GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-08 > 1091551375
From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] J2 HG in Scotland
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 09:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
Hi David, Doug, List:
Whoa, what a minute. Are we talking about J2? Or R1a?
Or Q? Because these are different groups with
different histories, origins, and migration patterns.
To try to help clarify matters, I'm going to send a
separate post about R1a1. I'll list it under "R1a
Central Asian Matches" because I think these are
really two separate discussions.
David, I hope you will take all this in the way it is
intended. I have an archaeology degree, but not a
genetics degree, so my knowledge of genetics is based
on what I've been able to pull of the internet, not
what I learned at a University.
However, if your going to publish your research (which
I sincerely hope you will), then you will get a lot of
questions and criticisms about certain points - you
may as well here some of them now and get prepared,
Let's go to the Samartians themselves first. First,
you need to define the area you are talking about -
between the Black Sea and the Caspian? Further east,
on the Eastern shores of the Caspian? I'm thinking
you are talking about the area that is defined as
between the Black and Caspian Seas - is this correct?
The area that became the Khazarian Empire in the 7th
Second, you need to define your Samartian people more
clearly. Where are you getting that they are
significantly J2, David? I guess we can look to the
population in an area very, very close to where the
Samartians lived (though I'd much rather see a study
dealing with Russians from Odessa stretching to the
border of Kazakhstan. This would be more accurate).
The Georgians are 33% J2 (4% J1). According to
Semino's paper, there is no haplogroup E found in
Georgia. Thus, your idea does nothing to explain how
E3b got to Britain.
Now this means that the Georgians are 67% "other."
Most likely a very high percentage of R1a1 and (we
know) very, very high haplogroup G. This isn't what
we see in Britain. We don't see a large amount of G
or a very, very high percentage of R1a1 (and it was my
understanding that most of R1a was brought to Britain
by the Vikings).
Additionally, the Khazars, who inhabited the area
between the Black and Caspian Seas, obviously had high
percentages of haplogroup Q. How do we know this?
Because other than the Scandinavians, haplogroup Q is
only found in very low frequencies where the Khazars
migrated - Hungary, Poland and Lithuania (for those
interested, I am in the process of designing a webpage
for Ashkenazi Q results that examines the Khazarian
evidence closely, including archaeological remains).
This is essentially it, guys. Q very Asian-specific
and very rare in Europe. As far as I know, it is not
found in Britain, with the exception being in Scottish
areas where Vikings settled, and even then it's rare.
So the Samartians, who likely had Q (as well as O & C
and a host of other groups we aren't talking about
much on the List) didn't bring it to Britain.
However, I do think there was significant gene flow
between the native British populations and the Romans.
Italians today have very high percentages (15-30%) of
J2 and E3b, so it quite possible that some of British
obtained these haplogroups from the Romans themselves.
There was a clear merging of the Celtic British
culture with that of the Romans, as supported by the
archaeological record in England. There is no reason
not to think that there was a merging of some of the
peoples as well over the course of many hundreds of
years that the Romans occupied England.
But you would have great difficulty trying to
differentiate between Roman J2 and Middle Eastern J2.
Almost all the sub-clades appear in both places,
sometimes in the same proportions. Which brings us
back to the Neolithic farmers.
David, there is nothing "hypothetical" about the
Neolithic farmers. It was debated in the archaeology
community for years whether the culture and farming
technology of Anatolia was brought to Europe merely
though the "movement of ideas" or through the actual
movement of peoples out of this area. By making
overarching and unfounded statements like that, you
negate the work of many thousands of archaeologist,
physical anthropologists and linguists who have
labored for decades trying to bring these people "to
life" to the rest of the world. They were real
people. They really existed.
DNA evidence has now prove quite conclusively that
there was a significant and massive movement of
people, not just ideas, out of Anatolia towards Europe
(and south into the Levant - Syria, Lebanon and
Israel). This happened because because farming and
sedentarism brings huge population growth, and those
people needed some place to go, not to mention land to
farm. Along with these people moved their culture -
their particular brand of pottery showing scenes like
dancing that were not previously found in the
Mesolithic peoples of Europe. We've also now
discovered using DNA computer programs that study
linguistic similarities and differences, that these
Neolithic farmers brought the first wave of
Indo-European languages with them - Greek, Albanian,
Armenian. Pretty amazing stuff. And unlike R1a,
there movement was peaceful, as far as we can tell in
the archaeology record.
David, the reason there is little J2 difference
between Engish and Armenian sources is because these
people all originated from the same source - from the
Konya plain of south-central Anatolia. This brings us
back to Doug McDonald's idea that these populations
share haplotypes because they arose from the same
Furthermore, you are just looking at haplotypes here,
but sub-clades are much more important in this DNA
scheme. In order to prove your theory, you must prove
a number of different things, including other European
populations differ significantly in haplotypes (and
more importantly, in sub-clades) from those
populations that best reflect the ancient Sarmartians
as well as from English J2.
> David Wrote:
> ********* The Neolithic farmer concept is a
> construct built upon sheer speculation. One can
> never know if cultural diffusion or migration of
> farmers brought agriculture to Northern Europe. It
> has become dogma that these hyothetical people
> brought J2 and E3b to Southern Europe and it in turn
> percolated up to Britain and other locations. The
> archaeological assemblage does not support the
> Neolithic theory, nor does it refute it. Using
> Occham's Razor or the Law of Parsimony, the simplest
> explanation is that the historically documented
> groups recruited from the fringes of the Roman
> Empire and sent to the far flung reaches of the
> Empire like Hadrian's Wall in Northumberland England
> have left their genetic stamp on the present
> population. J2 was not found in a large study of
> Gaelic surnames. The evidence is consistent with a
> scattering of incomers sent as Legionnaires from the
> Lower Danube to keep order in Britain, or peoples
> crossing the English Channel to Britian bringing !
> with them their haplotypes which originated in the
> Middle East during the zenith of the Roman Empite.
> There reason why there is little haplotype
> difference between J2 in England and in Armenia is
> that, according to this conceptualization, the time
> scale is such that significant differences are not
> The above argument also applies to R1a. About 40%
> of R1a in Scandanavia does not at all resemble that
> of Eastern Europe, but is virtually identical to
> that from Kazakhstan - why, because there is only a
> 1600 year separation between the two groups,
> permitting only slight differences in the modal
> values for each and explaning why my uncle has
> absolutely no matches with Eastern Europeans, but is
> a close match to 2/3 of a sample of 54 R1a from the
> Altai and other Central and South Asian locations -
> to repeat, zero matches with Poland or the Ukraine
> where R1a is alleged to have originated - but this
> point is also debatable. Pakistan shows more R1a
> variability than the Ukraine, so why would it be
> assumed that the Kurgan culture of the Ukraine was
> the spawning ground of R1a. It makes more sense to
> look to Pakistan and India as the ancestral
> The point of all this...................take nothing
> for granted. The explanations for the present
> distribution of haplogroups in Eurasia is not carved
> in stone. It is time for a fresh look in light of
> new DNA evidence, archaeology and history.
> Gain access to over two billion names including the
> new Immigration
> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click
> to learn more.