GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-04 > 1143914543


From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] an unexpected haplogroup result
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 10:02:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <002a01c655a4$08d62fd0$0101a8c0@HighReaches.local>


Glen & List:

This simply isn't the case. Most of the studies, both
archaeology-based and genetic, suggest that there was
a huge genetic impact caused by Neolithic. This
impact was particularly dramatic in the Balkans,
Greece, Italy and parts of eastern Europe, where
Neolithic haplogroups such as E3b and J comprise
between 80%-60% of the DNA results.

There are two seperate issues being discussed in this
thread. The first is highly speculative and
unsupported by the genetic data - that haplogroup J
was present in Europe during the Paleolithic. Here,
your trying to prove a negative. The geneticists
don't frankly know which Y groups were present in
Europe during the Paleolithic or whether any of those
groups continue to exist among present-day European
populations. They draw conclusions based on the fact
that groups like I and R1b came into existence during
the Paleolithic (R1b earlier than I) and exist today
not only in high frequencies in Europe, but also
display distinctive European sub-clades and haplotypes
not found in other regions of the world. But again,
based on this data, the geneticists are making logical
suggestions based on present-day DNA results rather
than providing firm evidence based on ancient Y
studies.

Since the ancient mtDNA evidence, however, indicates
that groups in existence with great frequency in the
European Paleolithic (for example, N1c) do not exist
with such a frequency today, we can assume that the
overall genetic picture presented by the Paleolithic
does not resemble the genetic background of
contemporary European populations. It remains an
unexplored area of genetic research. There is no
genetic data to intreprete.

On March 23, I posted an archaeological study to the
list under the subject title, "Palaeolithic
Ethno/Linguistic Groups of Europe." The study's
authors make a remarkable claim; no one on the list
posted a response. I disagree with much of this
study's conclusions, but one important thing it
revealed is that even archaeologists are not yet in
agreement about what kinds of peoples were in
existence and co-existed in Europe during this time
based on their material remains.

The authors also leveled some rather humorous (and in
my opinion, fairly valid) criticisms towards the field
of genetic genealogy and its obsession with
"interpreting the current gene pool as a legacy of
past population migrations." Since there appears to
be a dramatic genetic disconnect between Paleolithic
groups and contemporary populations, at least at the
mtDNA level, I've repeatedly urged extreme caution on
the list when making these types of "interpretations."

As for the second issue raised by this thread - the
movement of J into Europe during the Neolithic - of
that there is plenty genetic evidence to support such
a conclusion. I don't have Underhill and King's paper
in front of me, but it was one of the first to link a
particular genetic pattern with archaeological
findings - in this case, the distribution of Neolithic
painted pottery and figurines with Y haplogroup J. I
also suggest that listers go back and reread the
studies listed in FTDNA's library on this topic, in
particular Cruciani's study on E3b (which like J, is
considered another Neolithic haplogroup), Semino's
study on E & J which specifically addresses these
haplogroups in conjunction with the "Neolithization"
of Europe, and Di Giacomo's study, which suggests in
fact that groups like J reached Europe post-Neolithic.


Ellen Coffman

--- Glen Todd <> wrote:

>
> > What were the reasons the deeply probing
> researchers gave for
> > putting the arrival of J just or only with the
> Neolithic or
> > later --- other than the SE to NW cline?
> > In other words, the researchers being deeply
> probing is not
> > an explanation.
> >
> > To me the relevant real solid evidence in the dna
> > distributions is just that the J, G, and E
> distributions in
> > Europe look different than those of R and I.
> > And there had been so much previous work on the
> spread of
> > agriculture from MidEAst into Europe, they felt
> compelled
>
> To me, this sounds like another attempt to revive
> the long-discredited 'wave
> of replacement' theory. A map of the current
> genetic distribution in
> Europe shows that the 'wave' broke and crashed quite
> early, with little
> genetic impact. The new technologies penetrated
> far better than the
> people did. Either that or it's another attempt
> at an 'ex oriente lux'
> revisionism doctrine.
>
> Glen
>
>
> ==============================
> Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search
> not only for
> ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx
>
>





This thread: