Are Sardinians autosomally the closest to the original Haplogroup I carriers?

[daedal1]

Keep in mind that Sardinia is up to 40% Haplogroup I. I'd think it would make sense for them to drift from other west asians, as they wouldn't have received as much southwest asian, etc. elements. They actually score 0% for Gedrosian. Various european neolithic settler farmers have been shown to be very close to modern sardinians.

[Prince Carlo]

No they aren't. Saami are.

[Vesuvian Sky]

In order to know this without doubt, a geneticist would have to determine Y-DNA I from aDNA of a male specimen and then extract autosomal DNA for analysis.

It has been the opinion of some that Sardinian admixture represents both archaic European traits (Paleo-Meso) mixed with incoming Neolithic agricultural settlers.

Saami possess admixture of archaic Europeans (Paleo-Meso) mixed with Siberian hunter gatherers that entered Europe around 10,000-6000 BC theoretically speaking.

[daedal1]

No they aren't. Saami are.

Samis have uraloid ancestry, which would have been distinct from IJ west asians.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I don't think it's easy to tell this at all. It's obvious sardinians were a maritime culture for a long time. There's also a lot of r1b there, so I think it's plausible they actually were settled by protovikings who were in contact with them. It's also possible that they were settled by the very ancient greeks as well, and that the I group was what was common then. We know more or less that it must have been common in greece at some point because that pretty much had to be where it was during the ice age.

I don't think saami were really as important as people think, I think they were mostly where they are now (and for a most of history had much less range). If they really had covered all of europe we'd see them where we see the basques today, instead of basques.

[Fire Haired]

No they are not the only group in globe13 test that originated in Europe and was in Europe before the spread of farming starting 9,000ybp is called North Euro. and is dominate in Mesolithic European samples mEd is dominte in Neloithic ones. Sardine people have the highest amount of Med and lowest amount of North Euro in Europe. 71% med and 16% North Euro. So they are extremely Neolithic very little pre Neolithic European ancestry. Sure their main y DNa haplogroup I2a1a M26 originated in Paleolithic Europe but that doesn't mean anything it is just a direct male lineage.

Sardine Neloithic Europeans Sami-Finnish Paleolithic/Mesolithic Europeans (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?90760-Sardine-Neloithic-Euro-s-Finnish-and-Sami-Mesolithic-Paleolithic-Euro-s)

[1stLightHorse]

Keep in mind that Sardinia is up to 40% Haplogroup I. I'd think it would make sense for them to drift from other west asians, as they wouldn't have received as much southwest asian, etc. elements. They actually score 0% for Gedrosian. Various european neolithic settler farmers have been shown to be very close to modern sardinians.

In light of this, how could they be autosomally closest to original Haplogroup I carriers who were 100% Paleo ?

Unless there is something i'm overlooking?

[Fire Haired]

The med and north euro think doesn't make sense to me. There are a bunch of tests including Geno 2.0 "who am i" they all say the same think the group they call north euro, Atlantic Baltic, or North east Euro is from pre Neolithic Europe while med and mid eastern groups from Neolithic Europe. On who am i my relatives get about 40% med and 35% north Euro that technicality means were mainly mid eastern not European which makes no freaking sense. Look at Sami people in globe13 around 80% north Euro compare them to French around 45% north do they look any different NO. The med thing really gets on my nerves there is something not right about we know was not in europe over 10,000ybp but its percetages then are way way way way way way to high there might be european version of med i dont know.

[Fire Haired]

In light of this, how could they be autosomally closest to original Haplogroup I carriers who were 100% Paleo ?

Unless there is something i'm overlooking?

aust DNA has shown Finnish and Sami are the most European out of all Europeans i guess Russians and north east are too. Pretty much Europeans farthest away from the mid east and the spread of farming are the most European. I am not even sure if farming ever spread to Sami land or northern Scandinavia i am not sure when they learned farming but it could have been extremely recent and i think till modern times they were technically hunter gathers but not sure. So it makes sense their the closest to Mesolithic samples and have the most North Euro which is the only group that was in Europe before farming. They also have extra Mongliod blood other Europeans don't because of the spread of N1c1c, Uralic languages?, and Kunda culture about 8,000ybp.

So if anything Sami and Finnish would be closest to original hg I people. What doesn't make sense is eastern European I2a1b at the earliest spread 10,000-15,000ybp but it may have become popular in the Neolithic or bronze age. western I2a1a M26 at the earliest 10,000-15,000ybp same with central European I2a2. Then I1 in central Europe and Scandinavia is complicated it could have come to Scandinavia with the first human settlement or bronze age or Neolithic. So were was hg I 20,000ybp it may have not been popular at all there defintley are other y dna haplogroups of pre Neolithic Europe possibly F 96 and C.

[Fire Haired]

I don't think it's easy to tell this at all. It's obvious sardinians were a maritime culture for a long time. There's also a lot of r1b there, so I think it's plausible they actually were settled by protovikings who were in contact with them. It's also possible that they were settled by the very ancient greeks as well, and that the I group was what was common then. We know more or less that it must have been common in greece at some point because that pretty much had to be where it was during the ice age.

I don't think saami were really as important as people think, I think they were mostly where they are now (and for a most of history had much less range). If they really had covered all of europe we'd see them where we see the basques today, instead of basques.

what people are saying is their the closest relatives to pre Neolithic Europeans which kind of has been proven with Mesolithic European DNA. Overall they are the most European Europeans. The ethnic group sami and their language doesn't matter we are talking about genetics a family group that goes back probably over 30,000 years in Europe that all Europeans trace most of their ancestry to and Sami have the most overall.

[1stLightHorse]

What do we know about the height/weight of Paleo europeans from their remains??

Wouldn't Paleolithic adaptation produce a more Robust individual designed for inactivity most of the time, with the capabilities for explosive/fully exerted bursts of energy? For purposes of hunting large game, but also warfare? Didn't human beings shrink after the neolithic lifestyle?

MMA fight Shane Carwin, who belongs to I-M253 (I1a) was tested by Warrior roots for athletic genes, and tested positive only for the "explosive" ACTN3 gene out of various athletic genes.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I think otzi was something like 5'6. We really don't have a lot of remains to go by, though.

[Fire Haired]

U do know that the remains of europeans around 2,000ybp average hieght went from 5'6-5'8. In Germania around 5'7.5 to 5'8.5 for burails of Roman solders about 5'6. Remains of Scandinavian men during and right after the Viking age about 5'7 3/4. If u look at the part of Africa African American come from average height is around 5'6-5'8 but African Americans on average are 5'10. Polynesian remains before European colonization and height measurement at the begging was aroun 5'7-5'8 but now they are about 6'0. The average height for a human male period is about 5'6-5'8 so Paleolithic Europeans would have been in that range.