GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-01 > 1136669236
From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Scientific American and N1a
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 14:27:30 -0700
The findings, on
> a regional scale, was a 70%-80% contribution of Near
> Eastern genes in regions such as the Balkans, with
> decreasing frequency as one moves further and further
> from the Middle East. The lowest frequency was found
> in England, at about 20%.
> Ellen Coffman
If one goes back far enough probably all European genes "originated"
somewhere else. Tell me the ydna haplogroups in the English gene pool which
add up to 20 percent and came to Europe in the neolithic era from the Middle
East, rather than earlier and from somewhere else? Now do the same in
Scandinavia? I think throwing all J, G, E together you are still in middle
single digits within Scandinavia.
The R1b, I1a, I1c, N components of Scandinavian ydna could very well have
arrived in Europe in the paleolithic era. The rest is essentially R1a. It
is not clear when R1a arrived in Europe or from where. While conceivably it
could be from the "Mid-East" very broadly defined, its arrival from further
north in the Eurasian steppes and from basically non-agricultural peoples
is also a viable theory.
In the Balkans, your 70 or 80 percent number suggests you are apparently
throwing I1b into the pot of genes which were "contributed by the Middle
East"? Now the parent haplogroup I is believed to have come from the Middle
East. But if it arrived in Europe prior to the LGM during the paleolithic
era, and the divisions into I1a, I1b, I1c occured in Europe prior to the
neolithic revolution and introduction to Europe, should we say that I1b was
an import from the Middle East?
|Re: [DNA] Scientific American and N1a by "Ken Nordtvedt" <>|