Interesting and straight to the point: that can be said of this new paper. That and that a number of high profile geneticists have co-authored it (Olivieri, Behar, Achilli, Torroni and Salas). The only less known name is in fact that of the lead author:
Alberto Gómez Carballa, Genetic Continuity in the Franco-Cantabrian Region: New Clues from Autochthonous Mitogenomes. PLoS ONE 2012. Open access.
The finding here is that along with many H subclades and probably V, which have been discussed in older studies, the lineage HV4a1a seems to have originated in the Franco-Cantabrian region, with branches to North-West Europe and, secondarily, South Italy, as can be seen in fig. 1:
Notice that the territory under French jurisdiction has been sampled much more sparsely than that under Spanish rule. This surely explains that most of the apparent diversity is located in the Cantabrian strip and not in Gascony, Occitania or otherwise in French territory.
Number of known basal subclades of HV4a1a per Upper Paleolithic province:
- Franco Cantabrian region: 9.5
- Iberian province: 3
- NW Europe: 3
- Italy: 0.5
Or maybe you prefer the representation in fig. 2:
HV4 overall may have originated in or near Eastern Europe however, where most of the basal diversity seems to be.
"HV4 overall may have originated in or near Eastern Europe however, where most of the basal diversity seems to be. "
ReplyDeleteInteresting.
For what I've seen (unless I misread something), ~28,000 BCE Sungir's haplogroup, besides H17'27 and H1j, might have been HV4a2 (but apparently also some U1 subclades or even U5b3f (even though this one seems less likely for time and location reasons IMO) to be precise).
Hj1 could be indeed (I had not noticed before, thanks for the heads up) but HV4a2 surely not because, besides the transition at 16129, it also requires a transition at 16221, which was not found.
DeleteH1j is supposed to have expanded from the Franco-Cantabrian region or Basque area in any case, what is not the case AFAIK re. H17'27.
Typo: Hj1 was obviously meant to be H1j.
DeleteThe middle Eastern branch is of interest: it shows you how careful one must be with claiming that certain branches are extra-European pre-neolithic and therefor indicate European replacement. We know that there was actually migration out of Europe to the near East after LGM.
ReplyDeleteSomeone without this neolithic replacement bias should work on that and quantify it...
I can only agree with that evaluation, Eurologist. Just because some lineage is also found in West Asia it does not automatically mean it originated there: flows from Europe to West Asia surely happened as well.
Delete"We know that there was actually migration out of Europe to the near East after LGM".
I think it's very probable at some moments (Beldibian art, Zarzian genesis) but I would not go as far as to say "we know".
But IMO it is the case that bidirectional genetic flow happened in the Paleolithic and that the simplistic interpretations of all being original from West Asia are not correct.
"Someone without this neolithic replacement bias should work on that and quantify it"...
Easier said than done, IMO. Not just the genetic surveys are not homogeneous or ample enough but discerning what came from here and what from there is a matter of constant debate, sometimes honest, other times not so sincere.
"HV4 overall may have originated in or near Eastern Europe however, where most of the basal diversity seems to be."
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why you're not more enthusiastic. I heard you arguing with dienekes on the neo replacement model. Thus shows that H was in Europe pre neolithic and that the high level of H in modern Europe does not require a neolithic replacement.
Are you mostly concerned with the meso expansion out of the F-C refuge and its impacts?
I don't know why would I have to be emotional about it. It's interesting indeed but I do not think science should be militant.
ReplyDelete"Are you mostly concerned with the meso expansion out of the F-C refuge and its impacts?"
In truth I just try to understand the whole picture and get a good answer. I'm concerned with everything (up to a point).
Right now something that bugs me was largely discussed here with Marnie (and by email with some other people). Why Neolithic did not stabilize mtDNA (in some parts of Europe at least) into modern patterns but we have to wait till Bronze or at least advanced Chalcolithic to see it?
There may have been a Chalcolithic expansion from Portugal (?) and I never really expected it too seriously: it was just the always discarded option B. Of course it's not the origin of any haplogroup as such (Neolithic populations were already too large for that) but the expansion as in Modern times, with many founders who reproduce an irregular copy of the homelands' patterns. Portugal/SW Iberia is a strong candidate because Dolmenic Megalithism began there and it had the civilization as well. Not just that, Chandler's survey of Neolithic Portugal suggests that they had the massive amounts of mtDNA H (75-78%) needed to "correct" the Neolithic mtDNA pools of West Europe into modern ones. The Bell Beaker hypothesis but with emphasis in Megalithism instead and Iberian origin, Portuguese specifically.
But it's just a hypothesis I'm chewing on. I may outline it one of these days in a post for more open debate.
But whatever the case it's not a militant issue: I get angry at bad science and at irrational defense of what is indefensible but I'm less clearly leaning for one specific explanation (I have opinions but not "causes", not in science at least).
Hmm is anyone else having problems with the images on this blog loading?
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to find out if its a problem on my end or if it's the blog.
Any responses would be greatly appreciated.
Not in this particular entry at least. In other cases there may be issues because they were hotlinked and the original file has been deleted or changed address since then.
Delete