PDA

View Full Version : Chronology of European mtDNA



Fire Haired
10-09-2013, 01:38 AM
42,000 year old statue of half man half lion from southern Germany.
(http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=KFC31XVqpDNP3M&tbnid=4lei2C-XflcQTM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmathildasanthropologyblog.wordpre ss.com%2F2008%2F09%2F05%2Fancient-carved-ivory-portrait-of-a-cro-magnon-man%2F&ei=b8VQUs78C-LWyQGMiIDwDA&psig=AFQjCNE6rLnUozd504z_rq0vr5-2mH1CUQ&ust=1381111489303093)http://gerryco23.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/lion-man-from-stadel-cave-sothwest-germany.jpg?w=560 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=v9jVS6dnhCJI1M&tbnid=zLFRros1ysDd6M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgerryco23.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F 03%2F18%2Fice-age-art-like-a-foal-that-can-walk-straight-away%2F&ei=77pUUvTVDqKyyAGyq4GQCA&psig=AFQjCNErrv7LfGfs44ZlLCL3B36tbRUHtw&ust=1381370980378757)
(http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=KFC31XVqpDNP3M&tbnid=4lei2C-XflcQTM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmathildasanthropologyblog.wordpre ss.com%2F2008%2F09%2F05%2Fancient-carved-ivory-portrait-of-a-cro-magnon-man%2F&ei=b8VQUs78C-LWyQGMiIDwDA&psig=AFQjCNE6rLnUozd504z_rq0vr5-2mH1CUQ&ust=1381111489303093)This all just MY OPINON I know I saw it authoritatively if I have any errors please correct me and I am not claiming to be an expert.


To see how popular these haplogroups are in Europe click here (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_mtdna_haplogroups_frequency.shtml).

This is all just my opinion on what the Chronology of European mtDNA. Europeans, north Africans, and Near easterns have been shown in globe13 (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/), skull shape, etc. to be apart of the same family called Caucasians. After the first humans arrived in Europe from the Near east 50,000-60,000ybp there were more migrations than that and back migrations from Europe and also migrations from the Near east into North Africa and from Europe too. This can help understand why Europeans, Near easterns, and north Africans share so many of the same mtDNA haplogroups and deep subclades.

U 40,000-60,000ybp: U migrated to Europe arriving first around 50,000-60,000ybp and developed into U5 while in Europe about 50,000ybp. Also ancient DNA shows subclades U2(developed into U2e while in Europe) and U8 most likely arrived in Europe from the Near east over 40,000ybp.

HV and H 25,000-35,000ybp: HV would have migrated to Europe around 25,000-35,000ybp(possibly with Gravettian culture) and forming into V while in Iberia about 15,000ybp. H would have migrated to Europe also about 25,000-35,000ybp while in Iberia formed into H1 and H3 about 15,000ybp.

J,T,X, and U4: Most likely migrated to Europe right after LGM about 19,000-15,000ybp. Evidence J, T, and X are not Neolithic even though there are no Mesolithic hunter gather samples. Is that they are just as popular in central and northern Scandinavia as the rest of Europe. While Y DNA spread in the Neolithic G2a, E1b1b(mainly V13 and other M78 subclades), and some J1,J2, and T are almost completely absent in Scandinavia and only get over 1% in southern Scandinavia. Austomally Finnish and Soumi are least similar to Neolithic and copper age European farmer samples and most similar to Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gather samples.

K, some subclades of H ,U, J and T: I don't know any hard evidence but there was at least some subclades from these haplogroups that came to Europe with the diffusion of agriculture from the Near east mainly 6,000-9,000ybp.

Fire Haired
10-09-2013, 01:39 AM
http://www.donsmaps.com/clickphotos/headbrugar3.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=CM3gDqjQMaZwtM&tbnid=Zplb6V6CHsR8NM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.donsmaps.com%2Fhoax.html&ei=PLdUUpHMHoqEyAGOooEg&psig=AFQjCNEH3q4EhBy9tTNvye0-rGPFl2MRug&ust=1381369864222443)
26,000 year old Mammoth Ivory carving of Male head in Dolni Vestonice, Czech republic same place two 31,155ybp mtDNA U5 samples were found and one U8.
U
Distribution map of mtDNA U
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQP5fxKEP1sdHWTX72dmxVvq9t98IOqj DeOhU9fEO-VAl_L0es3 (http://www.theapricity.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=HOeqln54VgOfCM&tbnid=-RSujqgowuk8WM:&ved=0CAgQjRwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fs1.zetaboards.com%2Fanthroscape%2 Ftopic%2F2697533%2F&ei=kztKUtr8BcrI2gXj_IDwDA&psig=AFQjCNGOVmztdF204bqQluQqEDpReSvRiQ&ust=1380683027172679)
mtDNA U is estimated to be about 60,000 years old and originating in the Near east. Here is a Research article on U5(The peopling of Europe from a U5 perspective (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010285)). The article says U5 is almost only European it is very rare in the Near east and north Africa were it is under deep European subclades. They estimated U5 as 25,000-30,000 years old click here (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/u5b/default.aspx) FTDNA estimates it is 25,000-47,000 years old and click here (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#UK) Eupedia says U5 is 50,000 years old. 2013 study by fu et al (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213002157). found two U5's in Czech republic human remains dated as 31,155 years old with one U8. The oldest mtDNA sample from Europe from Kostenki Russia is dated 37,985 years old and had U2. U5 takes up the majority of all mtDNA samples from European hunter gathers in Paleoithic and Mesolithic age(ancient Eurasian DNA (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml)). U I think migrated to Europe from the Near east with maybe the earliest human settlement in Europe 50,000-60,000ybp and became U5 while in Europe about 50,000ybp. The article about U5 and the peopling of Europe also says
There are two U5 subhaplogroups, U5a and U5b, dating back to ~27 ky each, thus implying that they both originated before the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)


And a quote from FTDNA

The earliest branching of U5 is its two subclades U5a and U5b that have been dated to about 27,000 years ago by Soares et al. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2694979/), while Behar et al. (http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297%2812%2900146-2) have a younger estimate of about 22,000 years. U5a is defined by two additional mutations A14793G and C16256T, while U5b is defined by three additional mutations C150T, A7768G and T14182C.

Beginning about 25,000 years ago, the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) forced U5a and U5b into ice age refugia in southern Europe and perhaps Ukraine and the Near East. U5a has only two known subclades, U5a1 and U5a2, both estimated to be about 20,000 years old. U5b has only three known subclades, U5b1, U5b2 and U5b3, also estimated to be about 20,000 years old. However, age estimates for these subclades from Behar and from Soares vary over a range of 16,000 to 24,000 years. While there is uncertainty in the age estimates of these subclades, it seems likely that a population decline during the LGM is the cause of the lack of ancient diversity or branching in haplogroup U5. It also seems likely that U5a1, U5a2, U5b1, U5b2 and U5b3 were each present in ice age refugia in southern Europe.


Another quote from the article of U5 and the peopling of Europe


Analysis of mtDNA hypervariable segment I (HVS I) sequences in modern European populations revealed the presence of a bulk of hg U5 subclusters that demonstrated coalescence ages around 11–13 ky and less [8] (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010285#pone.0 010285-Tambets1). Expansions of such U5-subclusters are thought to be linked to favorable climatic changes of the Holocene


So U5's subclades U5a and U5b according to this study's age estimates would have started before the last glacial maximum did 26,600ybp but then took southern refuge's during the last glacial maximum 26,600-19,000ybp when it ended 19,000ybp expanded and helped repopulate central and northern Europe. To read more on what they have to say on specific U5 subclades click on the articles link.

Ancient DNA shows U2 and U8 were also in Europe over 30,000ybp. According to Wikpedia mtDNA U page click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_(mtDNA)) U2 is spread acroos Europe and the Near east but is very rare and is most popular in India with a large amount of subclade U2i and in Europe U2e is common. Which I would guess developed from U2 that arrived in Europe maybe 40,000- 50,000 years ago. According to Wikpedia U8 page it's subclade U8a is found in Basque(southwestern France and northern Spain) and U8b exists in Italy and Jordan so that's is not nearly enough info to say if it originated in Europe or the Near east either way it has been in Europe for over 30,000 years.

Combined U4 and U5 take up 90% of Mesolithic hunter gather European mtDNA samples. So far with little Paleoithic European mtDNA samples U4 has not been found. U4 according to Wikipedia, Eupedia, and Gen.com is estimated as 25,000 years old. And that it is most common in northern and eastern Europe, South asia, and central asia. I don't have an opinon on where it originated but the reason why it exists in central asia and south asia could be because of the migration of Indo Europeans from Yamna culture in Russia starting 5,000ybp. They spread Indo Iranian and maybe Tocherian languages and Y DNA R1a1a1b2 Z93, possibly with minority R1b1a1 M73 and J2b. U4 is in early Indo Iranian Andronovo culture in central Siberia dating 3,400-3,800ybp(Ancient Eurasian DNA (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml)). The oldest U4 sample in Europe is from a about 8,850 year old sample of Mesloithic hunter gather in Bad Dürrenberg Germany. Since it was so popular in Mesolithic European hunter gathers all U4's coming from northern and eastern Europe I think U4 arrived around 10,000-20,000ybp and spread after the last glacial maximum or originated in Europe.

According to Wikipedia U1 is mostly in the Near east with very low frequency's acroos Europe but extremely rare in the Atlantic fringes of Europe including Scandinavia and the British isles. U1a is found from Europe to India and that U1b has a similar spread but is more rare. I would assume that means U1 that does exist in Europe and India probably came from the near east in the last 10,000 years. U3 according to Wikpedia and FTDNA to be highest around the black sea and FTDNA say estimated to be 35,000-45,000 years old. I don't really know what to say but since it is not very spread out in Europe I doubt like H1,H3, and U5 that it is arrived or was major in Paleoithic-Mesloithic Europe could have spread from just inter marriage over time or in Neolithic. U7, U9, and U6 are almost completely absent in Europe so deifntley not originating in Europe and the U7 in Europe is probably just inter marriage over time or spread in Neolithic.
U6 for north Africa is like U5 for Europe it Is estimated to have originated in north Africa with the earliest Caucasian settlement about 50,000 years ago.
distribution map of U7
u7.png (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=38006&d=1380589201)

mtDNA K is a subclade of U8 according to Eupedia and FTDNA is about 16,000 years old and originated in the Near east. Being most popular in central and northwest Europe, Anatolia, and southern Arabian peninsula. It is found in 6,700-9,400 year old mtDNA in pre potter Neolithic Syria and at the same rate in Neolithic European samples as in modern Europeans. From the few K samples in Neolithic-copper age Europe that show their subclade all are under K1 three under K1a and two K1b. K1 takes up the majority of European K but I am not sure about Near eastern. All I have been able to learn is it most likely spread to Europe form the Near east in the Neolithic age.

Fire Haired
10-09-2013, 01:39 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Venus_de_Brassempouy.jpg/200px-Venus_de_Brassempouy.jpg (http://www.anthrogenica.com/wiki/File:Venus_de_Brassempouy.jpg)
25,000 year old Female Venus Head from in Brassempouy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassempouy), France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) Gravettian culture which may have introduced HV and H into Europe
HV
HV including its two subclades V and H. V is estimated as 13,000 years old according to FTDNA, 16,000 years old according to Geni, and 9,800 years old according to Wikpedia. All put Wikpedia say it most likely originated in Iberian refuge with H1,H3, and U5b1b then repopulated much of central and northern Europe after they began to warm up about 15,000ybp. Wikpedia says it most likely spread from the Near east in the Neolithic so spreading in Europe mainly 9,000-6,000ybp. But this would not explain why about 50% of Soumi in far northern Scandinavia have V. When farming did not spread to central and northern Scandinavia until the bronze age and Y DNA most likely spread to Europe from the Near east in the Neolithic G2a, E1b1b(V13m other M78, and possibly M223), some J1,J2, and T is extremely rare in Scandinavia and almost only exists in far southern Sweden and Norway. Soumi austomaly are the most different from Neolithic European farmer samples and most similar to European hunter gathers from Mesolithic and Neolithic hunter gathers. So out of all Europeans Soumi and central and northern Scandinavians period were the least effected genetically by the spread of farming out of the Near east into Europe. According to ancient north African DNA (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/nafricaadna.shtml) there are two 12,000 year old V? samples with(11= H,HV, or U? 4=H? 3=RO?) in Taforalt, Moorco meaning there is now way V originated in the Near east only 9,800ybp. The high amount of H and possibly H is evidence for the Iberian migration into northwest Africa around that time with H1,H3, and V. This article (Mitochondrial Haplogroup H1 in North Africa: An Early Holocene Arrival from Iberia (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013378)) shows strong evidence that H1 in north Africa came there from Iberia about 9,000ybp.


U5b1b which takes up about the other 50% of Soumi mtDNA also exists in Berbers of north Africa(Saami and Berbers—An Unexpected Mitochondrial DNA Link (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farti cles%2FPMC1199377%2F&ei=zmpLUsyyM-mfyQHqqYG4Dw&usg=AFQjCNHwMHOCTQatFrCRqWvr6bDHgyxz3w)). this haplogroup is estimated to be about 9,000 years old and would have migrated to Scandinavia and North Africa originally from Iberia which would also explain the 50% mtDNA V in Soumi is estimated to have split about 7,600ybp.

H1,H3,V, and U5b1b all most likely spread acroos Europe and north Africa about 15,000-10,000ybp as central and northern Europe warmed up. mtDNA V would have arrived in Europe from the Near east as HV at somepoint I would guess over 30,000ybp. 28,000 year old mtDNA sample in Paglicci Cave, Foggia Italy according to Ancient Eurasian DNA had HV or U but according to Wikpedia scientific team led by David Caramelli found it to be H. 24,000 year old mtDNA sample in the same spot according to ancient Eurasian DNA is HV or RO.

mtDNA H is estimated according to Eupedia and originated in the Near east over 35,000 years ago I have also heard estimates from 25,000-30,000ybp all saying it originated in the Near east.
Distribution map of mtDNA haplogroup http://www.zackvision.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/h.png (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=kcPX-13DiIGSeM&tbnid=rXRZschIcXJM_M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zackvision.com%2Fweblog%2F201 1%2F01%2F&ei=UzRKUvPmA4GMygGy7IDICg&psig=AFQjCNGWINlN7gHy2Z9L-NmqblW1X3uqtw&ust=1380681168536288)

Here is a Article about H(Origin and Expansion of Haplogroup H, the Dominant Human Mitochondrial DNA Lineage in West Eurasia: The Near Eastern and Caucasian Perspective (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/436.full)). Like I said before H1 and H3(take up overall +25% of H in Europe) almost deifntley originated in Iberia about 15,000ybp and spread acroos Europe as it warmed up. Like is said before 28,000ybp mtDNA sample in Southern Italy maybe have been H. Also two 25,000ybp mtDNA samples in Sunghir (http://www.rc.ru/~ladygin/sungir/dna/index.php) Russia may have been H17 or H27(click here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25546-25-000-year-old-Russian-Cro-Magnons-might-have-been-hg-H17)). The article above argues that H subclades Europe and the Near east share most likely arrived in Europe from the Near east after the last Glacier Maximum(LGM) 19,000ybp. And it seems H1 and H3 and maybe some other H subclades arrived in Europe before so about 30,000ybp and expanded after the Last Glacial maximum. There also may have been some H lineages from the Near east brought to Europe with the spread of farming mainly 9,000-6,000ybp. Hervella 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hervella2012) found two 15,000 year old H samples one being H6 from Magdalenian Catalonia Spain along with a U5. For phylogenetic tree of H click here (http://www.genebase.com/doc/mtdnaHaplogroupTree_Ref.pdf). For age estimates of H and subclades click here (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/436/T1.expansion.html).

According to (Learning about mtDNA haplogroup H) (http://www.genebase.com/learning/article/20). H2 is most frequent in eastern Europe and Caucus. And its subclade H2a about 6.5% in eastern Europe mimics the distribution of R1a in Asia(specifically R1a1a1b2 Z93). Probably from eastern European Yamna culture starting about 5,000ybp which spread Indo European languages Tocharian and Indo Iranian throughout Asia. Its coalescence age fall in post glacial recolonization period in Europe. For H4 they say may have spread in LGM from the Near east to Europe or Neolithic. H5 they say is found at low frequencies in Europe and the Near east. Its subclade H5a though is most popular in central and eastern Europe dates to about 7,000-8,000ybp and absent from the Near east and Caucus so probably originated in Europe and H5 may have been brought over from the Near east in the Neolithic or earlier. H6 they say is estimated to be about 40,000 years old and likely originated in central Asia and did not arrive in Europe until 5,000ybp. But there is a 15,000 ybp H6 sample in Magdalenian Catalonia Spain. That H6 is the most popular H subclade in central asia and common in eastern Europe and the Caucus and that the basal type is exclusively European.





For H7 that is is a very rare subclade of H found in Europe and Near east would have migrated to Europe from the Near east either in the Neolithic or earlier. H8 is very rare In Europe and found mainly in the Near east and central Asia. I was disappointed I could not find any info on my dad's H which is H64 a subclade of H33 which is extremely rare it was not even studied in the article I showed above or mentioned in the all about mtDNA H link or on Wikpedia. In the phylogenetic tree's of H I could find if they showed H33 they didn't show any of its subclades.

Fire Haired
10-09-2013, 01:40 AM
http://www.donsmaps.com/images/head3.gif (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=O25TLxZCWJUnlM&tbnid=wz53Vplo96TbpM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.donsmaps.com%2Fcavepaintings2 .html&ei=b7tUUvr3LqTqyQHAn4DQCw&psig=AFQjCNE4g3EuVs74HnWScMMzX2t9b2-w5w&ust=1381371110101731)http://geolines.ru/netcat_files/18/10/h_ad95603e0113b4065f2e105c0fd60e7f (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=HQ3QE13I1OBFNM&tbnid=Trj6n286IHT6aM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgeolines.ru%2Feng%2Fpublications% 2FONWARD-TO-THE-PAST%2FONWARD-TO-THE-PAST_358.html&ei=ertUUv6rKpTlyAGb4YHADA&psig=AFQjCNE4g3EuVs74HnWScMMzX2t9b2-w5w&ust=1381371110101731)http://www.hominides.com/data/images/illus/venus-prehistorique/enfants-de-la-grotte-de-la-marche.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=O25TLxZCWJUnlM&tbnid=_lFmo8USnb7BXM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hominides.com%2Fhtml%2Frefere nces%2Frealisme-image-femme-art-paleolithique-illustrations.php&ei=zbtUUrG9O_PlyAHI74DgDQ&psig=AFQjCNFwpYYiRHkHciTVgdjo1Fu6SPMqTQ&ust=1381371196139951)
15,000 year old Magdalenian human carvings from la Marche cave in western France. Around the Time J and T may have arrived into Europe from the Near east.
JT

Here is a research Article on mtDNA JT(Mitochondrial DNA Signals of Late Glacial Recolonization of Europe from Near Eastern Refugia (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3376494/)). It is arguing that J and T from the Near east helped recolonize Europe after the last glacial maximum starting 19,000ybp. THe article says JT is estimates as about 58,000 years old and originating in the Near east.


Distribution maps of J and T from the article.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=37994&d=1380581155

You can see their age estimates for J and T on their distribution maps. This article makes It clear that their study will tell more about J and T than previous ones because
Previous studies comparing haplogroup J and T mtDNAs across the Near East and Europe relied primarily upon variation in the first hypervariable segment of the control region (HVS-I).31,32,38,39 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3376494/#bib31) Although they suggest a combination of Neolithic and earlier dispersals, these studies suffer from limited phylogenetic and chronological, and hence also phylogeographic, resolution, which we can now address by assaying the variation in complete mtDNA genomes.


So pretty much what their saying is previous studies did not understand the family tree of T and J as much, its age, and how it became spread out the way it is today.

The articles phylogenetic tree's of J and T
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=37995&d=1380583303

The articles calculated ages of the entire JT phylogeny
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...94/table/tbl1/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3376494/table/tbl1/)

If you look at the subclades they say are European and Near eastern then look at age estimates. You can see it matches up pretty well to multiple J and T migrations into Europe from 10,000-20,000 years ago so starting right after the last glacial maximum. For distribution maps of almost all of the T and J subclades click here (http://download.cell.com/AJHG/mmcs/journals/0002-9297/PIIS0002929712002042.mmc1.pdf). This theory does not match up though with no T or J Mesolithic and Paleoithic hunter gather samples in Europe. There is though a T2b from hunter gathers in Gotland Sweden dating 4,800-4,400ybp and a T from hunter gather in Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov, Russia dating 3,500ybp but this is during the Neolithic age and most Europeans were farmers so probably inter marriage with farmers. J and T are about as popular in Neolithic-Iron age European samples as in Europe today and having the same subclade percentages as modern Europeans. I still think saying J and T arrived in Europe with the spread of farming mainly 9,000-6,000ybp from the Near east is still a possibility.

Fire Haired
10-09-2013, 01:40 AM
X
Distribution map of mtDNA X
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29.PNG/300px-Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29.PNG (http://www.theapricity.com/wiki/File:Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA).PNG)
mtDNA X is a subclade of N and is estimated to have originated in the Near east about 30,000 years ago. Its subclade X1 is almost completely restricted to Near east, North Africa, and east Africa. But surprisingly there is a X1 sample from Can Sadurnı Spain dating to 7,475-7,305ybp from early Neolithic Cardiel culture but all other X subclades from Neloithic-iron age European samples are X2. X1 is broken down into two subclades X1a and X1b.

X2 is spread out in Europe, Near east, and North America. Wikpedia says that X2 seems to have undergone population expansion and dispersal about 21,000ybp during the last glacial maximum and that it is strongest in Meditreaen Europe, Near east, and Caucus and that is probably migrated to Europe during the last glacial maximum then spread in central and northern Europe when the glaciers retreated. X2 exists in Neolithic-Iron age European mtDNA samples at the same rate it does today so it at least came to Europe in the Neolithic age. Native American X2 is under subclades X2a and X2g. X2g has not been found in Europe or asia and X2a also exists in Israeli Druze. The X2 around the area of Asia all other Native American mtDNa and Y DNA lineages originated most likely came there through random inter marriage just 5,000 years ago and they could not find any evidence of Native American X2 there. It is estimated to have arrived in North America 15,000-20,000ybp while all other Native American mtDNA which all of their subclades are unique to them are estimated to be 18,000-22,000 years old so X2 may have come from another minor migration into North America. It would have gone through the Near east to Siberia to North America or Near to Europe to North America.

It has been used as evidence for the Solitarian Hypothesis which is that Paleoithic western European Solutrean culture made it eastern area of North America around 20,000 years ago. In North America X2 is mainly found in northeast and around the Great Lakes north America and then decreases the farther away so that can also be used as evidence. I think it went through Siberia with the main Native American mtDNA haplogroups but since it is restricted to one area maybe from another migration out of Siberia. The reason is the main mtDNA haplogroups of western Europeans at that time ancient DNA and studies have shown would have been U5, H1, and H3 who knows if X had even made it to Europe by that time and I would assume it would be harder to travel from Europe to north America than through asia. And who would keep migrating north father away from plants and animals for food it has been shown it was possible but I doubt Solutrean people would even want to. It makes more sense to me Mongliods in asia randomly into married with Caucasians from the Near east and for somereason only a few who had X2 then that maternal line made to North America 15,000-20,000ybp.

I and W
I could not find that much info on these mtDNA haplogroups. They exist in Europe, Near east, and south asia just like most Caucasian mtDNA haplogroups. Wikpedia says W is estimated to be about 23,900 years old and originating in the Near east it is a subclade of N2 and that there is a related unnamed N* subclade in Australian aboriginals. Which is surprising since Austrlien Aboriginals are apart of the Oceania Mongoliod family(globe13 (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/)) not Caucasian. They most likely left the middle east around 80,000 years ago while Caucasians ancestors stayed. mtDNA I is estimated according to Wikpedia to be about 20,857 years old and originating in the Near east or somewhere else in Europe and Asia. I couldn't find any info on when it should have arrived in Europe. They pop up in Neolithic European mtDNA samples at the same rare rate they are at today so they arrived into Europe at least with the spread of farming out of the Near east mainly 9,000-6,000ybp.

GailT
10-09-2013, 03:27 AM
mtDNA H is estimated according to Eupedia and originated in the Near east over 35,000 years ago I have also heard estimates from 25,000-30,000ybp all saying it originated in the Near east.


Behar's estimate for H is about 14,000 ybp and about 10,000 ybp for its subclades H1, H3, etc. H also experienced explosive growth in diversity around that time, which is clearly an indicator of a population that was expanding rapidly, consistent with an origin of many H subclades in farming or herding populations in the Near East or southwest Asia, which then expanded into Europe during the Neolithic. This is consistent with the ancient mtDNA which shows H expanding rapidly in Europe during the Neolithic. It is possible that H may have arrived in southern Europe during the Mesolithic, but I'd like to see full genome sequencing of the ancient sample to be certain and to determine a specific H subclade.

The old theory that H was among the Paleolithic Europeans was based on a very naive analysis of current population distributions. Unfortunately there are many people who still accept this as true.

parasar
10-09-2013, 04:09 AM
...

The old theory that H was among the Paleolithic Europeans was based on a very naive analysis of current population distributions. Unfortunately there are many people who still accept this as true.

The old theory is most likely correct.
As you can see from JeanM's compendium - "reported as H" http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml and "unreliable" Red Lady.
We have no doubt about precursors - 24kbp Paglicci-25 is +7,025 AluI

GailT
10-09-2013, 04:25 AM
The old theory is most likely correct.
As you can see from JeanM's compendium - "reported as H" http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml and "unreliable" Red Lady.
We have no doubt about precursors - 24kbp Paglicci-25 is +7,025 AluI

These "reported as H" samples are highly suspect. For example, the "Red Lady" was sequenced by Sykes in 2000. We now have a large number of Mesolithic and Paleolithic full sequence mtDNA samples in haplogroup U, and none in H. I think you really have to do the full sequence to be certain you don't have a mosaic or large numbers of missed mutations. In the paper on ancient Etrucan mtDNA last year, they missed 16270 in a large number of their U5 samples, and those remains were much more recent.

The lack of solid data for haplogroup H, the young age estimate, and the explosive growth during the Neolithic revolution all make a compelling case for a Neolithic origin of H. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, but we really need to see Mesolithic and Paleolithic full sequence H samples in Europe to support the old theory.

jeanL
10-09-2013, 02:18 PM
Behar's estimate for H is about 14,000 ybp and about 10,000 ybp for its subclades H1, H3, etc. H also experienced explosive growth in diversity around that time, which is clearly an indicator of a population that was expanding rapidly, consistent with an origin of many H subclades in farming or herding populations in the Near East or southwest Asia, which then expanded into Europe during the Neolithic.

Well I would say that the Fu.et.al.2013 paper would seem more accurate in terms of dating, since they used ancient mitochondrial sequences.I don't know if you recall this Table:

748

The presence of mt-DNA H in Mesolithic Karelia, Guipuzcoa, would point otherwise. It seems to me that mt-DNA U4/U5/U8 clades are nearly fixed in the Central European plane, given that in Southern Europe we see the presence of HV(Plaggicci), R, and H in Magdalenian Cantabria along with U5 in Magdalenian Guipuzcoa, and U5 in Mesolithic Navarra and La Braña.

GailT
10-09-2013, 03:14 PM
Well I would say that the Fu.et.al.2013 paper would seem more accurate in terms of dating, since they used ancient mitochondrial sequences.I don't know if you recall this Table

The Fu et al. 2013 study only found ancient U sequences in Europe. They did not have any ancient H sequences to test age estimates for H. And it is not clear what data set they used for their H age estimate, so in the absence of that data, I think the Behar et al 2012 estimate is more reliable.


The presence of mt-DNA H in Mesolithic Karelia, Guipuzcoa, would point otherwise. It seems to me that mt-DNA U4/U5/U8 clades are nearly fixed in the Central European plane, given that in Southern Europe we see the presence of HV(Plaggicci), R, and H in Magdalenian Cantabria along with U5 in Magdalenian Guipuzcoa, and U5 in Mesolithic Navarra and La Braña.

None of these samples have been fully sequenced, so I remain skeptical until we see the full sequence. Haplogroup assignments based on 1 or 2 SNPs are highly uncertain for ancient mtDNA. I would be pleased to see all of these firmly identified as H, and it would be extremely helpful to identify a specific H subclade. So yes, I think you may be correct, but I'm waiting for the full sequence before I accept these as reliable.

jeanL
10-09-2013, 06:50 PM
The Fu et al. 2013 study only found ancient U sequences in Europe. They did not have any ancient H sequences to test age estimates for H. And it is not clear what data set they used for their H age estimate, so in the absence of that data, I think the Behar et al 2012 estimate is more reliable.

It doesn't matter if they didn't find any reliable H(They did find an H sequence, but they thought it was unreliable based on C-T mispairs), the point is that using the ancient genomes they were able to get a better mutation rate. By using that mutation rate is that they estimated the age of mt-DNA H based on full genomes. So in that sense it is by far the most reliable age estimates of haplogroups since it actually used aDNA to calibrate the mutation.

GailT
10-09-2013, 07:33 PM
the point is that using the ancient genomes they were able to get a better mutation rate. By using that mutation rate is that they estimated the age of mt-DNA H based on full genomes. So in that sense it is by far the most reliable age estimates of haplogroups since it actually used aDNA to calibrate the mutation.

My question is: What data base and what value of rho did Fu et al. use for H when they applied the new mutation rate? If they provide that information in the paper, I missed it. Behar et al. used a much larger sample size in their 2012 paper, and I expect that the Fu et al mutation rate applied to the Behar data would result in an age estimate similar to Behar's. Fu et al. did not cite Behar, so it is likely they completed their analysis before the Behar data was available.

lgmayka
10-09-2013, 08:29 PM
mtDNA X is a subclade of N and is estimated to have originated in the Near east about 30,000 years ago.
The mysterious X4 clade has been found in Poland, Turkey, and either Hungary or the Czech Republic. See the mtDNA X Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/x/default.aspx?section=mtresults).

Fire Haired
10-09-2013, 08:49 PM
Behar's estimate for H is about 14,000 ybp and about 10,000 ybp for its subclades H1, H3, etc. H also experienced explosive growth in diversity around that time, which is clearly an indicator of a population that was expanding rapidly, consistent with an origin of many H subclades in farming or herding populations in the Near East or southwest Asia, which then expanded into Europe during the Neolithic. This is consistent with the ancient mtDNA which shows H expanding rapidly in Europe during the Neolithic. It is possible that H may have arrived in southern Europe during the Mesolithic, but I'd like to see full genome sequencing of the ancient sample to be certain and to determine a specific H subclade.

The old theory that H was among the Paleolithic Europeans was based on a very naive analysis of current population distributions. Unfortunately there are many people who still accept this as true.

There are two 15,000 year old H samples in Magdalenian Spain one being H6. I have no idea how they come up with age estimated but Behar's gives the absolute youngest age which I think is definitely untrue. So far from mtDNA of Gravitten culture(22,000-32,000ybp) non had for sure mtDNA U and almost all were possibly in the RO family and also possibly H. Theory H expanded rapidly from the Near east during the Neloithic age makes no sense to me. They should look at H subclades and they will see H3 is almost completely non existent in the Near east and even Behar estimated it to be 10,000 years old and it makes the most sense it origntaed in Europe. Same with H1 which is very rare in the Near east and very popular in Europe and northwest Africa. But The H1 in north west Africa which is under their own subclades most likely came from Iberia((Mitochondrial Haplogroup H1 in North Africa: An Early Holocene Arrival from Iberia (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013378)) with V and U5b1. If you combine H1 and H3 that takes up around 30%+ of European H and they probably originated in Europe. I think it is naïve to assume H is totally Neolithic.

And the stupid articles like this one Ancient DNA Reveals Europe's Dynamic Genetic History. Ignore that fact that mtDNA is just a direct maternal lineage and they are coming to quick conclusions. Austomal DNA of the dominated U(U5, U4, and U2) Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gathers whoa re seen as not the ancestors of modern Europeans. Show they are more European than any modern ones for example in globe13 the only European group called North Euro which shows correlation to fair hair and eyes and just pale features period in Europe. Was completely dominate in those hunter gathers way above the modern average in Europe. It was probably 100% in Europeans before the Neolithic age. Since European paleness definitely comes from pre Neolithic Europeans that also means Europeans probably mainly descend from those hunter gathers. And Europeans ancestry is a lot more complicated than mtDNA H.

Fire Haired
10-09-2013, 08:55 PM
Well I would say that the Fu.et.al.2013 paper would seem more accurate in terms of dating, since they used ancient mitochondrial sequences.I don't know if you recall this Table:

748

The presence of mt-DNA H in Mesolithic Karelia, Guipuzcoa, would point otherwise. It seems to me that mt-DNA U4/U5/U8 clades are nearly fixed in the Central European plane, given that in Southern Europe we see the presence of HV(Plaggicci), R, and H in Magdalenian Cantabria along with U5 in Magdalenian Guipuzcoa, and U5 in Mesolithic Navarra and La Braña.

The HV from Paleoithic Italy is not for sure I saw on ancient Eurasian DNA Jean M. said it was HV or U and the original study in 2008 said it was H.

JaG
10-09-2013, 10:25 PM
There are two 15,000 year old H samples in Magdalenian Spain one being H6. .

"Magdalenian" samples from Cantabrian caves are undated and came from excavations in 1950-60ss. Their classification as Magdalenian is based on a circumstantial evidence.

There is no published proven dated pre-Neolithic H aDNA samples. Brotherton et al (2013) used Neolithic samples and reinforced low age estimates for H.

Fire Haired
10-10-2013, 12:43 AM
"Magdalenian" samples from Cantabrian caves are undated and came from excavations in 1950-60ss. Their classification as Magdalenian is based on a circumstantial evidence.

There is no published proven dated pre-Neolithic H aDNA samples. Brotherton et al (2013) used Neolithic samples and reinforced low age estimates for H.

The H from Mesolithic Russia. Ancient Eurasian DNA
(http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml)
Plus non ancient DNA has shown how the H subclades in Europe and the Near east differ how H1 and H3(take up 30%+ of Euro H) are rare in the Near east and probably originated in Europe. I don't understand why there are some people who seriously it is like their passion to prove Neloithic spread of H when it is a lot more complicated than that. You should look at Ancient mtDNA maps of Europe from For what they were we are click here (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/ancient-mtdna-maps-of-europe.html). Maju who is the author of that blog is a little biased towards non Neolithic H but he makes great points. He describes people like the type who spread this idea in April 2013(Making of Europe unlocked by DNA (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22252099)). They are like fanatic's for 100% Neolithic origin of H and try to push as recent of a origin of modern Europeans in Europe as possible basing it all on mtDNA H(which is only a maternal line). I have said this many times Austomal DNA of these U dominated hunter gathers show they are actually more European than modern ones.

I am not saying you are one of those people. I am okay with saying mtDNA H is extremely Neolithic but I don't think there is enough evidence. It seems like a mixture of Pre Neolithic and Neolithic and mainly pre Neolithic with at least H1 and H3. I seriously don't know how to explain the extremely European austomal DNA results of these hunter gathers when their mtDNA percentages are so different.

JaG
10-10-2013, 05:47 AM
The H from Mesolithic Russia. Ancient Eurasian DNA
(http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml)
It's called Mesolithic because of hunter-gatherer economy, but the samples are younger than the Neolithic ones from Syria and about the same age as LBK samples from Germany.
Different teams of researches came to the post-LGM estimates for mtdna H, but a worldwide recognized authority Maju disagrees :amen: Honor of Franco-Cantabrian refigium to be respected.

lgmayka
10-10-2013, 06:40 AM
The H from Mesolithic Russia. Ancient Eurasian DNA
(http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml)
It is interesting that the oldest clear H, according to that web site, is from only 7500 years ago, in Russia.

Jean M
10-10-2013, 09:37 AM
I wouldn't make too much of the location in which the earliest H was found in Europe, since earlier H was found in the Near East: 6000-5750 BC (i.e. 8000-7750 years ago) at Tell Ramad, Syria.* As Gail says, there is little doubt now that H spread from the Near East with farming. It exploded in a huge star-burst of new subclades in the Neolithic period, (if we can trust the Behar estimated dates.) On average U mtDNA in Europeans has 18 mutations, while H in Europeans has an average of six mutations. That shows that H has not been in Europe as long as U.

* The layout of my table is perhaps a shade confusing. I lump together all those samples found on sites which were culturally hunter-gatherer, including those which were so late in date that some authors classify them as Neolithic. Scandinavian archaeologists traditionally call Pitted-Ware Neolithic, for example, while Russian archaeologists call all cultures with pottery Neolithic.

Because I put together all the hunter-gatherers, that section includes people who had long been in contact with farmers, and so had had the opportunity to interbreed with them. That includes some people who moved into the far north to continue the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but who were previously in contact with farmers further south.

Jean M
10-10-2013, 11:06 AM
H1 and H3 ... are rare in the Near east and probably originated in Europe.

People often start off thinking that the highest density today of a particular haplogroup must be its origin point. They can scarcely be blamed, when population geneticists started out thinking that about a decade or so ago. And sometimes it could be true! :) For example if a haplogroup is relatively recent (born say about 200-500 years ago) in a population that has been fairly static since then i.e. not involved in a wholesale movement from one place to another, but just moving around locally to find work or get married, then we would expect the highest density to be close to where the haplogroup emerged.

It is a completely different picture when mass migration is involved. Imagine a haplogroup emerging in a village in the Levant just before the entire population of that village decided to migrate to pastures new because their well had dried up, the rains never came and they could not stay where they were. They knew that neighbouring villagers had moved north to find water. They followed, moving through Anatolia and into Europe. Now where would we expect to find most of their descendants today?

J Man
10-10-2013, 11:57 AM
I wouldn't make too much of the location in which the earliest H was found in Europe, since earlier H was found in the Near East: 6000-5750 BC (i.e. 8000-7750 years ago) at Tell Ramad, Syria.* As Gail says, there is little doubt now that H spread from the Near East with farming. It exploded in a huge star-burst of new subclades in the Neolithic period, (if we can trust the Behar estimated dates.) On average U mtDNA in Europeans has 18 mutations, while H in Europeans has an average of six mutations. That shows that H has not been in Europe as long as U.

* The layout of my table is perhaps a shade confusing. I lump together all those samples found on sites which were culturally hunter-gatherer, including those which were so late in date that some authors classify them as Neolithic. Scandinavian archaeologists traditionally call Pitted-Ware Neolithic, for example, while Russian archaeologists call all cultures with pottery Neolithic.

Because I put together all the hunter-gatherers, that section includes people who had long been in contact with farmers, and so had had the opportunity to interbreed with them. That includes some people who moved into the far north to continue the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but who were previously in contact with farmers further south.

So Jean do you think then that it is likely that the mtDNA H sample from Mesolithic Karelia came from contact with Neolithic farmers further South?

Jean M
10-10-2013, 12:02 PM
Maju who is the author of that blog is a little biased towards non Neolithic H but he makes great points. He describes people like the type who spread this idea in April 2013 (Making of Europe unlocked by DNA (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22252099)). They are like fanatic's

So you are saying (on the authority of a blog poster you know to be biased) that scientists Paul Brotherton, Wolfgang Haak, Jennifer Templeton, Guido Brandt, Julien Soubrier, Christina Jane Adler, Stephen M. Richards, Clio Der Sarkissian, Robert Ganslmeier, Susanne Friederich, Veit Dresely, Mannis van Oven, Rosalie Kenyon, Mark B. Van der Hoek, Jonas Korlach, Khai Luong, Simon Y.W. Ho, Lluis Quintana-Murci, Doron M. Behar, Harald Meller, Kurt W. Alt, Alan Cooper, Syama Adhikarla, Arun Kumar Ganesh Prasad, Ramasamy Pitchappan, Arun Varatharajan Santhakumari, Elena Balanovska, Oleg Balanovsky, Jaume Bertranpetit, David Comas, Begoña Martínez-Cruz, Marta Melé, Andrew C. Clarke, Elizabeth A. Matisoo-Smith, Matthew C. Dulik, Jill B. Gaieski, Amanda C. Owings, Theodore G. Schurr, Miguel G. Vilar, Angela Hobbs, Himla Soodyall, Asif Javed, Laxmi Parida, Daniel E. Platt, Ajay K. Royyuru, Li Jin, Shilin Li, Matthew E. Kaplan, Nirav C. Merchant, R John Mitchell, Colin Renfrew, Daniela R. Lacerda, Fabrício R Santos, David F. Soria Hernanz, R Spencer Wells, Pandikumar Swamikrishnan, Chris Tyler-Smith, Pedro Paulo Vieira & Janet S. Ziegle are a bunch of fanatics? What would be their motive?

Jean M
10-10-2013, 12:04 PM
So Jean do you think then that it is likely that the mtDNA H sample from Mesolithic Karelia came from contact with Neolithic farmers further South?

That is exactly what I think. We can deduce the process of inter-breeding from the mixture of haplogroups in Dnieper-Donets.

During the Mesolithic, people moved north from southern refuges to populate Northern Europe, following the cold-adapted animals that they were accustomed to hunt. The earliest arrivals in the north were carrying the mtDNA U which had been in Europe from the Palaeolithic i.e. it arrived in Europe with the earliest modern humans. But waves still kept moving north long after farmers had arrived in the south.

GailT
10-10-2013, 03:35 PM
I have no idea how they come up with age estimated but Behar's gives the absolute youngest age which I think is definitely untrue.

You are obviously very interested in the topic and have time to spend on this, so I offer this suggestion in a sincere attempt to be constructive: If you have no idea how they estimated the age, perhaps you should study the paper before you conclude it is definitely untrue. You can download all of the full mtDNA sequences that were used, and do your own calculations to see if you reach a different conclusion.


They should look at H subclades and they will see H3 is almost completely non existent in the Near east and even Behar estimated it to be 10,000 years old and it makes the most sense it origntaed in Europe.

This is exactly the type of naive phylogeographic that was used 15 years ago when some researchers first concluded that y-DNA R1b and mtDNA H represented Paleolithic Europeans, with the flawed logic being: "we know people don't migrate very much, so they must have originated in the place where they are found today".




Since European paleness definitely comes from pre Neolithic Europeans that also means Europeans probably mainly descend from those hunter gathers. And Europeans ancestry is a lot more complicated than mtDNA H.

While I have not studied this and can't say what specific mutations cause pale skin color, I do know that beneficial mutations can spread rapidly throughout a population. You cannot conclude anything about European ancestry based on the spread of a highly beneficial mutation. As you say, this is very complicated, and I don't think it is helpful to jump to quick conclusions.



I don't understand why there are some people who seriously it is like their passion to prove Neloithic spread of H when it is a lot more complicated than that. ... Maju who is the author of that blog is a little biased towards non Neolithic H but he makes great points. He describes people like the type who spread this idea in April 2013(Making of Europe unlocked by DNA). They are like fanatic's for 100% Neolithic origin of H and try to push as recent of a origin of modern Europeans in Europe as possible

For many years the conventional wisdom was that H originated in Europe, so you are mostly seeing people providing arguments that this is not true. Of course it is still possible that some H arrived in Europe earlier than the Neolithic. The best proof of this would be reliable, fully sequenced H mtDNA in Europe before the Neolithic, which we still don't have. So I think you are mistaken in your assessment that critics of "H originated in Europe" are "fanatic's for 100% Neolithic origin of H".

jeanL
10-10-2013, 03:40 PM
I wouldn't make too much of the location in which the earliest H was found in Europe, since earlier H was found in the Near East: 6000-5750 BC (i.e. 8000-7750 years ago) at Tell Ramad, Syria.* As Gail says, there is little doubt now that H spread from the Near East with farming. It exploded in a huge star-burst of new subclades in the Neolithic period, (if we can trust the Behar estimated dates.) On average U mtDNA in Europeans has 18 mutations, while H in Europeans has an average of six mutations. That shows that H has not been in Europe as long as U.

We went over this before, the pool for mt-DNA U was obtained from numerous countries whereas the pool for mt-DNA H was heavily dominated by two countries, so hence there is biased sample. The so called unbiased sample simply implies that in Croatia mt-DNA U has on average 18 mutations compared to mt-DNA H. I any case if you are willing to accept the Middle Eastern sequence as H based upon HVR-I then it is a double standard for you to ignore the numerous reports of mt-DNA H found in Portugal based upon HVR-I, and even more so to completely ignore the presence of mt-DNA H, and H6 in Cantabria which had both HVR-I, HVR-II and RFLPs tests done.

GailT
10-10-2013, 04:03 PM
We went over this before, the pool for mt-DNA U was obtained from numerous countries whereas the pool for mt-DNA H was heavily dominated by two countries, so hence there is biased sample. The so called unbiased sample simply implies that in Croatia mt-DNA U has on average 18 mutations compared to mt-DNA H. I any case if you are willing to accept the Middle Eastern sequence as H based upon HVR-I then it is a double standard for you to ignore the numerous reports of mt-DNA H found in Portugal based upon HVR-I, and even more so to completely ignore the presence of mt-DNA H, and H6 in Cantabria which had both HVR-I, HVR-II and RFLPs tests done.

The differences between U and H are not based on biased samples, you can see it any data set you look at. Another way of showing the same thing is counting the number of ancestral samples with no extra mutations. There are 11 samples at FTDNA that are ancestral H with no extra mutations, and many more H samples that have a single mutation at extremely common mutations sites in HVR (e.g., 152, 16093, 16311). You have to go very deep in the U tree before you find samples with no extra mutations.

If you want to argue that H has a similar age as U, you have to assume that H has a slower mutations rate than U, as some have attempted to do. But they use a circular argument, in effect: "We know that H is very old, therefore it must have a slower mutation rate."

And I would argue that none of the ancient HVR samples are reliably, even if they test a couple of CR SNPs. They need to test the full genome to show they don't have a mosaic.

jeanL
10-10-2013, 04:08 PM
The differences between U and H are not based on biased samples, you can see it any data set you look at. Another way of showing the same thing is counting the number of ancestral samples with no extra mutations. There are 11 samples at FTDNA that are ancestral H with no extra mutations, and many more H samples that have a single mutation at extremely common mutations sites in HVR (e.g., 152, 16093, 16311). You have to go very deep in the U tree before you find samples with no extra mutations.

If you want to argue that H has a similar age as U, you have to assume that H has a slower mutations rate than U, as some have attempted to do. But they use a circular argument, in effect: "We know that H is very old, therefore it must have a slower mutation rate."

I'm not saying that it has a similar age, I'm simply saying that the idea that U is 3 times as old as H(from the paper 18 mutations vs. 6 mutations) in Europe might not be correct.


And I would argue that none of the ancient HVR samples are reliably, even if they test a couple of CR SNPs. They need to test the full genome to show they don't have a mosaic.

Good for you then!! Now let's push some Geneticists to run some full genome on Mesolithic and Upper Paleolithic Southern European mt-DNA.

J Man
10-10-2013, 04:13 PM
Well it is rather obvious that the blogger maju is extremely biased when it comes to issues with mtDNA haplogroup H and Y-DNA haplogroup R1b. He is absolutely obsessed especially with mtDNA haplogroup H being in Europe during Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic times. Believe me I have read some pretty strange scenarios he has thought up. I actually called him on his bias just last week on the Eurogenes blog and he of course denies any bias. It is clear as day though if you read his own blog and posts.

JaG
10-10-2013, 04:17 PM
it is a double standard for you to ignore the numerous reports of mt-DNA H found in Portugal based upon HVR-I, and even more so to completely ignore the presence of mt-DNA H, and H6 in Cantabria which had both HVR-I, HVR-II and RFLPs tests done.
Once again - Cantabrian samples are undated, from bones excavated half a century ago.

Portuguese samples are from different sites (Chandler et al. (2005)), both Mesolithic and Neolithic. Those sites were dated to 6000-4750 BC.

jeanL
10-10-2013, 04:26 PM
Once again - Cantabrian samples are undated, from bones excavated half a century ago.

Fair enough how about this sample from Guipuzcoa?

751

Linatzeta Cave, Guipuzcoa 6230-6100 BC.

J Man
10-10-2013, 04:31 PM
That is exactly what I think. We can deduce the process of inter-breeding from the mixture of haplogroups in Dnieper-Donets.

During the Mesolithic, people moved north from southern refuges to populate Northern Europe, following the cold-adapted animals that they were accustomed to hunt. The earliest arrivals in the north were carrying the mtDNA U which had been in Europe from the Palaeolithic i.e. it arrived in Europe with the earliest modern humans. But waves still kept moving north long after farmers had arrived in the south.

What about the case of the supposed mtDNA H6 sample from Upper Paleolithic Cantabria or the H samples from Mesolithic Portugal? Unreliable dating or just limited mtDNA markers or both?

JaG
10-10-2013, 05:57 PM
Fair enough how about this sample from Guipuzcoa?

751

Linatzeta Cave, Guipuzcoa 6230-6100 BC.

That's exactly my point: so far all aDNA mito H results are well into the Holocene, much younger than 11,700 years BP, not even close to the Ice Age. Even the lowest estimate for the H (about 13,000 BP by Behar et al. (2012)) is still unrefuted. Hence no refugium theory is required for the H.

Jean M
10-10-2013, 06:36 PM
What about the ... H samples from Mesolithic Portugal? Unreliable dating or just limited mtDNA markers or both?

The dating was unsatisfactory, but probably not the main problem. The testing was limited. In fact the Chandler et al. (2005) study was so poorly written-up that it was difficult even to see what they actually found in terms of mutations. Another problem was potential contamination. Although Sykes did what he could to avoid contamination in the actual testing, the bones would have been handled by their excavators and probably museum staff as well.

I hope that later studies of Portuguese aDNA are more reliable. We already have some data from Cristina Afonso's thesis which looks distinctly better quality.

J Man
10-10-2013, 06:48 PM
The dating was unsatisfactory, but probably not the main problem. The testing was limited. In fact the Chandler et al. (2005) study was so poorly written-up that it was difficult even to see what they actually found in terms of mutations. Another problem was potential contamination. Although Sykes did what he could to avoid contamination in the actual testing, the bones would have been handled by their excavators and probably museum staff as well.

I hope that later studies of Portuguese aDNA are more reliable. We already have some data from Cristina Afonso's thesis which looks distinctly better quality.

And what about the supposed mtDNA H6 sample from Upper Paleolithic Cantabria?

Jean M
10-10-2013, 07:35 PM
And what about the supposed mtDNA H6 sample from Upper Paleolithic Cantabria?

Behar estimated H6 at 10945.6 years ago (= 8945 BC), give or take 1873 years, so it would look out of place in Magdalenian Europe. There was no actual radiocarbon date on that sample, so it might be a later burial that happened to fall in a Magdalenian layer. It might be contamination. I really don't know. I can only advise those hoping for Behar to be completely wrong to await replication of this result.

Fire Haired
10-10-2013, 09:04 PM
People often start off thinking that the highest density today of a particular haplogroup must be its origin point. They can scarcely be blamed, when population geneticists started out thinking that about a decade or so ago. And sometimes it could be true! :) For example if a haplogroup is relatively recent (born say about 200-500 years ago) in a population that has been fairly static since then i.e. not involved in a wholesale movement from one place to another, but just moving around locally to find work or get married, then we would expect the highest density to be close to where the haplogroup emerged.

It is a completely different picture when mass migration is involved. Imagine a haplogroup emerging in a village in the Levant just before the entire population of that village decided to migrate to pastures new because their well had dried up, the rains never came and they could not stay where they were. They knew that neighbouring villagers had moved north to find water. They followed, moving through Anatolia and into Europe. Now where would we expect to find most of their descendants today?

I don't know that much about the diversity just that if for example in western Europe 50% have Y DNA R1b but it is almost all under deep subclade R1b1a2a1a L11 it probably did not originate there. On this link Learn about mtDNA Haplogroup H (http://www.genebase.com/learning/article/20). They have a table with H subclades percentages in countries and regions and H3 was 0% in all of the Middle east but was in the Caucus. If H3 which from what I have read is estimated to be 10,000 years old or older that it to old to spread to Europe from the near east in Neolithic. H1 is also significantly less popular in the Near east compared to Europe and in your Ancient Eurasian DNA Mesolithic mtDNA from Portugal one was H1b/U and Eupedia's Maciamo said it was H1b. I think Europe is more likely were H1 and H3 originated than anywhere else but I still think there definitely is a chance it did not originate in Europe.

Fire Haired
10-10-2013, 09:13 PM
So you are saying (on the authority of a blog poster you know to be biased) that scientists Paul Brotherton, Wolfgang Haak, Jennifer Templeton, Guido Brandt, Julien Soubrier, Christina Jane Adler, Stephen M. Richards, Clio Der Sarkissian, Robert Ganslmeier, Susanne Friederich, Veit Dresely, Mannis van Oven, Rosalie Kenyon, Mark B. Van der Hoek, Jonas Korlach, Khai Luong, Simon Y.W. Ho, Lluis Quintana-Murci, Doron M. Behar, Harald Meller, Kurt W. Alt, Alan Cooper, Syama Adhikarla, Arun Kumar Ganesh Prasad, Ramasamy Pitchappan, Arun Varatharajan Santhakumari, Elena Balanovska, Oleg Balanovsky, Jaume Bertranpetit, David Comas, Begoña Martínez-Cruz, Marta Melé, Andrew C. Clarke, Elizabeth A. Matisoo-Smith, Matthew C. Dulik, Jill B. Gaieski, Amanda C. Owings, Theodore G. Schurr, Miguel G. Vilar, Angela Hobbs, Himla Soodyall, Asif Javed, Laxmi Parida, Daniel E. Platt, Ajay K. Royyuru, Li Jin, Shilin Li, Matthew E. Kaplan, Nirav C. Merchant, R John Mitchell, Colin Renfrew, Daniela R. Lacerda, Fabrício R Santos, David F. Soria Hernanz, R Spencer Wells, Pandikumar Swamikrishnan, Chris Tyler-Smith, Pedro Paulo Vieira & Janet S. Ziegle are a bunch of fanatics? What would be their motive?

Just because their extremely educated Scientist doesn't mean they cant be wrong or biased. The article that acts as if the Genetic history of Europe has been figured out through Ancient DNA is so wrong. Austomal DNA of those mtDNA U dominated hunter gathers who they say are not the ancestors of modern Europeans show they are more European than any modern ones. For example in globe13 the group called North Euro is the only one Unique to Europe and it shows a connection with distribution more paleness in Europe it was totally dominate in those hunter gathers and averages around 50% in modern Europeans. European palness definitely comes from pre Neolithic Europeans the same ones dominated by mtDNA U(U5, U2(U2e), U4). Because of that I think if anything modern Europeans mainly descend from those hunter gathers and those people claim that its all been figured out just because of mtDNA H. I don't understand how they get the austomal DNA results and I guess I am making some of the same mistakes they did. But still it sounds a little crazy to say modern Europeans mainly descend from Near easterns who arrived just 9,000ybp. What about Finnish and other non southern Scandinavians and Baltic people they weren't farming in the Neolithic age and how do you explain the obvious skin, hair, and eye color difference between Near easterns and different percentages in Europe.

Jean M
10-10-2013, 09:17 PM
how do you explain the obvious skin, hair, and eye color difference between Near easterns and different percentages in Europe.

See http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/looks.shtml

Jean M
10-10-2013, 09:22 PM
Here's a graphic explanation of the chronology of European mtDNA from the paper by Brandt et al in today's Science. Click to enlarge.

752

Jean M
10-10-2013, 09:29 PM
Just because their extremely educated Scientist doesn't mean they cant be wrong or biased.

Bias can indeed occur in some circumstances. For example if a paper had authors from just one country, or known to be from a particular school of thought, we might be suspicious. However that is not the case for the paper you cited. Some of these authors, for example Spencer Wells, have previously gone into print with the old idea that H spread from Iberia in the Mesolithic. They have changed their minds because of the evidence from ancient DNA. That is what scientists do - follow the evidence, not fight it.

You give no reason to characterise this long list of authors as a bunch of fanatics. In fact there is no such reason. You really need to be careful in throwing such allegations around. It counts as libel.

newtoboard
10-10-2013, 09:34 PM
Just because their extremely educated Scientist doesn't mean they cant be wrong or biased. The article that acts as if the Genetic history of Europe has been figured out through Ancient DNA is so wrong. Austomal DNA of those mtDNA U dominated hunter gathers who they say are not the ancestors of modern Europeans show they are more European than any modern ones. For example in globe13 the group called North Euro is the only one Unique to Europe and it shows a connection with distribution more paleness in Europe it was totally dominate in those hunter gathers and averages around 50% in modern Europeans. European palness definitely comes from pre Neolithic Europeans the same ones dominated by mtDNA U(U5, U2(U2e), U4). Because of that I think if anything modern Europeans mainly descend from those hunter gathers and those people claim that its all been figured out just because of mtDNA H. I don't understand how they get the austomal DNA results and I guess I am making some of the same mistakes they did. But still it sounds a little crazy to say modern Europeans mainly descend from Near easterns who arrived just 9,000ybp. What about Finnish and other non southern Scandinavians and Baltic people they weren't farming in the Neolithic age and how do you explain the obvious skin, hair, and eye color difference between Near easterns and different percentages in Europe.

Yea but you obviously have everything figured out.:rolleyes:

J Man
10-10-2013, 10:10 PM
Wasn't there a mtDNA haplogroup J sample found in Mesolithic Karelia as well. Could it also be explained by contacts with Neolithic farmers further South in Europe?

Fire Haired
10-11-2013, 12:51 AM
Bias can indeed occur in some circumstances. For example if a paper had authors from just one country, or known to be from a particular school of thought, we might be suspicious. However that is not the case for the paper you cited. Some of these authors, for example Spencer Wells, have previously gone into print with the old idea that H spread from Iberia in the Mesolithic. They have changed their minds because of the evidence from ancient DNA. That is what scientists do - follow the evidence, not fight it.

You give no reason to characterise this long list of authors as a bunch of fanatics. In fact there is no such reason. You really need to be careful in throwing such allegations around. It counts as libel.

Well then I strongly dis agree with them coming to quick conclusions that the genetic history of Europe is unlocked by DNA and the base everything on mtDNA H. Do they even consider subclades and that austomal DNA of these mtDNA U dominated hunter gathers really show they are more European than any modern ones. So that means their idea that Europeans descend only from these farmers is not true and that what makes Europeans distinct is their pre Neolithic blood. Spencer Wells in my opinion from the doc's I have seen him made is kind of afro centric and does come up with quick conclusions. He makes crazy theorys about different racial features.

In his doc he said R1 was the first y DNA haplogroup in Europe and that Europeans are most related to Mongliods. He says that The "Black" looking non Africans left Africa first when he doesn't realize in globe13 (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/), y DNA, and mtDNA they are extremely related to Mongliods probably came with the same migration out of the NEAR EAST not Africa since humans had already been out of Africa. In is Doc he said they kept the original African features it is a huge claim to say you know what the first humans looked like. And even though in physical features, globe13(other aust DNA), and mtDNA Europeans, near easterns, and north Africans obviously are in the same Caucasian family he gave a whole different explanation for were Near easterns and north Africans come from. And he combined Indians( including Dravidens) with Near easterns which there is absolutely no evidence for.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=i0WpWPRC5YY

So I do think Spencer Wells is capable of being biased and making mistakes. I definitely do think ancient DNA(mtDNA H,K,J,T,X,I,W) shows a big difference between hunter gathers and farmers so does austomal DNA(Reconstructing the Human Past using Ancient and Modern Genomes (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013_09_01_archive.html)). But I do think pre Neolithic Europeans are modern Europeans main ancestors because of their austomal DNA. I am skeptical that the Neolithic introduced any of those haplogroups that pop up in Farming Europeans but non existent or extremely rare in hunter gathers I show my opinion on this thread. Part of the reason is how rare Y DNA most likely spread in the Neolithic is in Baltic area and Scandinavia and also that austomal DNA of Baltic's and Scandinavians is most similar to those U dominated hunter gathers. And that farming did not spread to parts of the Baltic and the vast majority of Scandinavia in the Neolithic age. But they have basically the same mtDNA haplogroup percentages as the rest of Europe. That is almost impossible to explain if you think it came with farmers. Because that would mean that there was huge inter marriage between hunter gathering men and farming women and the farming women take up most of the maternal lineages in Baltic and Scandinavia but don't make that big of part of their total ancestry. I see a Palaeolithic origin of all of the so called farmer haplogroups makes a lot more sense even though ancient DNA total dis agrees with that.

Fire Haired
10-11-2013, 12:56 AM
Wasn't there a mtDNA haplogroup J sample found in Mesolithic Karelia as well. Could it also be explained by contacts with Neolithic farmers further South in Europe?

Karelia is very far north right next to Finland I really doubt it was farmer inter marriage. Do people base the idea H is totally Neolithic because of the ancient DNA we have so far and that's all. Because now every time there is a possibly H in Mesolithic or Palaeolithic Europe people argue you it so much.

J Man
10-11-2013, 01:05 AM
Karelia is very far north right next to Finland I really doubt it was farmer inter marriage. Do people base the idea H is totally Neolithic because of the ancient DNA we have so far and that's all. Because now every time there is a possibly H in Mesolithic or Palaeolithic Europe people argue you it so much.

It is possible that both the Mesolithic Karelian H and J (if there really is a J sequence there) samples came from contact with farmers further South. If they were present during the Mesolithic in the far North then why are they not present in the later hunter-gatherers tested from Karelia? U types show up the whole way though as hunter-gatherers. Does not make much sense really.

Fire Haired
10-11-2013, 01:15 AM
It is possible that both the Mesolithic Karelian H and J (if there really is a J sequence there) samples came from contact with farmers further South. If they were present during the Mesolithic in the far North then why are they not present in the later hunter-gatherers tested from Karelia? U types show up the whole way though as hunter-gatherers. Does not make much sense really.

I know it is really annoying why does their austomal DNA so far show them as more European than modern ones. For example in globe13 North Euro was possibly 100% in Europe before farming(hunter gather austomal DNA samples totally back this up) it is highest around the Baltic sea and Scandinavia at over 75% but their mtDNA fits very very very well with farmers not hunter gathers. Only far southern Scandinavians were farming in the Neolithic age and Y DNA most likely spread in the Neolithic G2a, E1b1b(mainly V13), At least some J1, J2b and probably other J2, and possibly T is almost non existent in Scandinavia and parts of the Baltic only getting up above 1% in southern Scandinavia. Then why is their mtDNA most similar to farmers austomal DNA of Funnel Beaker farmers the first in Scandinavia show they are extremely similar to Otzie(copper age farmer alps Italy) and overall closer to modern southern Europeans and specifically Sardinia who I consider the last of the European farmer race. The U dominated hunter gathers definitely the main ancestors of modern Scandinavians.

jeanL
10-11-2013, 01:40 AM
Here is Figure-S10 from the Brandt.et.al.2013 study, where they show a complete picture of some of the mt-DNA sequences in Hunter Gatherers up to date:

753

Notice the question sign right next to the mt-DNA H as a possible Neolithic lineage.

jeanL
10-11-2013, 01:45 AM
On a different note, the Bell Beaker similarity map revealed something I thought was interesting:

754

Notice that the Basque and Southwestern French region lack the similarity that is present in all of Iberia and France. In fact save for the Western Balkans, Finland, this places are reaching the highest distance from the Bell Beakers in Europe. What gives??

755

Jean M
10-11-2013, 02:19 AM
Karelia is very far north right next to Finland I really doubt it was farmer inter marriage.

No-one is suggesting that said inter-marriage took place actually in Karelia, where no-one was farming at the time. The suggestion is that the people who moved into Karelia had mixed with farmers further south e.g. in SE Europe. No-one lived in Karelia at all at the height of the last glaciation. It was covered with ice. This is not the origin point of mtDNA haplogroup H.

Jean M
10-11-2013, 02:40 AM
Notice that the Basque and Southwestern French region lack the similarity that is present in all of Iberia and France. In fact save for the Western Balkans, Finland, this places are reaching the highest distance from the Bell Beakers in Europe. What gives??


Not only that, but other regions where we have evidence of a non-IE language are grey: Iberian in southern Iberia, Etruscan in Tuscany and Ancient Sardinian. I like it.

Fire Haired
10-11-2013, 02:56 AM
No-one is suggesting that said inter-marriage took place actually in Karelia, where no-one was farming at the time. The suggestion is that the people who moved into Karelia had mixed with farmers further south e.g. in SE Europe. No-one lived in Karelia at all at the height of the last glaciation. It was covered with ice. This is not the origin point of mtDNA haplogroup H.

I was thinking the same thing but I still think it is unlikely the H originally came from farmers. I deifntley don't think that is the origin point of H. What do you think of this Sunghir ancient mtDNA: is it H17'27? (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CHMQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforwhattheywereweare.wordpress.co m%2F2010%2F11%2F13%2Fsunghir-ancient-mtdna-is-it-h1727%2F&ei=vGhXUrLEM6bgyQHj94DYCg&usg=AFQjCNGxpVPi7VTbMeBYqqbwADKB5okW-w&sig2=K_owSE1NlHE8Ksuty8McjA)

parasar
10-11-2013, 03:40 AM
Here's a graphic explanation of the chronology of European mtDNA from the paper by Brandt et al in today's Science. Click to enlarge.

752

HV - early, middle Neolithic?
U2 - late Neolithic?

J Man
10-11-2013, 04:47 AM
I know it is really annoying why does their austomal DNA so far show them as more European than modern ones. For example in globe13 North Euro was possibly 100% in Europe before farming(hunter gather austomal DNA samples totally back this up) it is highest around the Baltic sea and Scandinavia at over 75% but their mtDNA fits very very very well with farmers not hunter gathers. Only far southern Scandinavians were farming in the Neolithic age and Y DNA most likely spread in the Neolithic G2a, E1b1b(mainly V13), At least some J1, J2b and probably other J2, and possibly T is almost non existent in Scandinavia and parts of the Baltic only getting up above 1% in southern Scandinavia. Then why is their mtDNA most similar to farmers austomal DNA of Funnel Beaker farmers the first in Scandinavia show they are extremely similar to Otzie(copper age farmer alps Italy) and overall closer to modern southern Europeans and specifically Sardinia who I consider the last of the European farmer race. The U dominated hunter gathers definitely the main ancestors of modern Scandinavians.

It is possible that mtDNA H and maybe even some J was present in pre-Neolithic Europe but it just seems strange that the H samples keep popping up randomly and never make up a large percentage of the Upper Paleolithic or Mesolithic samples anywhere. You would think it is had a presence for a long time in Europe it would show up at higher frequencies among the Mesolithic samples like U does. The case for J is even harder to make than H.

Fire Haired
10-11-2013, 04:59 AM
HV - early, middle Neolithic?
U2 - late Neolithic?

It doesn't mean that's when they first arrived in Europe. The same blog shows a new U2e sample in Europe from about 9,000ybp and there all ready are two in northwestern Russia from 7,500ybp and actually the oldest mtDNA sample in Europe which is in Russia 37,985ybp had U2.

Jean M
10-11-2013, 10:25 AM
What do you think of this Sunghir ancient mtDNA: is it H17'27?

I was informed by a geneticist that the Sunghir samples were probably contaminated with modern DNA, so we can't conclude anything from the one mutation reported. We certainly cannot conclude on the basis of one reported mutation that these two fell into the wildly unlikely haplogrooup that Maju wished to placed them in.

There has been a long-standing problem with the method of calculating mtDNA haplogroups. It used to be done on the basis of differences from the Cambridge Reference Sequence (CRS), which is now known to be H2a2. Therefore if no differences appeared in hyper-variable region one (HV1), the result was assumed to be haplogroup H by pioneer researchers. Since H is the most common haplogroup in modern Europeans, that worked pretty well for modern samples. If they were tested for the full mtDNA genome, they probably would fall into this most common of haplogroups. The same is not true of ancient DNA. CRS in HVR1 can also appear in U or HV, which are older and therefore more likely to appear in ancient samples. Another problem is that DNA deteriorates after death and the samples taken by pioneers in ancient DNA testing tended to be fragments only. Where no differences from CRS were detected in a fragmentary sequence of DNA retrieved, it is more realistic to count it as a non-result.

Jean M
10-11-2013, 10:31 AM
So that means their idea that Europeans descend only from these farmers is not true

That is not what they are saying. They say (just as I do in Ancestral Journeys) that the incoming farmers actually made a relatively limited impact on the modern European gene pool, because things happened later which changed the picture. The arrival of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware people brought back some of the hunter-gatherer mtDNA U5 etc.

Jean M
10-11-2013, 10:37 AM
HV - early, middle Neolithic?
U2 - late Neolithic?

HV is much older of course in itself, but HV haplogroups start to appear in European DNA at that time and appear to have arrived with farmers.

They mean U2e, which again is much older at birth (Behar calculated 19290 years old) and was probably born somewhere close to the Urals, but which seems to spread with the Indo-Europeans and so first appears in Central Europe in the Copper Age, which they are calling Late Neolithic. It is found in both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker, which undermines their case that BB spread from Iberia.

jeanL
10-11-2013, 01:25 PM
Not only that, but other regions where we have evidence of a non-IE language are grey: Iberian in southern Iberia, Etruscan in Tuscany and Ancient Sardinian. I like it.

Indeed!! After posting the maps I noticed that Sardinian was equally as distant. So does this mean that the Bell Beaker/Indo-European link is maternal???

J Man
10-11-2013, 02:02 PM
That is not what they are saying. They say (just as I do in Ancestral Journeys) that the incoming farmers actually made a relatively limited impact on the modern European gene pool, because things happened later which changed the picture. The arrival of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware people brought back some of the hunter-gatherer mtDNA U5 etc.

So then Jean sorry if it sounds like I am repeating myself here but I will not ask this again. Do you think it is likely that the mtDNA haplogroup H and J samples from Mesolithic Karelia came from admixture with Neolithic farmers in Central or Southeast Europe? These lineages then moved North into Karelia with hunter-gatherers but their ultimate origins lay in Neolithic farming cultures?

jeanL
10-11-2013, 02:30 PM
So then Jean sorry if it sounds like I am repeating myself here but I will not ask this again. Do you think it is likely that the mtDNA haplogroup H and J samples from Mesolithic Karelia came from admixture with Neolithic farmers in Central or Southeast Europe? These lineages then moved North into Karelia with hunter-gatherers but their ultimate origins lay in Neolithic farming cultures?

There was no mt-DNA J found amongst Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers from Karelia, they were U2e, U4, U5a, H and C1.

Here is Table-1 which shows all the mt-DNA found in Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers from Karelia:

765

Here are the coding regions markers tested, in Table-S2

766

J Man
10-11-2013, 03:01 PM
There was no mt-DNA J found amongst Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers from Karelia, they were U2e, U4, U5a, H and C1.

Here is Table-1 which shows all the mt-DNA found in Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers from Karelia:

765

Here are the coding regions markers tested, in Table-S2

766

I wonder why Polako said there was then is this old blog post?

http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2012/10/ancient-mtdna-from-mesolithic-bronze.html

Mesolithic remains from Oleni Ostrov, Karelian Republic (7500 YBP). The most frequent mtDNA haplogroups were U4 and C, but U2e, U5a, J, and H were also found. The results are very similar to those from other Mesolithic sites in Europe. However, this sample shows a much stronger affinity to modern Siberian populations. The conclusion is that there were intense contacts between Northeastern Europe and Western Siberia during the Mesolithic period.

GailT
10-11-2013, 03:09 PM
Well then I strongly dis agree with them coming to quick conclusions that the genetic history of Europe is unlocked by DNA and the base everything on mtDNA H. Do they even consider subclades and that austomal DNA of these mtDNA U dominated hunter gathers really show they are more European than any modern ones.


What study are you talking about? A recent study of ancient European autosomal DNA showed that modern Europeans were more similar to Neolithic farmers and less similar to hunter gatherers.


So that means their idea that Europeans descend only from these farmers is not true and that what makes Europeans distinct is their pre Neolithic blood.


That is not at all what they are saying. Have you even read the papers?



Spencer Wells in my opinion from the doc's I have seen him made is kind of afro centric and does come up with quick conclusions. He makes crazy theorys about different racial features.


Wow, hard to believe that you are criticizing anyone about crazy theories based on racial features. It's obvious you have an agenda to push, and you have no interest in the science, which is much more complex than you realize. You think you can quickly scan a few blog posts and internet sites and make definitive conclusions about human origins, and you dismiss as unreliable the professional researchers who have spent their careers studying these very complex questions. You really should spend more time studying the science.

Jean M
10-11-2013, 03:34 PM
Indeed!! After posting the maps I noticed that Sardinian was equally as distant. So does this mean that the Bell Beaker/Indo-European link is maternal???

There was Bell Beaker pottery in Sardinia. But that does not guarantee that the people who made it settled there long enough to leave any descendants in the present population in the female or male line. All the indications, linguistic and genetic, are that they did not. If we assume that BB people spoke some variety of IE, then that language did not survive in Sardinia. Genetically modern Sardinians appear to be our best proxy for Neolithic Europe.

J Man
10-11-2013, 03:39 PM
What study are you talking about? A recent study of ancient European autosomal DNA showed that modern Europeans were more similar to Neolithic farmers and less similar to hunter gatherers.



That is not at all what they are saying. Have you even read the papers?



Wow, hard to believe that you are criticizing anyone about crazy theories based on racial features. It's obvious you have an agenda to push, and you have no interest in the science, which is much more complex than you realize. You think you can quickly scan a few blog posts and internet sites and make definitive conclusions about human origins, and you dismiss as unreliable the professional researchers who have spent their careers studying these very complex questions. You really should spend more time studying the science.

He shows typical teenage behaviour in his posts. He is only 15 albeit a pretty smart 15 year old.

lgmayka
10-11-2013, 04:04 PM
A recent study of ancient European autosomal DNA showed that modern Europeans were more similar to Neolithic farmers and less similar to hunter gatherers.
No, closer to the opposite, at least for northern Europeans (the topic of discussion here). Here is what Dienekes writes (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/04/first-look-at-dna-of-neolithic.html):
---
A Megalithic Swedish farmer resembled Southern Europeans, while his hunter-gatherer contemporaries were outside the range of modern variation.
...
The results for the two hunter-gatherer samples are as expected predominantly "Atlantic_Baltic" at K=7 and "North_European" at K=12.
...
On balance, however, the "North_European" component far outweighs the "Atlantic_Mediterranean" one, which is also consistent with their [the hunter-gatherers'] location (Gotland) which ties them to the Baltic rather than Atlantic Europe.
---

In other words, modern northern (and especially northeastern) Europeans are closer to ancient hunter-gatherers than to Neolithic farmers, but of course all modern European peoples are a mixture rather than "pure" anything.

lgmayka
10-11-2013, 04:22 PM
What do you think of this Sunghir ancient mtDNA: is it H17'27? (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CHMQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforwhattheywereweare.wordpress.co m%2F2010%2F11%2F13%2Fsunghir-ancient-mtdna-is-it-h1727%2F&ei=vGhXUrLEM6bgyQHj94DYCg&usg=AFQjCNGxpVPi7VTbMeBYqqbwADKB5okW-w&sig2=K_owSE1NlHE8Ksuty8McjA)
That analysis is based almost entirely on a single mutation, 16129A, which occurs rather frequently across multiple haplogroups. In my project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public//polish/default.aspx?vgroup=polish&section=mtresults) alone, 16129A is found in haplogroups C, H, HV, I, K, M, N, T, and U. (Be sure to switch to CRS mode before searching that page.) Even if not due to contamination, the finding of 16129A in a single ancient sample could be merely a chance recurrence in HV or U; it need not be H at all, much less the very specific H17'27.

J Man
10-11-2013, 04:49 PM
But still it is interesting to note that when it comes to autosomal DNA Lithuanians do seem to be closest overall to Mesolithic Europeans and Lithuanians today have a lot of mtDNA haplogroup H. The North European autosomal component does seem to be largely of Mesolithic European origins. We will just have to keep waiting and see the results of more testing I suppose.

GailT
10-11-2013, 05:12 PM
No, closer to the opposite, at least for northern Europeans (the topic of discussion here). Here is what Dienekes writes (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/04/first-look-at-dna-of-neolithic.html):
---
A Megalithic Swedish farmer resembled Southern Europeans, while his hunter-gatherer contemporaries were outside the range of modern variation.
...
The results for the two hunter-gatherer samples are as expected predominantly "Atlantic_Baltic" at K=7 and "North_European" at K=12.
...
On balance, however, the "North_European" component far outweighs the "Atlantic_Mediterranean" one, which is also consistent with their [the hunter-gatherers'] location (Gotland) which ties them to the Baltic rather than Atlantic Europe.
---

In other words, modern northern (and especially northeastern) Europeans are closer to ancient hunter-gatherers than to Neolithic farmers, but of course all modern European peoples are a mixture rather than "pure" anything.

Yes, that is the study I was referring to, and the ancient Swedish farmer was more similar to modern Europeans, while the hunter-gatherers were less similar, which indicates a smaller contribution of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers to the modern European gene pool. And this is consistent with the mtDNA data. (Edit: See my comments below for a link to the original Dienekes post on this study)

GailT
10-11-2013, 05:38 PM
But still it is interesting to note that when it comes to autosomal DNA Lithuanians do seem to be closest overall to Mesolithic Europeans and Lithuanians today have a lot of mtDNA haplogroup H. The North European autosomal component does seem to be largely of Mesolithic European origins. We will just have to keep waiting and see the results of more testing I suppose.

I don't have any mtDNA statistics for Lithuanians, but Estonians and Latvians are around 19% U4 and U5, (from Ottoni et al, link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083616/)) which would consistent with a larger autosomal Mesolithic component. For comparison, France and Germany are around 10% U4 and U5.

One of the areas I'd like to see better resolved is comparisons of western and eastern Mesolithic DNA. There are difference in present day distributions of U5a and U5b, with U5a being more common from central to eastern Europe, and U5b being more common in western Europe. And there also seem to be differences in distributions of subclades, with certain subclades of U5a and U5b being either more eastern or more western, although these could reflect migrations in the late Mesolithic or Neolithic. I'd like to see comparisons of Mesolithic Russian versus western Europe autosomal DNA.

GailT
10-11-2013, 06:01 PM
Here is the link to Dienekes original post on the Swedish Neolithic farmer and hunter-gatherers (link). (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/04/ancient-dna-from-neolithic-sweden.html)

Quoting from Dienekes post on the autosomal comparison:


The results for the two hunter-gatherer samples are as expected predominantly "Atlantic_Baltic" at K=7 and "North_European" at K=12. Since these two samples are outside modern variation, it is expected that their mapping may have added noise; see this post about the dangers lurking at the edges of variation. Nonetheless, the results can be interpreted as reflecting the fact that the "Atlantic_Baltic" and "North_European" components partially reflect the pre-farming population of Europe.


The fact that the hunter-gatherers were outside modern variation highlights the complexity of this type of analysis. My guess is that there were not just a few waves of migration - the concept of early farmers partially replacing hunter-gatherers, and late Neolithic immigrants partially replacing earlier farmers is much too simplistic. There were very likely many waves of migration that varied in different parts of Europe. For example, much of the U5 found in Finland today is not a Paleolithic remnant, rather, a large part of it appears to be a Neolithic migration that arrived via eastern Europe. So I think we need many more ancient samples from a much wider region to even begin to understand the complexity of past migrations. The new studies from Brandt et al and Bollinger et al. are fascinating, but they focus on a small geographical area. We need that level of analysis from many different areas.

J Man
10-11-2013, 07:41 PM
Yes, that is the study I was referring to, and the ancient Swedish farmer was more similar to modern Europeans, while the hunter-gatherers were less similar, which indicates a smaller contribution of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers to the modern European gene pool. And this is consistent with the mtDNA data. (Edit: See my comments below for a link to the original Dienekes post on this study)

A newer study has shown that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from both Iberia (La Brana) and Sweden (late hunter-gatherers as you know) are much closer to Lithuanians when it comes to autosomal DNA than Neolithic farmers such as Gok-4 from Sweden and Otzi who are much closer to modern day Sardinians. Check the link below.

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2013/09/reconstructing-human-past-using-ancient.html

Fire Haired
10-11-2013, 08:48 PM
Finland probably has so much U5 because of the Sami who have almost 50% U5b1b farming did not exist in Finland during the Neolithic maybe far far southern.

Fire Haired
10-11-2013, 09:03 PM
http://www.anthrogenica.com/images/BittenFruit_fluid/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by GailT http://www.anthrogenica.com/images/BittenFruit_fluid/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?p=15932#post15932)
Yes, that is the study I was referring to, and the ancient Swedish farmer was more similar to modern Europeans, while the hunter-gatherers were less similar, which indicates a smaller contribution of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers to the modern European gene pool. And this is consistent with the mtDNA data. (Edit: See my comments below for a link to the original Dienekes post on this study)
Here are their globe13 results and click here (http://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadF9CLUJnTUdSbkVJaDR2UkRtUE9ka UE#gid=2) for 100's of modern peoples results
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=38104&d=1380743332

Overall I guess the hunter gathers are more related to modern northern Europeans and the farmers more related to southern Europeans(click here (http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2013/09/reconstructing-human-past-using-ancient.html)). When they say northern Europeans do they also include southern Germans who technically are just about as far south as Serbians who they would probably consider as southern Europeans.

I definitely would not say the farmers fit more with modern Europeans. North Euro which was possibly the only group in Europe before farming is more popular in Europe than any other group. It is over 75% in northern Baltic people, Finnish, and Sami(far northern Scandinavia). I think people should figure out what they mean by out of modern variation. I know when people say things vary they mean they are different or diverse. Maybe what they mean by out of modern variation is no one in Europe today has basically the same percentages as those hunter gathers who were over 70% North Euro and pretty much the rest Meditreaen. But the North Euro in modern Europeans does come from those hunter gathers.

I have said this many times before that I've noticed a connection with North Euro and fair hair and eyed in Europe. I think that since the palest Europeans have the most North Euro so most similar to pre farming Europeans that means European palness comes from the hunter gathers not the farmers. Since pale skin dominates Europe it makes sense their the main ancestors of modern Europeans.

J Man
10-11-2013, 09:26 PM
Finland probably has so much U5 because of the Sami who have almost 50% U5b1b farming did not exist in Finland during the Neolithic maybe far far southern.

It is interesting to note that many Finns are U5b1b1a1 which is also the most common mtDNA U5 subclade among the Saami. In fact my own father is U5b1b1a1 and his mother (my paternal side grandmother) was a Finn.

alan
10-12-2013, 10:10 PM
A few observations about the maps comparing modern similarities to the various cultures:

1. Bare firstly in mind this is comparing western Eurasia with what are central European cultures of various periods. It does not compare modern distribution with all early neolithic, all mid neolithic, all late Neolithic etc. That needs to be borne in mind.

2. The modern sample populations leave something to be desired with unwanted gaps in places like southern and eastern France, NW Italy, south Germany, west Germany etc. I understand they did sample impressively but there are weird crucial gaps.

3. I find the middle Neolithic represented by Rossen, Baalberge etc interesting. Jean and myself have been discussing the dairy pastoralists from NW Anatolia for years and the possibility they spread through Europe later than the LBK and Cardial phases. The Rossen map has several resonances with this theory of a secondary spread.


4. The beaker similarities are broadly in the expected areas of western and west central Europe but the similarity stretches far to the east into eastern Europe at a lesser degree and does not seem to involve non-Europeans. This contrasts with most of the prior movements where Anatolia stands out. What is of interest is modern beaker-like populations include some unexpected areas outside the beaker trail including Romaniam the south-west Balkans and a blob in Russia. That is interesting although hard to interpret. I suspect the spread of H may be a networking flow of elite wives but they could have moved in the reverse direction from the male flow or at least rather differently. The impact was temporary so it seems really to have just been a phase before returning to local marriage networks.

Certainly the map seems damning in terms of an Anatolian link to beaker which some head measuring fans have suggested in the past. The pattern of bell beaker seems to be that the the reanimated local hunter-gather DNA is maintained at a high level, the LBK influence falls away, the late Neolithic/east European groups drops and the 'other' group that includes H rises again. So, you could say the main change is H rising and the LBK and eastern European late Neolithic input falls. So, that is suggestive of a female wave coming counter to the corded ware direction, probably from the west somewhere. The paper suggest Iberia but it could be many parts of western Europe and the sampling misses out crucial areas like the rest of the west Med, south Germany, the Rhine area, south and west Germany etc. The question is whether this was a counterflow to yDNA or flowed the same way? Phylogeny of R1b suggests that it flowed from east to west.

This also gives food for thought regarding craniology. This chart may provide an explanation for the changes from narrow to broad heads in central Europe. Given that in the beaker burials LBK mt DNA drops to a low as does the late Neolithic eastern European mt DNA neither of them can be responsible. The rise in the 'others' group that contains H was already almost as strong at least 4600bc in central Europe but no broad heads so I dont think its the factor. What can be seen at the bell beaker period in this part of central Europe is that the hunter-gatherer mt DNA element finally became larger than the LBK input, finishing a process had started gathering pace from before 3000BC. If any mtDNA gives us a hint of the craniological changes associated with beaker in this area it is the dramtic quickening of process of ratio of hunter-gathering mtDNA compared to early Neolithic mtDNA. Could that be the real cause of craniological shift that is seen at this time? If this is true then it may not be migratory as such but more re-emergence of the pre-farming substrate. This interestingly is not a new concept and has been suggested in pre-DNA times by a number of the old physical anthropologist types. However, this is a study of a section of central Europe and may not be applicable everywhere - possibly explaining why beaker skulls were different in early beaker SW Europe.


That raises the question as to whether the resurrection/incorporation of hunter mtDNA after the earliest farmers and its culmination of its come back in the beaker era happened all over and whether it also happened with yDNA. It doesnt necessarily follow but it could. What we seem to know about R1b in Europe does largely follow a similar pattern to the hunter gather mt DNA in this report- appearing perhaps c.4000BC and suddenly really taking off in the beaker period.

alan
10-12-2013, 10:37 PM
Another interesting aspect in the supplementary material is the linkage lines on the multidimensional plot that shows the relative linkage of modern populations to each prehistoric culture. One thing that immediate jumps out is the close resemblance this has to the autosomal DNA map because the links in every period from LBK to Unetice c. 5500BC-2000BC always split Europe into two halves - the south which runs east-west from the Balkans through Italy as far as Iberia and the northern half that runs south-east to north-west from the Balkans to Ireland. This creates what is essentially a north-south divide in Europe.

ADW_1981
10-12-2013, 10:44 PM
Here is the link to Dienekes original post on the Swedish Neolithic farmer and hunter-gatherers (link). (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/04/ancient-dna-from-neolithic-sweden.html)

Quoting from Dienekes post on the autosomal comparison:


The fact that the hunter-gatherers were outside modern variation highlights the complexity of this type of analysis. My guess is that there were not just a few waves of migration - the concept of early farmers partially replacing hunter-gatherers, and late Neolithic immigrants partially replacing earlier farmers is much too simplistic. There were very likely many waves of migration that varied in different parts of Europe. For example, much of the U5 found in Finland today is not a Paleolithic remnant, rather, a large part of it appears to be a Neolithic migration that arrived via eastern Europe. So I think we need many more ancient samples from a much wider region to even begin to understand the complexity of past migrations. The new studies from Brandt et al and Bollinger et al. are fascinating, but they focus on a small geographical area. We need that level of analysis from many different areas.

The model seems to fit Near East and/or Anatolian farmers "neolithicizing" southern Europe primarily and adding X amount of their own contribution. Subsequently, it looks like the south Europeans took their knowledge and moved north into the rest of Europe. I think you're right that we cannot oversimplify things, but I do recall, despite the Gok remains having affinities to Cyprus, there were also similarities to Spain, France and Britain. I see Mr. Banned has linked a pretty useful bar graph from the admixture results.

alan
10-13-2013, 09:09 AM
Polish genes has this on the mt dna

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8420/euadnapca12.png

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/4876/euraadnapca12.png


Notice some weird unexpected stuff like Corded Ware's closeness to Neolithic groups and Anatolians. Makes them look like farmers slightly shifted in the direction of hunters. Beaker is also interesting, mainly from the fact that most modern Europeans cluster with it.


the key is

Key: AK - Andronovo, Karakol and Karasuk cultures; AS - Medieval Anglo-Saxon; Adyg - Adygei; Assyr - Assyrian; Azer - Azeri; BB - Bell Beaker Culture from Germany and Denmark; BOO - Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov Mesolithic site; BY - Belorussian; Bashkir - Bashkir; Bo - Bologna; C-I - Central Italy; CW - Corded Ware Culture; CZ - Czech; DD - Dnieper-Donets Culture; DE - Germany; EUP - European Upper Paleolithic; FB - Funnelbeaker Culture mixed Farmer/Forager sample; IAD - Iron-Age Danish; IES - Iron Age Eastern Spanish; INCS - Iberian Neolithic; IR - Ireland; IS - Iceland; Kazakhs - Kazakhs; Kirghiz - Kirghiz; MBC - Medieval Basque Country; MH - Medieval Hungarian; MP - Medieval Poland; M - Minoan; Mongols - Mongols; NEI - Northeast Italy; NRU - North Russian; NWI - Northwest Italy; Nogays - Nogays; Nur - Nuragic Sardinian; Orkn - Orkney; PCA - Portuguese Copper Age; PW - Przeworsk and Wielbark Cultures; PitW - Pitted Ware Culture; PolK - Poland Kashuby; PolP - Poland Podhale; RUCos - Cossack; S-I - South Italy; SRU - South Russian; Saam - Saami; ScSb - Scytho-Siberian; Sc - Don Scythian; Scan - Scandinavia; Scot - Scotland; Sic - Sicily; Srd - Sardinia; TRI - Tripolye Culture; T - Treilles Neolithic site; Turk - Turkish; UA - Ukraine; UOO - Uznyi Oleni Ostrov Mesolithic site; UTr - Ust-Tartas Copper Age site; Udmurt - Udmurt; Uigurs - Uigurs; Une - Unetice or Aunjetitz Culture; Urn - Urnfield; VD - Viking Danish; WCI - West-Central Italy (inc. Tuscany); Xion - Xiongnu.

AJL
10-13-2013, 03:20 PM
I haven't looked at the site but some of the "weird unexpected stuff" might have to do less with the actual DNA and more with unorthodox editorial decisions on the part of the blogger as to what constitutes "hunter/gatherer," "Scythian," etc.

alan
10-13-2013, 05:38 PM
Yes I think it would be fairer to conclude that corded ware and Unetice had a large Neolithic background on the female side given its position relative to Trielles, Iberian Neolithic and the Anatolian cluster. I dont really see how they have been put inside the mix hunter group by the oval drawn. Its only very slightly shifted in that direction.

One puzzle which he does raise is the Atlantic shift. Bell beaker does seem shifted towards that direction a little but what is the origin of this Atlantic group if its so far from the hunter group, the Neolithic groups, the steppe groups etc. One thing I would suggest and have thought for a while is that the hunter-gatherer element absorbed in SW Europe may have differed from the north-eastern hunter groups. All the hunter elements provided are from well away from western Europe.


I haven't looked at the site but some of the "weird unexpected stuff" might have to do less with the actual DNA and more with unorthodox editorial decisions on the part of the blogger as to what constitutes "hunter/gatherer," "Scythian," etc.

AJL
10-13-2013, 05:55 PM
Might that difference be reflecting the Franco-Cantabrian refugium?

J Man
10-13-2013, 09:59 PM
Yes I think it would be fairer to conclude that corded ware and Unetice had a large Neolithic background on the female side given its position relative to Trielles, Iberian Neolithic and the Anatolian cluster. I dont really see how they have been put inside the mix hunter group by the oval drawn. Its only very slightly shifted in that direction.

One puzzle which he does raise is the Atlantic shift. Bell beaker does seem shifted towards that direction a little but what is the origin of this Atlantic group if its so far from the hunter group, the Neolithic groups, the steppe groups etc. One thing I would suggest and have thought for a while is that the hunter-gatherer element absorbed in SW Europe may have differed from the north-eastern hunter groups. All the hunter elements provided are from well away from western Europe.

Unetice has been put in as part of the hunter-gatherer group because the Unetice culture had a lot of mtDNA haplogroup U present. As we know haplgroups U2, U4 and U5 in Europeans seems to be descended pretty much completely from local hunter-gatherers.

GailT
10-13-2013, 11:06 PM
One puzzle which he does raise is the Atlantic shift. Bell beaker does seem shifted towards that direction a little but what is the origin of this Atlantic group if its so far from the hunter group, the Neolithic groups, the steppe groups etc. One thing I would suggest and have thought for a while is that the hunter-gatherer element absorbed in SW Europe may have differed from the north-eastern hunter groups. All the hunter elements provided are from well away from western Europe.

That would be consistent with the differences we see in U5, with U5b more frequent in western Europe, and U5a more frequent in northeastern Europe.

alan
10-14-2013, 01:03 AM
One thing interesting is that the beaker network clearly is represented by mtDNA commonality if the modern population resemblance to the central European beaker groups is considered. This extended to some degree to the entire beaker world as well as more slightly across Europe on general. So, it confirms the feeling that the beaker network saw geneflow and shows that this was not just on the male side. This seems to be based on the rise of H as well as the relative drop of other earlier Neolithic lineages and their eclipse by old hunter-gather lineages. Its not surprising that a degree of homogeneity would come about from intense networking. However, this confirms the importance of female movement, something that may have been very important to the spread of bell beaker - perhaps even more important than the yDNA aspect given that women were the potters. I have suggested before that mt DNA could even be a counter-flow to the direction of the yDNA lineages. Marriages were used as one of the major alliance and networking tools in prehistoric societies and I wouldnt underestimate how mtDNA could spread far and wide over a couple of centuries through this method. Several aspects of the undeveloped proto-package of the beaker culture that H and H define for the early SW European beaker network could relate to female skills- pot, awls (leather working?), advanced textiles, buttons, jewlery etc while many aspects according to H and H like beaker type tanged daggers, bracers, individual burials etc seem more male and may be eastern influences.

So, I believe the first wave of beaker influence or at least the Iberian/SW aspect of it could have been female driven. I hypothesize that this may have been part of a wish for areas of western Europe to connect to the already existing copper richness of Iberia at a time when the Ligurian mines were failing according to the RC date spread and may have seen Alpine and west-central European yDNA heading the other way as middlemen. The flow of western beaker mtDNA was temporary and may have come to an end when other sources of copper eclipsed it including new Alpine, central European, east European and isles/nw French ore sources became available.

The gaps in the beaker type mtDNA distribution in non-IE groups like the Basques is also very interesting from a linguistic point of view. It suggests to me that beaker at some point did have a role in IE-isation processes and exclusion from or marginal role in the network may have had a role in the lack of IE languages in some areas or it could be later replacement. Either way those areas do not today share the mtDNA associated with the beaker groups in central Europe.

Generalissimo
10-14-2013, 03:26 AM
Notice some weird unexpected stuff like Corded Ware's closeness to Neolithic groups and Anatolians. Makes them look like farmers slightly shifted in the direction of hunters. Beaker is also interesting, mainly from the fact that most modern Europeans cluster with it.

Unfortunately, you don't understand the data. You should've read the blog entry.


Mixed Farmer/Hunter-Gatherer: I'd say this cluster shows what mtDNA haplogroup frequencies looked like across much of Europe just before the Bell Beaker expansion. It includes Corded Ware (CW) and Unetice (Une) Culture samples from Copper and Bronze Age Germany, respectively. These samples belong to archeological cultures often classified as Indo-European, and appear much more eastern than the Copper Age Central European Bell Beaker sample and most modern Europeans. However, they're fairly similar to the earlier farmer/forager Funnelbeaker sample from North Germany and Southern Scandinavia. So it's not possible to say with any great certainty at the moment where they originated. My guess is the forest steppe just east of Germany.

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/the-portuguese-or-rather-atlantean.html

Moreover…


It's interesting to note the close proximity of the Unetice (Une) and Corded Ware (CW) cultures to modern eastern Belorussians (BE), Komi Zyrians (Komi-Z) and Chuvashs. Indeed, the Unetice, Corded Ware and eastern Belorussian samples land right next to each other on PCAs of all possible combinations of PC1 to PC5, but the Komi and Chuvashs clearly pull away from the ancient Central Europeans across some of the PCs.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/146/zfz.png


I haven't looked at the site but some of the "weird unexpected stuff" might have to do less with the actual DNA and more with unorthodox editorial decisions on the part of the blogger as to what constitutes "hunter/gatherer," "Scythian," etc.

Then don't comment unless you're prepared to understand what you're commenting on.

As per above, Unetice are in the Mixed West Asian Farmer/European Hunter-Gatherer cluster, which is hypothesized to have been based in the Eastern European Forest Steppe prior to Bell Beaker related gene flow from the west. This was confirmed by Brandt 2013.


http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/4927/kn32.png

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/1306/4qkq.png


The gaps in the beaker type mtDNA distribution in non-IE groups like the Basques is also very interesting from a linguistic point of view. It suggests to me that beaker at some point did have a role in IE-isation processes and exclusion from or marginal role in the network may have had a role in the lack of IE languages in some areas or it could be later replacement. Either way those areas do not today share the mtDNA associated with the beaker groups in central Europe.

Again, you've failed to understand the data.

The Bell Beaker sample in Brandt 2013 is made up of two datasets, both obviously from Central Europe and one showing very clear native Central European admixture, with a high frequency of U haplogroup lineages.

However, the other Bell Beaker dataset looks much less Central European, and instead very Iberian and even Portuguese Copper Age, with an extreme frequency of mtDNA H. So obviously it's less admixed. Indeed, its strong links to Iberia and Basque mtDNA were confirmed by Brotherton 2013. The complete mtDNA H genomes from these Bell Beakers cluster very strongly with Iberian and Basque samples. See figure below.

Obviously, female mediated admixture in Central Europe made the Bell Beaker sample from Brandt 2013 appear very pan-European (and thus a good match for modern Indo-European speakers in Europe, but a poor match for various genetic and linguistic isolates).

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1718/mtdnahbbcfig2.png

Please try and understand the data first before commenting on it.

Generalissimo
10-14-2013, 04:18 AM
Notice that the Basque and Southwestern French region lack the similarity that is present in all of Iberia and France. In fact save for the Western Balkans, Finland, this places are reaching the highest distance from the Bell Beakers in Europe. What gives??


Not only that, but other regions where we have evidence of a non-IE language are grey: Iberian in southern Iberia, Etruscan in Tuscany and Ancient Sardinian. I like it.

It seems there's a major misunderstanding in this thread. Just in case my comments in the above post didn't clear it up, let me expand on what I said there.

The reason the Bell Beaker sample from Brandt 2013 matches modern Indo-European speaking groups better than linguistic isolates is because:

a) Linguistic isolates are often genetic isolates and suffer from strong genetic drift.

b) The Bell Beaker sample in Brandt 2013 was made up of two Central European Bell Beaker datasets, one with probable significant local admixture, and the overall effect was very mainstream pan-European. Moreover, mainstream pan-European today means Indo-European, but it's unlikely this was the case during the early Indo-European expansions.

c) The data in Brandt 2013 actually wasn't at a very high resolution and thus failed to catch very specific links between the Bell Beaker lineages and Iberian/Basque lineages that Brotherton 2013 did using complete mtDNA H genomes.

Perhaps this might be of some use as well?


In fact, the Bell Beaker sample doesn't even show much affinity to Basque mtDNA. This is unexpected because Basques are generally thought to be genetic relics of the Bronze Age in Southwestern Europe, and therefore potentially the best living proxies for the Bell Beakers. But I think there are some good reasons for this discrepancy, including the aforementioned low resolution of the data, with which we can only infer general patterns rather than fine scale affinities, and the fact that one of the Bell Beaker datasets was clearly influenced by native Central European admixture. In another study on the genetic history of Central Europe, which used complete mt H genomes, Bell Beaker lineages showed high affinity to those from Basque country and surrounds (see here).

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/complex-maternal-origins-of-central.html

AJL
10-14-2013, 05:47 AM
Then don't comment unless you're prepared to understand what you're commenting on.


Well, it wouldn't be the first time that blogger distorted data to fit his agenda. He did that back on DNA-Forums, where he managed to warp a paper on Scythian craniometry to make Poles seem like carbon copies of Scythians whereas in fact the data clearly showed Kazakhs were closer. But it was unfair of me to comment without having read in this particular case.

alan
10-14-2013, 01:34 PM
The fact that the maps show modern similarities to central European bell beaker tend to be strongest across the old bell beaker area is of interest. That includes several subgroups of bell beaker. So perhaps that phase had a homogenizing effect of some sort through creation of a beaker marriage network. Elite marriages (it is probably only the elite we see in beaker graves) were a classic method of alliance bonding in later Celtic society along with fosterage, clientship etc.

Noone is suggesting the H rise is anything other than a south-western geneflow into central Europe. In fact I think the female flow may be the smoking gun of how the undeveloped beaker proto-package of H and H's paper spread with its pots, awls, fancy textiles, buttons, jewelry etc - al perhaps female domestic crafts. However, it is highly unlikely that this was completely one way traffic and surely women also moved the other way.

Indeed, I would hypothesis that the very first contacts could have been the other way with perhaps a west Alpine alliance with Iberia and might have provided the prototype for beaker. It would make complete sense for a group in the west Alpine zone seeking to contact immediate pre-beaker Iberia to make some sort of trade link to seal the deal with an elite marriage that left one of their own women in the far west. She and elite brides like her could explain the appearance of a beaker prototype and why a pot type with no credible local prototype but characteristics resembling central and eastern European pots led to a new tradition in the far west. We will probably never be able to prove that though as it may have been down to a very few females heading west.

Such elite marriages are used to not only seal the deal but also in effect works as a sort of guarantee/hostage for outgoing metal directed by the outsiders. The most likely method whereby Iberian metal would have moved to points where it was desired would be middlemen from the latter areas IMO. I see the best evidence for that in the obviously targeted distribution of early beaker along the Med. which skips over large areas. It was very much non-Random and skipped over hostile areas like Languedoc for a long period.

The mysterious and oddly distributed AOC beakers in Iberia might IMO relate to the initial east to west contact phase. Some have been dated very early and they have a distribution which is quite different from and only partly overlapping with the maritime ones despite similar age. They appear to be known best in coastal areas of eastern Iberia, northern Iberia with a few elsewhere. One date in the paper I link to below was centred on c. 2750BC. They are pretty rare so we may not know the whole picture. A few have recently been found in the circular enclosures in the SW. They seem to be incredibly rarely, I think just one sherd, associated with burial and are best interpreted as domestic rather than high status burial pots. They also have been described as surprisingly uniform in style, something that suggests to me a female potter driven spread. This poorly understood, rare, apparently early in Iberia and differently distributed type of beaker seems to me to be a possibility as a prototype beaker that could have links with females who moved INTO Iberia around the time of the start of the beaker phenomenon. The pot form idea could have been brought by females who moved west from points east in central Europe where good prototypes exist while the maritime decorative form may have been a very rapid local addition. It is probably beyond RC dating to prove or disprove this.

http://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/20435/2/sojorgeallover000085668.pdf

Its pretty clear to me that a lot more work needs to be done to tease out the mysteries of what was going on in Iberia at the time the beaker culture formed. However, I think there is likely a complex picture of alliances at the very inception of the beaker phenomenon that could have started with a female flow west followed by a much larger female flow east. The male aspect of this perhaps can be considered harder to work out. Many of the early contacts from east to west and west to east could be down to female flow, alliances and cultural influences along those new networks. Once western H women moved east in alliances, further alliances could have made this briefly go viral over a number of generations but clearly would not be lasting. As the beaker network formed new subdivisions with their own resources that were not reliant on the Iberian network this phenomenon of mt DNA flow from the SW would have ceased.

While its relatively easy to imagine mtDNA spreading peacefully through a network of alliances and being echoed by early beaker pottery, I think we really need to think very hard to see the push and pull factors of how male lineages could have flowed in the same period. This IMO would not be achieved through marriages given the evidence for patrilineal practices. Copper technology, mining knowledge and general level of cultural development are not in themselves feasible drivers as they were similar across the west Med. and central Europe back to at least 3200BC, earlier as we head east. The real change that marked the beaker phase and contrasted with what went before is the sudden massive networking.

I can see motive for wanting to take part in a link to Iberia around the western Alps/Liguria/north Italy as we know their mines ceased around the start of the beaker phase. I can see motive in the farthest west corded ware groups who were a long way from the supply chain. I can see motive in Iberia for seeking an outlet for its copper wealth - local archaeology suggesting it was too common there to naturally have high status or value at home. I cannot see motive for them looking for copper elsewhere. I can see motives for groups a little away from the Med. shipping lanes wanting links to places like Slovakia an adjacent that had other copper sources. I can see a similar motive for the offshoot Csepel groups around Budapest close to the Carpathian sources. However, in most cases the beaker phenomenon looks like one of a wish to link to pre-existing copper sources.

My personal feeling on this is that the origin of this sudden widespread networking behavour is likely to be around the western Alps and north Italy where they may have hit a crisis in supply and looked elsewhere to Iberia, the Carpatians etc for supplies and that the beaker phenomenon and spread of R1b was predominantly that of middlemen linking areas with surplus to areas with need.

So, I would suggest that the mystery of how a south-west to east and north movement is linked to a yDNA line whose phylogeny seems to be the exact reverse may be down to some of the basic beaker fashions moving with south-western females as far as Italy and the Alps and influencing the pre-existing copper age groups there along with the trade they were linked to guaranteeing through alliance. However, many of the classic full beaker package characteristics seem much more likely to have come together is areas where this perhaps female-driven proto-package and linked Iberian trading met cultures with different characteristics who added to this. The question is when did R1b get involved.

I think its clear that the Phylogeny and variance of R1b in Europe shows a general east to west progression with the main intermediate braching off clades ike L51* and L11* looking centred around the Alps and adjacent. The dates seem to suggest a movement that was tentative spreading around the Alpine area for many centuries perhaps c. 3500-2700BC before P312 saw a sudden massive take off in multiple directions. Again variance and sheer clade variety would not point to this taking place in Iberia. I am totally aware and respect the ideas of pre-beaker movement of R1b to Iberia but I will give my own opinion on this. I think the evidence for well dated cultural connections of pre-beaker copper age Iberia is much less clear than the very strong connectivity of the beaker phase itself. So, if we are to see R1b entering Iberia from points east I would rather place it at the moment of conception of bell beaker itself when an eastern type pot prototype arrived and led to an early beaker tradition in the area. There is still considerable wriggle room and question marks as to when that date was and I would feel it works best around 2800-2700BC rather than at the extreme end of date range possibilities c. 2900BC.

TigerMW
10-14-2013, 02:00 PM
Moderator message to all,

Please, let us all be careful to avoid personal criticisms (ad hominen attacks), assume underlying motives and going overboard on assertive language or generally being inflammatory. This is a great topic. Let's just focus on the issues.

I apologize for the post this post that is devoid of content on the topic, but we could easily get sidetracked on this one. The right way to respond to a post that you feel is problematic is to use the "report" function. We don't need to spiral in to tit for tat.

[[[Mikewww on 14Oct2013: Since it is becoming a pattern, I'll delete whole posts that involve personal criticism. Criticism of the arguments is fine, but not ad hominen attacks. I don't have time to read through a post and pick out what's on-topic versus ad hominen attacks so I'll just delete the whole post. ]]]

J Man
10-14-2013, 03:45 PM
That would be consistent with the differences we see in U5, with U5b more frequent in western Europe, and U5a more frequent in northeastern Europe.

Interestingly enough one of the Kunda culture samples was U5b and so were two of the Narva culture samples from Lithuania from the 2009 Bramanti study. But yes U5b does seem more Western and U5a more Eastern on the whole.

nuadha
10-15-2013, 05:52 PM
forgot to quote...

nuadha
10-15-2013, 05:57 PM
Indeed!! After posting the maps I noticed that Sardinian was equally as distant. So does this mean that the Bell Beaker/Indo-European link is maternal???

Shoot, I think you're right. Not exclusively maternal, but ths maternal contributions may have had a much larger role than I previously thought. In the post below I argued a ydna IE connection. I did include mtdna in my argument but I focused on ydna partly because I thought ydna would produce the best divisions - between IE peoples and non IE peoples. But once you cluster some mtdna types, you get an awesome map separating IE people from non IE people!!! I had no doubt that women migrated a lot, and brought new culture too, but these divisions are awesome. http://distantconnections.wordpress.com/25-2/

nuadha
10-15-2013, 06:21 PM
Polish genes has this on the mt dna

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8420/euadnapca12.png

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/4876/euraadnapca12.png


Notice some weird unexpected stuff like Corded Ware's closeness to Neolithic groups and Anatolians. Makes them look like farmers slightly shifted in the direction of hunters.

when were these posted? I remember him trying to make a mtdna map with the help of some other guy, and he kept rejecting maps which didn't give him the results he wanted. One thing he wanted was for CW to look hunter gatherer, despite it looking pretty neolithic just by inspection of the sampled results...

jeanL
10-16-2013, 03:03 PM
It seems there's a major misunderstanding in this thread. Just in case my comments in the above post didn't clear it up, let me expand on what I said there.

The reason the Bell Beaker sample from Brandt 2013 matches modern Indo-European speaking groups better than linguistic isolates is because:

a) Linguistic isolates are often genetic isolates and suffer from strong genetic drift.

But what do you make of the spot in SouthWestern France, given that its location would indicate it is outside the French Basque zone, unless the authors misplaced it? In any case, the Basque mitochondril profile isn't any different in terms of diversity from other European mt-DNA profiles, and while they might have a lower diversity, the difference is small, so in terms of mt-DNA at least, we can assume that they are representative.


b) The Bell Beaker sample in Brandt 2013 was made up of two Central European Bell Beaker datasets, one with probable significant local admixture, and the overall effect was very mainstream pan-European. Moreover, mainstream pan-European today means Indo-European, but it's unlikely this was the case during the early Indo-European expansions.

Yes from what I understand, one of the samples that make the Bell Beakers database might not be Bell Beaker at all to begin with.


c) The data in Brandt 2013 actually wasn't at a very high resolution and thus failed to catch very specific links between the Bell Beaker lineages and Iberian/Basque lineages that Brotherton 2013 did using complete mtDNA H genomes.

The only down side is that neither Basque nor Bell Beaker mt-DNA pool is solely made up of mt-DNA H, in any case, I'm not sure about Fig2-d, since it seems Vizcaya clusters as an outgroup of BCC and Iberia along with Pasiegos and Potes, whereas the BBC clusters as an outgroup relative to rest of Iberians, then we see Guipuzcoa clustering as an outgroup of BMI(mixed group of Basques) and Galicia. This doesn't add up with what we see in the study published by Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 where Basques provinces cluster fairly close to each other on the MDS maps and also contradicts your first assumption of Basques as single linguistic/genetic isolate who underwent drift, given that if Vizcayans are more similar to Cantabrians than to Guipuzcoans in terms of their mt-DNA H, then Basques as a whole would show some diversity, unless we are to assume that Iberians themselves underwent drift, in which case, then the linguistic isolate term wouldn't apply.