candidates left are either DE or E. Besides STR diversity, the presence itself of DE* in the Levant and ancestral clades of E in Europe and the Levant (E-M96*, E-M33*) points at this conclusion, because in Europe one can hardly find ancestral C* or F* or IJ* haplotypes (these haplogroups are usually assumed to be the most likely candidates for the European UP). How comes then that we can find DE*, E-M96* and E-M33* but not C*, F*, G*, IJ*, K* or any other CF-derived ancestral haplogroup?Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096774136070274675noreply@blogger.com