GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-04 > 1143909369


From: Bonnie Schrack <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] {Bonnie} an unexpected haplogroup result
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:36:09 -0500


Grant wrote:

>Hunter Gathering practices and farming prevailed together. Cultural hunting
>traditions are still practiced today by farming communities. I believe this
>is another point in the debate. Farming was developed to offset the lows of
>available game not to replace hunting or gathering altogether.
>
>Our debate has been influenced by historical idealism, where an agreed
>convention has been taken as an absolute, that farmers don't hunt or gather,
>because we have called them 'farmers'.
>
>Do you see where I am coming from?
>
>I think there is an inherent error in the belief of say J, or otherwise,
>being a 'Neolithic people'. They are much older, and so beyond that
>historical imputation, although conventionally know as.....
>
Very good points, Grant, I don't disagree at all with what you're saying
here.

I just don't have the time right now (thanks to being behind in my grad
school work), to go and re-study all those papers that have been
written, and tell you all the reasons why it is believed that J came to
Europe during the Neolithic and not earlier. You might find it
interesting to go and read them yourself! ;-)

I am the last one to argue on the basis of "authority," that has nothing
to do with it, I have no needless awe of the scientists who wrote them.
I am simply aware that they have had the chance to accumulate far more
in-depth knowledge of all the intricacies of archaeology, pre-history,
and genetics involved in the arguments, than I do at the moment. If you
feel that you are on that higher level of knowledge, fine, but then, I
would expect to see you publishing journal articles on this, too. ;-) .
. but please don't think that I intend that as directed against you --
it's just the reality about all of us list members. If any of us were
professionals in the field, I don't think we would be debating the issue
on this mailing list.

I don't think those working on these problems professionally are so
blinded by idealism as to view J people as never having hunted, or
incapable of movements unrelated to agriculture.

Of course, nobody would deny the existence of stray individuals of
different haplogroups in any migration.

But I think also, that there were periods in which migration was more
encouraged by climate and the effects that would have had on food
supplies, ease of travel, etc. The Paleolithic migrations into Europe
were not a steady thing, but are thought to have taken place in specific
periods when conditions were favorable.

What I'm suggesting is that the mutations that created J might not even
have taken place yet, when most of the Paleolithic migrations into
Europe happened.

The Di Giacomo paper, which combined several methods to estimate the age
of the haplogroup, appears to put the age of J* in the range of 22,000
years old, though there is no doubt a good deal of uncertainty about
that. The split between J1 and J2, they estimate to have occured at 50%
of the age of the haplogroup. Of course, I am simplifying their
figures. I have little understanding of statistics, so if some
statistician would take a look at the paper, which I provided a link to
in an earlier message, that would be interesting.

Of course, if a migration was underway from a given region and there
were people who were J and IJ at that point, the ones who were J
wouldn't have said, "no, we'll sit this out, it wouldn't be historically
correct for us to come along"!

I would suspect that instead, J is a haplogroup that developed in those
who had not migrated into Europe.

__I have just now read your email with (Bonnie) in the subject header.

> Further Bonnie posted sound questions regarding my reason for introducing
> the subject.

Thanks for that! :-) I hoped you would see it that way.

>
> I have an unresolved observation {Ysearch Haplo-Map} regarding a faint
> corridor of J-inferred families from Turkey to Lithuania, which is
> different
> to the shape made by the spread of say J2 in Europe. This area north of
> Turkey through the Balkan refugia on to the Baltic coast is a
> corresponding
> area of high Hg-I concentration. This I believe may be suggestive of an
> early migrating kindred post-LGM.
>
> This is now further supported by the known connection of J to IJ being the
> pre-I* kindred.

Grant, I'm all for looking at maps, but when it comes to Ysearch there
are some things we need to take into consideration.

Yes, there was a group of J people in the Balkans, whose migrations
from there were land-based. They had the further M12 mutation, making
them J2b (old J2e). Mostly I think they followed the Danube, and other
major rivers, as they moved northwest. I have not seen any evidence
that they moved direclty north to the Baltic region.

In Ysearch, you see J people in Lithuania. What I think we need to take
into consideration here is that there have been extremely few people
native to Eastern Europe or the Baltic region who have had their Y DNA
tested and posted the results in Ysearch. Rather, what we have in
Ysearch is a strong Jewish genealogy community participation. Many
Ashkenazi Jewish people settled in Lithuania and other regions of the
"Pale," including Galicia, Bukovina, etc., as a refuge from Western
Europe's persecutions.

I don't think there have been any J individuals found in studies of
European Y DNA who were from the Baltic populations, apart from the
Jewish communities there.

The land-based migrations of J took them into Central Europe, where they
seem to be found at least as far as southern Germany. Things do get
rather muddied by the Roman Empire having brought so many people up the
Rhine from the Mediterranean, including, of course, Js.

I don't want to rule out any very early migrations of Js into Europe,
but we'll have to see what we can learn about when archaeological
evidence says migrations did take place from the Middle East, that they
could have participated in. Of course we could say, there were
migrations that left behind no evidence, but then we are getting into
the realm of pure speculation.

Also let's take into consideration the many SNPs within J. The J1 and
J2 SNPs had to have taken place at a later time than the original J*
SNPs; as I mentioned above they are thought to have happened quite a
while later, but there have hardly been any J* people ever found at all,
and I believe the few that were found, were Middle Eastern. European
Js belong to either J1 or J2, so the early migrating folk you are
referring to would have either had to belong to one of those, or would
have had to have died out by now.

They would not, back in pre-Neolithic times, have had any of the quite
recent mutations such as M12 or M67, etc. Whether they would have had
the M410 mutation, as the vast majority of J2 do, is another interesting
question. What is certain is that there is enormous diversity within
J2, so who knows what we may yet find. J1 seems less likely as a
candidate for any early migration, given its more southern distribution,
but the Semino paper on E and J suggests that a few of them could have
migrated to Europe during the Neolithic along with the J2s.

As far as haplotypes, Ken, well, there are certainly enough unusual J
haplotypes that we have yet to sort out, that all kinds of things may
yet turn up. I'm working on that all the time.

OK, this has gotten long enough, I must get on with other work. Thanks
for your thoughtful comments and the chance to discuss these issues.

Bonnie








This thread: