Analyses of the Stora Förvar 11 genome

Below are the results of analyses of the Stora Förvar 11 genome. The Stora Förvar 11 remains were found on Stora Karlsö, a small island off the west coast of the larger Swedish island of Gotland, in the Baltic Sea. The remains were dated to 7,500 to 7,250 years ago, and they were found in a late Mesolithic context.

Stora Förvar 11 belonged to mitochondrial haplogroup U5a1. He had two copies of the depigmentation allele in the gene SLC45A2, and since Motala 12 had at least one copy of the depigmentation allele in the gene SLC24A5, we now know that both of the two major Caucasoid depigmentation mutations were present in the hunter-gatherers of Mesolithic Europe.

The K12b results show that Stora Förvar 11 didn’t have any of the Gedrosia component, so he couldn’t have had any admixture from R*, R1*, or R1b people.

The dv3 results show that Stora Förvar 11 was more closely related to Western Europeans than to Eastern Europeans.

globe4

  • 83.48% European
  • 14.13% Amerindian
  • 2.38% African
  • 0.00% Asian

globe10

  • 88.09% Atlantic_Baltic
  • 3.63% Amerindian
  • 3.21% Neo_African
  • 2.98% South_Asian
  • 0.97% Siberian
  • 0.57% Australasian
  • 0.55% Palaeo_African
  • 0.00% East_Asian
  • 0.00% Southern
  • 0.00% West_Asian

globe13

  • 75.65% North_European
  • 15.32% Mediterranean
  • 3.35% Amerindian
  • 2.33% West_African
  • 1.32% East_African
  • 1.26% South_Asian
  • 0.49% Australasian
  • 0.27% Palaeo_African
  • 0.02% Siberian
  • 0.00% Arctic
  • 0.00% East_Asian
  • 0.00% Southwest_Asian
  • 0.00% West_Asian

K7b

  • 90.12% Atlantic_Baltic
  • 3.93% African
  • 3.81% Siberian
  • 2.14% South_Asian
  • 0.01% West_Asian
  • 0.00% East_Asian
  • 0.00% Southern

K10a

  • 81.70% Atlantic_Baltic
  • 10.03% Mediterranean
  • 3.00% Sub_Saharan
  • 2.81% Siberian
  • 1.38% South_Asian
  • 0.83% Palaeoafrican
  • 0.25% Southeast_Asian
  • 0.00% East_Asian
  • 0.00% Red_Sea
  • 0.00% West_Asian

K12b

  • 68.03% North_European
  • 24.32% Atlantic_Med
  • 3.41% Sub_Saharan
  • 3.23% Siberian
  • 0.79% South_Asian
  • 0.16% Southeast_Asian
  • 0.05% East_African
  • 0.00% Caucasus
  • 0.00% East_Asian
  • 0.00% Gedrosia
  • 0.00% Northwest_African
  • 0.00% Southwest_Asian

dv3

  • 55.12% West_European
  • 28.28% East_European
  • 9.96% Mediterranean
  • 2.00% Northeast_Asian
  • 1.98% Neo_African
  • 1.48% Southeast_Asian
  • 1.16% Palaeo_African
  • 0.02% East_African
  • 0.00% Northwest_African
  • 0.00% South_Asian
  • 0.00% Southwest_Asian
  • 0.00% West_Asian

MDLP World-22

  • 63.93% North-East-European
  • 18.86% Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic
  • 9.15% North-European-Mesolithic
  • 1.95% Sub-Saharian
  • 1.78% Mesoamerican
  • 1.48% Indo-Tibetan
  • 0.84% Austronesian
  • 0.77% North-Siberean
  • 0.47% Arctic-Amerind
  • 0.37% Samoedic
  • 0.36% South-America_Amerind
  • 0.02% North-Amerind
  • 0.01% Indian
  • 0.00% East-Siberean
  • 0.00% East-South-Asian
  • 0.00% Indo-Iranian
  • 0.00% Melanesian
  • 0.00% Near_East
  • 0.00% Paleo-Siberian
  • 0.00% Pygmy
  • 0.00% South-African
  • 0.00% West-Asian

Old World 26

  • 44.61% Finnish
  • 28.16% Basque
  • 3.33% Sardinian
  • 3.23% Yoruba
  • 2.67% Yakut
  • 2.57% Dai
  • 2.27% Archaic
  • 1.99% Palestinian
  • 1.90% Mozabite
  • 1.59% Naxi
  • 1.36% San
  • 1.31% Kenya-Bantu
  • 1.02% Bedouin
  • 1.00% Gujarati
  • 0.95% Burusho
  • 0.92% Biaka-Pygmy
  • 0.71% Papuan
  • 0.41% Kalash
  • 0.02% Brahui
  • 0.00% Druze
  • 0.00% Japanese
  • 0.00% Lahu
  • 0.00% Mandenka
  • 0.00% Mbuti-Pygmy
  • 0.00% Melanesian
  • 0.00% She
Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized
7 comments on “Analyses of the Stora Förvar 11 genome
  1. Maju says:

    “… we now know that both of the two major Caucasoid depigmentation mutations were present in the hunter-gatherers of Mesolithic Europe”.

    The Chalcolithic Age people of Gotland (Pitted Ware culture) were not “hunter-gatherers of Mesolithic Europe” but semi-foragers with some farming (at least pigs and possibly some cereals) of the Copper Age (pan-European chronology). They had some “Neolithic” mtDNA lineages (T2b, V) and therefore they could well have incorporated that allele from the farmer wave (just saying).

    “Stora Förvar 11 didn’t have any of the Gedrosia component, so he couldn’t have had any admixture from R*, R1*, or R1b people.”

    This is, I must say, one of the most outlandish claims ever. There’s no particular relation between P or R, much less R1b (no relation at all: R1b does not exist in South Asia, with very rare exceptions) and the so-called Gedrosia (Baloch) component. The P-derived lineages are absolutely dominant in many South/West Eurasia derived populations, including Native Americans (Q1), and must therefore correspond at least partly to very ancient migrations. Which ones? We don’t know for sure as of now for lack of ancient DNA samples other than Mal’ta 1 (R*) but it’s clear that Ma1 should have no connection with that “Gedrosia” element and that it is old enough to reflect these very ancient migrations I’m talking about (Aurignacian and/or Gravettian in short).

    Recent full Y-chromosome age estimates (after the necessary recalibration) suggest that R1a expanded from Iran or somewhere nearby in the Epipaleolithic (or maybe as late as the Neolithic) but it cannot be associated to any particular autosomal component (it’s not so easy). The same estimates should place R1b in an older time-frame (Gravettian chronology according to my previous estimate based also on the full Y-DNA sequence), with M412 probably having an age that corresponds with Magdalenian.

    See:
    http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/03/y-dna-r1a-spread-from-iran.html
    http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/y-dna-ages.html

  2. genetiker says:

    I’ll respond after responding to this comment.

  3. genetiker says:

    The Chalcolithic Age people of Gotland (Pitted Ware culture) were not “hunter-gatherers of Mesolithic Europe”

    I never said that they were. I noted the presence of the depigmentation mutations in Motala 12, who lived 8,000 years ago, and Stora Förvar 11, who lived 7,500 years ago. That’s long before the Pitted Ware culture.

    They had some “Neolithic” mtDNA lineages (T2b, V)

    All the evidence shows that V was a hunter-gatherer haplogroup. See this comment.

    This is, I must say, one of the most outlandish claims ever. There’s no particular relation between P or R, much less R1b (no relation at all: R1b does not exist in South Asia, with very rare exceptions) and the so-called Gedrosia (Baloch) component.

    Totally wrong. All anyone has to do to see that R1b is associated with the Gedrosia component is to compare a table of haplogroup frequencies with the K12b spreadsheet, or to compare a map of the distribution of R1b with a map of the distribution of the Gedrosia component.

    but it’s clear that Ma1 should have no connection with that “Gedrosia” element

    Also totally wrong. My analyses of the Mal’ta 1 genome showed that Mal’ta 1 had 24.73% of the Gedrosia component.

    Recent full Y-chromosome age estimates (after the necessary recalibration)

    Your recalibrations are nonsense. They’re based on your gullible acceptance of Chinese claims that archaic remains in China are modern.

    The estimates here and here are probably close to reality.

    suggest that R1a expanded from Iran or somewhere nearby in the Epipaleolithic (or maybe as late as the Neolithic)

    There’s no real evidence that it expanded from Iran. I think that this page is correct. It shows R1a occupying a Ukrainian and Southern Russian refuge during the last glacial period, and then spreading from there starting at the beginning of the Holocene.

    but it cannot be associated to any particular autosomal component

    Wrong. R1a is associated with the North European and Caucasus components.

    The same estimates should place R1b in an older time-frame (Gravettian chronology according to my previous estimate based also on the full Y-DNA sequence)

    The estimates I linked to above show that R1b must have originated between 26,900 and 21,200 years ago. So yes, R1b probably originated during the Gravettian.

    with M412 probably having an age that corresponds with Magdalenian

    The above estimates give a TMRCA for L51/M412 of 7,600 to 5,900 years ago. So after the Magdalenian.

    • Maju says:

      “All the evidence shows that V was a hunter-gatherer haplogroup. See this comment.”

      Which leads to:

      “Ajvide 52 was V, so V was definitely a hunter-gatherer haplogroup”.

      Ajvide 52 like all the other samples from Chalcolithic Götland are not Paleolithic and their V lineage, found along other farmer lineages like T, is more recent from the oldest known V samples from Neolithic Germany and Portugal. Those are the facts.

      “Your recalibrations are nonsense. They’re based on your gullible acceptance of Chinese claims that archaic remains in China are modern”.

      Not just “Chinese claims”. There is clear evidence for Aterian style tools in India c. 100 Ka BP.

      http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/07/middle-paleolithic-industries-of.html

      The study is signed by James A. Blinkhorn, whose name doesn’t look Chinese at all.

      It also makes good sense if we think of a “pump effect” in Arabia in the Abbassia Pluvial (c. 125-90 Ka BP): people effectively entered Arabia and Palestine since c. 125 Ka and were pressured to leave c. 100-90 Ka. Some left for India and beyond.

      “So yes, R1b probably originated during the Gravettian.”

      Alright then. Let’s leave the rest in a standstill by the moment.

      “There’s no real evidence that it expanded from Iran.”

      There is: all basal lineages pile up over there and there is a clear divide between the Europan and Asian major subclades: → http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/03/y-dna-r1a-spread-from-iran.html (on Underhill 2014).

      Iran-Kurdistan if you wish to be strict with maybe a minor secondary role for Anatolia.

      “Wrong. R1a is associated with the North European and Caucasus components”.

      That was my main qualm and you are not explaining why you thing so? North European is one thing and Caucasus is another thing: they are clearly distinct autosomal components in any case. You are claiming that someone from Europe can’t be R1a because of lack of the “Gedrosian” component, what reads as Baloch affinity, something almost unheard of in Europe even today.

      Anyhow autosomal hegemony is often decided by the female side of the equation, as happens with Amerindians, Uralics or even North Africans. There’s very low likelihood of strongly associating autosomal components with Y-DNA.

  4. genetiker says:

    Which leads to

    Read the rest:

    “A Gravettian sample from Italy and a Magdalenian sample from Spain were found to be either R0 or HV, and those are ancestral to V, so it’s certainly possible that V is ultimately descended from Paleolithic Europeans. Sami are 41.6% V, and Sami have an especially close relationship to the hunter-gatherers of Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe. Also, neither U nor V appear in any of the samples from the Neolithic Near East listed here. And as reported here, X, K, J, H, and T were found in samples from Mesolithic and Neolithic Greece, but no U or V was found there.”

    The fact that V has so far not been found in Europe before the Neolithic does not imply that it was not in Europe before the Neolithic.

    The fact that V has been found in Neolithic samples does not imply that it was not originally a hunter-gatherer haplogroup. Plenty of U has also been found in Neolithic samples, and U was originally a hunter-gatherer haplogroup.

    There is clear evidence for Aterian style tools in India c. 100 Ka BP

    India is not China.

    Any humans that were in India 73,000 years ago would have been killed by the Toba eruption. The Indian Ocean and the whole of South Asia were covered with a thick layer of volcanic ash. India was deforested at the time of the eruption.

    The age of mt hg L3 is estimated to be 67,262 years. L3 is rooted in Africa. So clearly India was repopulated from Africa after the Toba eruption.

    The mt hg age estimates I linked to are consistent with the Y hg age estimates I linked to.

    all basal lineages pile up over there

    Wrong. The first map here shows that there’s more R1a* in Western Europe than in the Middle East. It shows that there’s far more R1a1* in Europe than in the Middle East. It shows R1a1a* in Europe, but none in the Middle East.

    That was my main qualm and you are not explaining why you thing so?

    Compare a table of haplogroup frequencies with a spreadsheet for the North European component. They’re obviously associated.

    Do the same for the Caucasus component. All of the populations with the highest frequencies of R1a have significant amounts of the Caucasus component. This Caucasus component can’t be attributed entirely to J2, because Lithuanians have 8–10.1% of the Caucasus component, but J2 is completely absent in Lithuanians.

    You are claiming that someone from Europe can’t be R1a because of lack of the “Gedrosian” component

    That’s not what I said. I said that since Stora Förvar 11 didn’t have any of the Gedrosia component he couldn’t have had any admixture from R1b people.

    something almost unheard of in Europe even today

    Look at the K12b spreadsheet. The Gedrosia component is in Europe.

    Anyhow autosomal hegemony is often decided by the female side of the equation, as happens with Amerindians, Uralics or even North Africans. There’s very low likelihood of strongly associating autosomal components with Y-DNA.

    Utter nonsense. Amerindians have a significant amount of Caucasoid admixture, which is associated with the Q in Amerindians. Mestizos have significant amounts of European autosomal components, which are associated with the European Y haplogroups in Mestizos. American Negroids have significant amounts of European autosomal components, which are associated with the European Y haplogroups in American Negroids.

    • Maju says:

      HV (rather than R0, unknown except as R0a, which is clearly defined by certain markers absent in Paglicci, or as HV) is not necessarily “ancestral” to H and V. It may just be another branch of the same haplogroup. Even a pure HV-root lineage (without further mutations) does not need to be the ancestor of H or V or whatever other lineage but most likely a parallel branch. H is documented (with some doubts) first in the Gravettian of Sunghir, and later (beyond any doubt) in the Magdalenian of Cantabria and the Epipaleolithic of Portugal, Karelia and the Basque Country. However V or HV0 (of which V is the main subclade) is not documented anywhere before the Neolithic (Portugal, Central Europe), so we cannot be sure that it has Paleolithic roots or more exactly where those roots were.

      “Also, neither U nor V appear in any of the samples from the Neolithic Near East listed here”.

      Expanding in the Neolithic does not automatically mean Near Eastern origins. In fact there are some lineages like N1a, H5 or Y-DNA I2a1 which seem to expand in the Neolithic but probably (or even very clearly in some cases) have European roots. That is surely also the case of mtDNA H, particularly H1 (in the context of Atlantic Neolithic with Dolmenic Megalithism, collective burial and such, which was determinant in the genesis of modern Europeans): it has clear European Paleolithic roots but was rare in many areas in the late Paleolithic, expanding only in Neolithic/Chalcolithic context.

      I don’t think that there is any reason to imagine HV0 and V to have West Asian roots but I find at least some reasons to think that they expanded in the Neolithic from, probably, European origins of some sort.

      “India is not China”.

      India is Asia East of Arabia and, together with East Asia and (marginally) Near Australasia makes up the core area of the “Eurasian” branch of Humankind. If you follow the genetic trail, it is obvious that the OoA migrants expanded first from South Asia (M), “bouncing” in SE Asia (N/R) and arriving to West Asia (and Europe, Central Asia and parts of Africa) as result. See for details: → http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/06/synthesis-of-early-colonization-of-asia.html

      Also there are two instances of evidence from China emphasizing the near 100 Ka date: → http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/09/homo-sapiens-was-in-china-102000-years.html

      You will dismiss them as “Chinese claims” but I have no reason to think that Chinese scientists are worse nor better than Western ones, more biased or whatever. The studies seem correct and fit well in the overall puzzle.

      “Any humans that were in India 73,000 years ago would have been killed by the Toba eruption”.

      That’s unreal. We know that people survived in Jurrerru Valley with cultural continuity (Petraglia 2007 & 2010), we know that Toba effects, while important, were not that decisive after all (for example: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23458-supervolcano-eruptions-may-not-be-so-deadly-after-all.html). People survived although they probably suffered some changes as result. I think that the secondary expansion of mtDNA N/R and its associated male lineages, notably Y-DNA K (former K(xLT)), was partly impelled by Toba effects. However judging on haploid DNA, these effects were in fact more formidable in SE Asia than in India.

      “The age of mt hg L3 is estimated to be 67,262 years.”

      That would never work. It’s one of those estimates worth only for toilet paper. Molecular-clock-o-logy is a nightmarish labyrinth, heavily conditioned by scholastic bias of the kind “repeat what is already in the literature, disdain what is new even if probable” (scholastic cowardice or even outright blindness) and I normally stay away from them altogether.

      For me L3 must be c. 130-115 Ka old, coincident with the early Abbassia Pluvial, while M would be c. 100-90 Ka old, coincident with the first arrival of modern humans to Asia (beyond Arabia) and N is probably of about the age of Toba. L3k, specific of NW Africa, is another “out of tropical Africa” lineage, which again fits best with the Abbassia Pluvial and the formation of Aterian.

      “The first map here shows that there’s more R1a* in Western Europe than in the Middle East”.

      That’s just sampling and testing bias of a commercial company. Useless.

      Stick for this stuff with the scholarly papers because commercial data is ALWAYS biased in favor of NW Europe, where the bulk of their customers are or originate from.

      “Compare a table of haplogroup frequencies with a spreadsheet for the North European component. They’re obviously associated”.

      Many populations in Europe score high for North European component (autosomal) but have almost no R1a. Brits for example.

      “That’s not what I said. I said that since Stora Förvar 11 didn’t have any of the Gedrosia component he couldn’t have had any admixture from R1b people”.

      Sorry, my bad. I became confused because of the long time passed between question and answer.

      My original question actually was why did you relate the Baloch (Gedrosia) component with R1b, when there is no R1b in South Asia (but for one very exceptional population).

      R1b has a clear West Asian origin and is found in three main derived groups: Western Europe (with two subgroups: South and North), Central Asia (Uyghurs, Bashkirs) and Central/East Africa (mostly Afroasiatic peoples). In essence each corresponds to one sublineage. Autosomally these are very different populations, of course.

      “Look at the K12b spreadsheet. The Gedrosia component is in Europe”.

      Alright. But the proportions fit much bettwer with the Atlantic-Med component in fact (if anything at all). High “Gedrosia” (South Asians, West Asians, especially from the Caucasus) has zero relation whatsoever with R1b. High Atlantic-Med (Basques and other Western Europeans) on the other side fits at least rather well with the European subclades of R1b.

      You should clear reconsider.

      “Utter nonsense. Amerindians have a significant amount of Caucasoid admixture, which is associated with the Q in Amerindians”.

      Yes to the latter, so it makes sense: most of their autosomal affinity is with East Asians, whose input on the paternal side is very low (C2) but extremely high in the maternal side. That’s because, as happens with Uralics, etc., the patrilocal population admixed once and again for millennia with local women, incorporating their genetic affinities as a whole but still retaining their patrilineal specificity.

      Significant is not the same as hegemonic. Significant is just non-trivial, for example 5%, 10%. Hegemonic is dominant, like 50%, 80%…

      “Mestizos have significant amounts of European autosomal components, which are associated with the European Y haplogroups in Mestizos.”.

      Those modern examples are not really good examples, they are exceptional because of the peculiar reality in which many men (but few women) were once and again recruited to settle the colonies. Anyhow, recent evidence strongly points to the “European” component in the Caribbean (incl. Mexico, Colombia) being not actually European but Canarian (North African), as Castile had difficulties recruiting settlers and hence resorted to the ill-considered Guanches of Canary Islands for most of the settling effort, sometimes by force, sometimes by enticement.

      See update and discussion here: → http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/06/caribbean-autosomal-ancestry.html

      This is a great example of colonization by proxy, much as Britain settled Australia with Irish, etc. In such oligarchic contexts not always is the core population the one producing the colonization but a subservient one (which is under heavy pressure at home and needs to find a relief).

      But these oligarchic contexts are irrelevant in the Paleolithic or even in the Early Neolithic. So all the above does not apply in general being actually quite exceptional. Exceptional is also the 19th and 20th century colonizations of the Industrial Era, which were able to mobilize settlers and displace natives at a totally unprecedented rate.

  5. […] results for the Motala hunter-gatherers are similar to those for Stora Förvar 11, a Swedish hunter-gatherer who lived around 500 years later, and Ajvide 58, another Swedish […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories
%d bloggers like this: