Forum Replies Created
Version 1.90.8 includes minor updates and mtDNA from the study Mitochondrial genomes from Bronze Age Poland reveal genetic continuity from the Late Neolithic and additional genetic affinities with the steppe populations, by Juras et al. J. Phys. Anthropol. (2020)
Version 1.90.6, updated with reports from Simon Hedley’s great Haplogroup I1 Ancient DNA Samples Google Map.
He includes very detailed BAM analyses of ancient I1 samples reported to date.
Updated version 1.90.5, including corrections to I1 subclades (in my file) posted on YFull Facebook Group by Simon Hedley.
Included two mtDNA reported by Rogers et al. from WSU Human Biology Open Access preprints at https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol_preprints/160
Updated version 1.90.4 with new mtDNA reported in Evaluation of DNA conservation in Nile-Saharan environment, Missiminia, in Nubia: Tracking maternal lineage of “X-Group”, by Yahia Mehdi Seddik Cherifi, Selma Amrani.
@Alone Coder, Thank you for your message.
The core idea of a Modern Indo-European language is to follow the mainstream reconstruction of PIE. The reason for this is precisely to avoid having a thousand Interlinguas or Esperantos being constantly created by different people to improve it. If we want it to be used, we can’t risk having a thousand. I know it’s difficult to accept one version, especially because the field is neither unitary nor static, so we also try to keep an eye on new developments to adapt it whenever necessary.
Some conscious and potentially risky choices on our part are e.g. our preference for avoiding laryngeals and “palatovelars”, both decisions made because of their controversial nature (too long to explain here, you have probably read about it here and elsewhere). With regards to vocabulary, my aim has always been to select North-West Indo-European related ones, but Fernando’s lexicon chooses mainstream ones, as you say. I don’t think you can easily select which Indo-European languages are core ones, although I am sure he will be open to review vocabulary that consistently appears in more languages with the same meaning, to be used instead of other, less common words that he might have picked for the dictionary.
Anyway, I decided long ago to let Fernando López-Menchero – who is formally trained on Classics and on Indo-European linguistics – take all decisions on linguistic matters. I suggest you contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org, he might be very interested in having help with the lexicon, and maybe he can help you with yours at the same time. You can also use our Facebook Modern Indo-European group to discuss specific reconstructed vocabulary.
In version 1.90.1 I added changes proposed by Kovalev to culture and group classification of samples from Jeong et al. (2020).
I have left the samples labelled as C2a… according to what I could find in Japanese pages, which suggest they belong to ISOGG 2019 C2b, even though no recent ISOGG nomenclature included them in the past 5 years… These include C2a1a1, C2a1a2, but particularly C2a1a3, whose corresponding C2b1a3?? I couldn’t find anywhere.
Changes into version 1.89.16 include:
1. Addition of mtDNA from Ancient mitogenomes show plateau populations from last 5200 years partially contributed to present-day Tibetans, by Ding et al. Proc R Soc B (2020).
2. Review of SNP inferences of Bronze Age R1b-Z2103 samples, including negative SNPs.
Now using Yleaf v. 2.2, but I didn’t see any marked differences with previous inferences made with Yleaf v.2.
1. I have tested all Baltic Neolithic samples reported as R1b-L754 or P297: all have enough coverage to show they are of basal subclades P297* (xM73, xM269).
2. I also tried using Skoglund et al. (2014) PMDtools with different thresholds to improve damaged samples:
Unsuccessful with the Balkan Chalcolithic outlier from Smyadovo: all positive SNPs except BT are excluded, so we are stuck with the more risky: P-, but R+, R1b+, R1b-M269+ results. For some reason (maybe a specific threshold??) the authors assumed that the R-P280 call was acceptable, though.
Successful with the Samara HG sample: a low threshold (=0.1) confirms one R1b-M73-equivalent SNP, with two negative R1b-M269-equivalent reads, so the most plausible haplogroup seems to be M73, until proven otherwise.
3. I added samples from Egypt, including two newly reported from the Kurchatov Institute (no clear date or location), also the dubious R1b-M269 from the KV 55 coffin and the mtDNA of Djehutynakht in Loreille et al. (2018).March 13, 2020 at 1:47 pm in reply to: van de Loosdrecht (2020): Genomic and dietary shifts in Sicilian prehistory #27955
Interestingly, the paper also supports some main points:
1. The WHG-reated migration might have been initially mediated by R1b-rich Epipalaeolithic groups from south-eastern Europe, but it seems to have been soon hijacked by I2 lineages, much like the later Neolithic migrations.
The two Neolithic-related reported Y-DNA show what seems like a resurgence or continuity of previous Mesolithic lineages, C1a2, but also likely Neolithic H. Despite the low number of samples, it questions the origin of the R1b-V88 expansion into Africa from (NW) Sicily.
See more on the question of the R1b-V88 expansion.
2. The affinity of Impressed Ware and Stentinello I to Balkan Neolithic- or Greek Neolithic-related ancestry supports that the NW Anatolia Neolithic-related ancestry found among sampled Italics and Etruscans could be in fact an admixture of “local” peoples from Southern Italy or the Adriatic, in line with the appearance of the Etruscan J2b-L283.
See more on the EEF ancestry of Italics and Etruscans.
Updated with Sicilian Epigravettian, Mesolithic, and Early Neolithic samples from van de Loosdrecht et al. bioRxiv (2020).March 12, 2020 at 9:10 pm in reply to: Prehistory Atlas: Maps of Cultures, Peoples, and Languages #27941March 12, 2020 at 9:07 pm in reply to: Prehistory Atlas: Maps of Cultures, Peoples, and Languages #27940
I have updated the Late Trypillian groups in the Early Chalcolithic map, using Diachenko & Harper (2016) and (not so much) Videiko (2011). I hope future papers on population genomics give a more precise chronology:
Proposed synchronizations and durations of local groups of the Late Tripolye culture. Colors indicate typo-chronological assignment: yellow – Tripolye BII; light green – Tripolye CI; dark green – Tripolye CI-II; blue – Tripolye CII. From Diachenko & Harper (2016).
The general distribution of Late Tripolye local groups and relevant sites with 14C dating. From Diachenko & Harper (2016).
I have updated the dataset, including reported Neanderthal and Denisovan Y-DNA (ISOGG only).
I have also checked out some of the samples of hg. T. I can’t find Genetiker’s reported SNP for the Varna individual. The best I can do (like the original paper) is CT+.
It’s quite interesting that the R1a-Z93 from the Balkans shows SNP calls similar to the Glăvăneştii one, suggesting that it is an R1a-Z93* sample more closely related to Late Trypillian groups, and thus a potential resurgence event more than a Srubnaya-related migration:
I have also updated all maps of Y-DNA.