PDA

View Full Version : New mtDNA maps from Eupedia K, U5, U4, U3, and U2 and more coming soon



Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 01:05 AM
Maciamo has added a ton more data to mtDNA frequencies (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_mtdna_haplogroups_frequency.shtml)and now has enough info to make mtDNA maps. Something to always remember the Sami who take up most of northern Scandinavia have nearly 100% mtDNA V and U5(almost all under U51b1b and under that U5b1b1a) so almost every haplogroup will be close to 0% in northern Scandinavia.

Click here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29155-New-map-of-mtDNA-haplogroup-K) for original Eupedia thread of K.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-K-map.png

Click here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29157-New-map-of-mtDNA-haplogroup-U5) for orignal Eupedia thread of U5.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-U5-map.png
I agree with him that U5 is very ancient in Europe because of two 31,155 year old U5's in Dolni Vestonice Czech republic (2013 study by fu et al (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213002157)) and that it takes up the majority of mtDNA from all European hunter gathers from Palaeloithic-Neloithic(Ancient Eurasian DNA (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml)). And that its age estimate ranges from 30,000-50,000 years old and is exclusively European. Non European U5 in north Africa and the Near east can deifntley be explained by European inter marriage. U5b1b in North Africa defintley is from Europe and probably came through Iberia around 9,000-15,000ybp(Saami and Berbers—An Unexpected Mitochondrial DNA Link (http://www.globaldiv.eu/SummerSchool/docs/Olivieri/Achilli%20et%20al%202005_hapl%20U_AJHG.pdf)). All the U5 I have seen so far in the Near east were the subclade was shown is under U5a. Which can be explained by spread of Indo Iranian languages in the Near east and India-Pakistan area because of how high U5a is in pale pigmented Indo Iranians in asia in bronze and iron age(Indo Iranian and Tocherian DNA (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1431-INdo-Iranian-and-Tocherian-DNA)). Maciamo also added that inter marriage with other European people like Greeks and in his opinion Hittites, Phrygians, Armenians who he thinks their ancestral languages came from Europe.

Maciamo I think generalized mtDNA U5 which is extremely old possibly 50,000 years old. And who knows why it is more or less popular in certain areas each U5 subclade has its own story. He said it is the most common maternal lineage of European hunter gathers in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic age and even much later in north east Europe notably with Sami people. I guess technically Sami might be hunter gathers but they are still totally modernized and were even recorded by ancient Roman writer Tacitus 2,000ybp so its not like their as primitive and isolated as hunter gathers in Europe thousands of years ago. He didn't add that majority of Sami(48% U5) and Finnish(20% U5) U5 is under U5b1b. I orignized mtDNA results from Finland in FTDNA and out of 20.3% U5. 70% is U5b, 61.5% is U5b1, 58.2% of is U5b1b, and 39.37% have U5b1b1a1a. They dont have a variety of U5 subclades for example like Germany. Maybe why nearlly 100% of Sami mtDNA is U5 and V is their founder lineages and if their mtDNA was similar to Mesloithic Europeans you would except to see some U4 and U2e.

Y DNA I1a2c L287 and I1a2d L300 (takes up 80% of Finnish I1) and N1c1(in Scandnavia) might be connected with the distribution of mtDNA U5b1b1a because those are major Y DNA and mtDNA haplogroups of Finnish and Sami. Maciamo said U5 seems connected with distribution of Y DNA I, N1c, and R1a? U5 is over 10,000 years older than any of those haplogroups. I think what Maciamo meant is I1 which no it doesn't really connect. I it does guess kind of with Y DNA N1c which is actually Mongliod it migrated to north east Europe originally from eastern asia around 8,000-10,000ybp(click here (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-review-of-haplogroup-n-y-dna.html)) so no way was it originally connected with mtDNA U5. It is connected though with Mongliod admixture in austomal DNA and Mongliod mtDNA haplogroups in northeastern Europe.

I think something important to remember is Austomal DNA of U(U5, U4, and U2e) dominated Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gathers shows overall they are most related to Finnish, Sami, and Baltic people who have the highest amount of mtDNA U5 but I doubt that means anything. The Atlantic Baltic and North European component is from these hunter gathers and is very popular in modern Europeans it is most popular in order: northeast Europeans-Finnish-Sami, Swedish-Norwegian-Danish, Slavs(notBalkan Slavs), central Europe and British isles, France and Balkans, Iberia, northern Italy, Central Italy, southern Italy and Greece. Even though modern European mtDNA percentages is very different from European hunter gathers because of the much lower amount of U(U5, U4, and U2) and very high amount of H and then other groups J, T, K, X, I, and W. Austomal DNA of Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gathers definitely show a big portion of modern European ancestry is from pre Neolithic Europe. I really don't understand the science behind Austomal DNA and figuring out how the U5 dominated hunter gathers are connected with modern Europeans is very complicated. According to this article click here (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/04/ancient-dna-from-neolithic-sweden.html)


We found that compared to a worldwide set of 1,638 individuals (21-23), all four Neolithic individuals clustered within European variation (Fig. S5). However, when focusing the analysis on 505 individuals of European and Levantine descent, the three Neolithic hunterg atherers appeared largely outside the distribution of the modern sample

It is pretty obvious with mtDNA there was some type of almost extinction of hunter gather maternal lineages with the spread of farming. And the only Y DNA haplogroup that reaches above 1% in Europe that is from before the Palaeolithic is Y DNA I so most European paternal lineages also spread during or after the Neolithic age then why in austomal DNA do modern Europeans like Lithuanians so close to hunter gathers.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 01:06 AM
Click here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29158-New-map-of-mtDNA-haplogroup-V?p=417965) for original thread.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-V-map.png


In the Near east, north Africa, and Sami of northern Scandinavia U5 and V distribution is almost identical. This makes a lot of sense since European mtDNA U5b1b in north Africa has been connected with V. They may have all migrated to north Africa from Iberia with H1 and H3 over 8,000 years ago. In Ancient North African DNA (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/nafricaadna.shtml) there are two V?'s in Mooroco from 12,000ybp. I think the way V is distributed is evidence it originated in Europe and did not come from the Near east in Neolithic. If Maciamo also makes distribution map of H1 and also H3 I bet in the Near east and North Africa they will have very similar distribution to U5 and V. But it is not good to generalize H1,H3, and V because there are many subclades and I have noticed in FTDNA's public mtDNA of countries that most of Europe have very similar percentages of H1 subclades. So just because H1 is estimated to be around 15,000 years old does not mean that's when it spread the age of subclades that are in all Europeans is when it would have spread. I do think though that H1, H3, and V all originated in Palaeloithic Europe and spread around 10,000-15,000ybp or in the Neloithic age.

Click here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29159-New-map-of-mtDNA-haplogroup-U4) for original Eupeida thread of U4
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-U4-map.png

I can kind of understand the connection Maciamo see's with Y DNA R1a and mtDNA U4. But the R1a and U4 ratio is not constant. If a people group has low R1a but the highest R1a in their area and good amount of U4 Maciamo uses them as evidence. Usually Maciamo theory's make a lot of sense but so far what he says about his mtDNa maps is total BS. He generalizes Indo Europeans for example in Iberia he should be saying Celts. And the early Indo Europeans around Russia, Ukriane, and Caucus 6,000-8,000ybp were not unified genetically. Proof of this is 5,000 and 6,000 year old Yamna people in southern Russia and Ukraine were very dark eyed(click here) (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/neue-blicke-auf-zivilisa-tionen-der.html). But Andronovo culture(3,800-3,400ybp) in south central Siberia descended from Yamna and probably spoke Indo Iranian language had mainly light eyes and light hair same with pigmentation genes from all Indo Iranians in Asia from bronze and iron ages(Indo Iranian and Tocherian DNA (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1431-INdo-Iranian-and-Tocherian-DNA)). They came straight out of Europe 5,000 years ago there were no light Europeans in Asia they could have inter married with.

U4 is pretty popular in Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gathers(Ancient Eurasian DNA (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml)), much more popular than anywhere in the world today. There is also samples of U4 in Neolithic Europe before mainly R1a1a1b1 Z283 Indo European Corded ware culture(spoke ancestral language to Balto Slavic) spread in eastern and central Europe, and Scandinavia. So probably the vast majority of U4 in Europe are just Mesolithic hunter gather lineages. R1a1a M17 most likely originated in Europe(click here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Feurogenes.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F1 1%2Forigins-of-r1a1a1-in-or-near-europe-aka.html&ei=uaJhUveGK4WMyQHuiYC4DA&usg=AFQjCNG2HtisWymZcDBMZY344-WXI_868A&sig2=aRljg7-hA6QHuwXjn5p3mw)) and probably is descended from a hunter gather lineage and its decendant R1a1a1 M417 spread with Balto Slavic and Indo Iranian languages and possibly partly with other Indo European languages. So with this Macimo makes an argument that U4 Is connected with R1a and is own explanation on how it could still have partly spread with R1a. He should say R1a1a1 M417 to be more specific.


Click here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29160-New-map-of-mtDNA-haplogroup-U3) for original Eupeida Thread of U3.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-U3-map.png

Once again Maciamo generalizes "The Indo Europeans" and the R1b branch. When it seems it's only Germanic and Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11 and even if not the oldest Indo European R1b branch is R1b1a P297. He cant generalize saying the R1b branch of Indo European it is not that simple!!! But I do agree with him that since Germanic and Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11 ancestor subclades R1b1a2a1a L23, R1b1a2a M269, or R1b1a P297 migrated to Europe through the Near east they could be the source of U3 in far western Europe.
Click here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29163-New-map-of-mtDNA-haplogroup-U2)for original Eupeida Thread of U2.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-U2-map.png

I seriously am shocked by what Maciamo said about U2. There are many U2e samples from Mesolithic Europe(Ancient Eurasian DNA (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml)) proving U2e in Europe is not Indo European and not connected with Y DNA R1a and R1b like he theorized. He generalized R1a and R1b once agian. R1b1a2a1a L11 began to spread in western Europe just 4,500-5,000ybp with Germanic and Italo Celtic languages. R1a1a1b1 Z283 did not become very popular in eastern and central Europe, and Scandinavia until Corded ware culture(spoke ancestral language to Balto Slavic) 5,000ybp. I guess that the common ancestor to Indo Iranian R1a1a1b2 Z93 and Corded ware R1a1a1b1 Z283 would have originated around Russia and Ukriane and R1a may have originated in Europe around 18,000ybp. But R1a and R1b did not become widespread in Europe till very recently. I would connect the 37,985 year old U2 sample in Russia to European the origin of European U2e and may have had U2e. And since U2 is so old it probably had split a very long time ago over 40,000 years ago from the U2 subclades popular in south asia.

parasar
10-19-2013, 03:52 AM
There is some U5 in Indian tribals too.
192-256-270-311-362-399-519 U5 218-326
192-256-270-311-362-399-519 U5 218-326
192-256-270-311-362-399-519 U5 218-326
192-256-270-362-399-519 U5 218-326
192-256-270-362-399-519 U5 218-326
192-256-270-362-519 U5 301-326

Genetic affinities among the lower castes and tribal groups of India
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/supplementary/1471-2156-7-42-s2.xls

Some the samples listed as U2 in the link above may well be U2e
Eg. 051-082-126-129C-189-256-298-362-519 U2 326-479-562-907

Obviously with the immense variety of mtDNA, the %age of each type is small.

Data from another paper from the Tamil Andhra region
U to U9
Genetic variation in South Indian castes
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/supplementary/1471-2156-9-86-s1.xls
In the Watkins data the following are seen: U1a U2a U2b U2c U2e U4 U5 U7 K

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 04:07 AM
WOW your right and 8 out of 348 samples that's 2.3%. I doubt any of the U2's are U2e but its still possible some are. All the ones with subclade were U2a. U2a, U2b, and U2c usually take up over 10% of Pakistani and Indian mtDNA.Where West Meets East: The Complex mtDNA Landscape of the Southwest and Central Asian Corridor (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181978/). The U5 is definitely European inter marriage I would bet when Indo Iranian languages spread to India since U5 is so popular in Bronze-Iron age Indo Iranian speakers in central Asia and Siberia. Europe with mtDNA around today definitely is were U5 originated but its still possibly it originated in the Near east just we cant tell by looking t modern near eastern mtDNA because all the original U5's descendants are now in Europe.

It seems to me U1, U3, U7, and U9 are near eastern U2a, U2b, and U2c are South Asian, U5, U4, and U2e are European while U8 is definitely old in Europe 31,155ybp sample in Czech republic with two U5's. I have noticed with FTDNA public results U8a is more European and U8b more near eastern. But subclades of T, J, K, H, I, W, and X are very spread out in Europe, near east, and north Africa of course when you get deep enough some are unique to a certain area. And some of the haplogroups are old subclades originated in one of those areas and spread.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 04:08 AM
Where do you find mtDNA spreadsheets like that.

GailT
10-19-2013, 05:30 AM
I've compiled statistics on U5 on the FTDNA project page (link) (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/u5b,u5b/default.aspx?section=results) based on over 1300 FMS results, including all samples in GenBank. If you check the page you'll note that there is a single U5b2* sample from India at a branch point that dates to about 20,000 years ago. No samples in this branch have been found in Europe, so it's possible that it indicates a very ancient U5b2 migration from Europe to India, perhaps during the LGM. So you really can't make simple assumptions about distribution or origins of haplogroups, especially given the low sampling frequency we have for South Asia.

For U2e in India, we have:

AY714026 U2e*
AY714040 U2e1a1
JX462708 U2e2
and among Indian customers at FTDNA we have samples in U2e1*Group H and U2e1b1.

So we have great diversity in Indian samples of U2e, with the U2e* sample indicating very ancient origins in India, and various other U2 samples that might date to the time of Indo-European migrations or earlier.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 06:20 AM
I've compiled statistics on U5 on the FTDNA project page (link) (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/u5b,u5b/default.aspx?section=results) based on over 1300 FMS results, including all samples in GenBank. If you check the page you'll note that there is a single U5b2* sample from India at a branch point that dates to about 20,000 years ago. No samples in this branch have been found in Europe, so it's possible that it indicates a very ancient U5b2 migration from Europe to India, perhaps during the LGM. So you really can't make simple assumptions about distribution or origins of haplogroups, especially given the low sampling frequency we have for South Asia.

For U2e in India, we have:

AY714026 U2e*
AY714040 U2e1a1
JX462708 U2e2
and among Indian customers at FTDNA we have samples in U2e1*Group H and U2e1b1.

So we have great diversity in Indian samples of U2e, with the U2e* sample indicating very ancient origins in India, and various other U2 samples that might date to the time of Indo-European migrations or earlier.

U2e1 is the most popular U2e subclade you can see in Indo Iranian and Tocherian DNA (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anthrogenica.com%2Fshowthread .php%3F1431-INdo-Iranian-and-Tocherian-DNA&ei=MyRiUuKcKsKCyAGkoYGADg&usg=AFQjCNGX-h9mnuMkHMeLwv6lHTyP5hxrqQ&sig2=UKfG05Kq_bw12nv6-2bYrg). U2e was definitely in the people who spread Indo Iranian languages. But I do think it Is definitely possibly and probably true that there has been some European admixture but extremely little in Near east and south asia even in Mesolithic and Palaeloithic. But it would have been probably a U5 in Greece inter marry's with people in Turkey then overtime makes it to India or where ever not directly from Europe.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 06:38 AM
I have noticed ancient DNA is starting to prove most Y DNA and mtDNA haplogroup age estimates are too young. For example U5 click here (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010285) was estimated to be 25,000-30,000 years old. But from only 4 mtDNA samples in Europe that are over 30,000 years old two had U5 from Czech republic(2013 study by fu et al (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213002157)) and its age is definitely older than that. FTDNa said U5b2c1 was estimated to be 4,000 years old and 5,300 years old and there are two samples from northern Spain that are 7,000 years old. You also have to remember there are few samples and very few with the deep subclade in Mesolithic Europe.

People always say the earliest human were in Europe 40,000ybp or so. Even though there is a 42,000 year old lionman statue in southern Germany, two 42,000 year old flutes also in southern Germany, 43,000-45,000 year old human baby teeth in Italy, 41,500-44,200 year old human jaw in Wales. We all know that they did not take a helicopter from Iraq to all those spots in Europe and that is very good evidence Humans(specifically Caucasians from the Near east) migrated to Europe over 50,000 years ago. I think the newly discovered 29,000 year old cave paintgs in Brazil is more evidence that age estimates on human migrations are usually too young. I am very very against human migrations out of Africa(or really sub sahra) 60,000-70,000ybp that is way way way too young. I am also sick of people believing Oceania migrated to Austrilla and other areas by themselves and were the first out of Africa. When Austomal DNA(click here (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/)), Y DNA, and mtDNA shows they are extremely related to Mongliods so they come from the same migration. And when ever you talk about the origin of Europeans you have to include Near easterns, and north Africans before anyone because Y DNA(I and J), mtDNA, aust DNA(click here (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/)), Skull shape, body build, body and facial hair, hair texture, Brown hair, and more pigmentation genes(click here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theapricity.com%2Fforum%2Fsho wthread.php%3F92883-Origin-of-European-Paleness(skin-hair-and-eye-color)%2Fpage2&ei=nCliUtmrMZOMyAGvnID4Dw&usg=AFQjCNEJCJbmSi7GcmhH237IPF7EtoBlVQ&sig2=Jfxe8C7TsUR-6ONGtCpxlQ)) shows their in the same Caucasian family.

Adversary
10-19-2013, 10:20 AM
I have noticed ancient DNA is starting to prove most Y DNA and mtDNA haplogroup age estimates are too young. For example U5 click here (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010285) was estimated to be 25,000-30,000 years old. But from only 4 mtDNA samples in Europe that are over 30,000 years old two had U5 from Czech republic(2013 study by fu et al (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213002157)) and its age is definitely older than that.
Those Czech Upper Paleolithic samples are not U5.

Jean M
10-19-2013, 11:09 AM
So we have great diversity in Indian samples of U2e, with the U2e* sample indicating very ancient origins in India, and various other U2 samples that might date to the time of Indo-European migrations or earlier.

The problem with this argument is that if we have a large sample of people from location A moving to location B, they will take with them a sample of the mtDNA variation in location A. That may include some people carrying a haplogroup that was ancient in location A. I am inclined to think that U2e arose in or near Europe, rather than at the Asian cross-roads. Behar estimates its date as 19,290 years ago, which would make it unlikely that the Kostenki 14 sample was U2e. It dates from c. 37,985 BP.

Of course it is possible that a small forager band from Volga region managed to get into India before it was cut off by desert in the LGM.

Jean M
10-19-2013, 11:24 AM
There are many U2e samples from Mesolithic Europe, proving U2e in Europe is not Indo European and not connected with Y DNA R1a and R1b like he theorized....

U2e is much older than Proto-Indo-European. That did not stop it from being spread by Indo-European speakers. The logic goes like this:

People develop language A.

They are descended from people who did not speak language A.

This has to be the case, because if you develop something new, you cannot be descended from people who developed it. Your ancestors may have developed something similar, a precursor. But not exactly the same thing.

Proto-Indo-European was developed about 4000 BC, as far as we know. The people who developed it did not fly in from Mars. They had ancestors on this earth. So genetically they could be carrying haplogroups which first appeared in the Mesolithic or the Neolithic or whatever. Biology does not conveniently arrange for new SNPS to occur bang on the point of a culture change or migration.

alan
10-19-2013, 02:20 PM
K is one of those haplogroups that I dont read too much into its peaks and troughs. The difference between a fairly common 6% and a peak at 9 or 10% just is not that great. Tends to be a little raised in the areas more of the beaten track but cannot see any pattern other than that.

Humanist
10-19-2013, 02:27 PM
Maciamo has added a ton more data to mtDNA frequencies (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_mtdna_haplogroups_frequency.shtml)and now has enough info to make mtDNA maps.

Click here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29155-New-map-of-mtDNA-haplogroup-K) for original Eupedia thread of K.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-K-map.png

Not a big fan of Eupedia. As usual, his maps miss the mark. He has a concentration of K in northern Mesopotamia? Why?

EDIT: I see what he may have done. For whatever reason, he may be marking all Kurds as a population of northern Iraq, regardless of their actual origins.

From the KurdishDNA blogspot (http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com/):


1x K (Kurds from Saqqez, Kurdistan-Iran; Farjadian et al., 2011)
1x K1a9 (Kurds from Saqqez, Kurdistan-Iran; Farjadian et al., 2011)
1x K1a T16093C, T16224C, T16311C (Kurds from Iran; Quintana-Murci et al., 2004)
1x K 16129, T16224C, T16311C (= K1a11 or K2b2) (Kurds from Iran; Quintana-Murci et al., 2004)
1x K with T16224C, T16311C (Kurds from Georgia; Comas et al., 2000)
2x K with T16224C, T16311C, T16093C, C16260T (=K1a1+C16260T, or K1a17a+T16093C)(Kurds from Georgia; Comas et al., 2000)
1x K with T16224C, T16311C, A16240G (=K+A16240G) (Kurds from Georgia; Comas et al., 2000)
1x K with T16224C, T16311C, A16272G (=K+A16272G) (Kurds from Georgia; Comas et al., 2000)

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 03:38 PM
Those Czech Upper Paleolithic samples are not U5.

You saw my source plus I got the info that they were U5 from FTDNA. I gets annoying when almost every Mesloithic-Palaeloithic mtDNA sample is argued over mainly any that might be H and there is no for sure haplogroup or subclade.

Adversary
10-19-2013, 04:00 PM
You saw my source plus I got the info that they were U5 from FTDNA. I gets annoying when almost every Mesloithic-Palaeloithic mtDNA sample is argued over mainly any that might be H and there is no for sure haplogroup or subclade.
Fu et al. does not report them as U5, but rather U. They have two additional mutations in common with U5, but not all of them. So their haplogroup(s) is actually a precursor or parallel lineage to U5. They cannot be claimed to belong to U5, unless the defining mutations for U5 are changed, which would naturally lead to older dates.

GailT
10-19-2013, 04:00 PM
But I do think it Is definitely possibly and probably true that there has been some European admixture but extremely little in Near east and south asia even in Mesolithic and Palaeloithic. But it would have been probably a U5 in Greece inter marry's with people in Turkey then overtime makes it to India or where ever not directly from Europe.

You keep making these extremely speculative claims with very little evidence that any of this is accurate or true. It's very difficult to be certain about ancient haplogroup distributions until we have more ancient DNA and much more sampling of modern full sequence mtDNA in south Asia. You can imagine anything that might be possible, but you should pose it as a theory and carefully consider the evidence that supports or falsifies the theory.

GailT
10-19-2013, 04:07 PM
You saw my source plus I got the info that they were U5 from FTDNA. I gets annoying when almost every Mesloithic-Palaeloithic mtDNA sample is argued over mainly any that might be H and there is no for sure haplogroup or subclade.

It is annoying to have to correct repeated errors of sloppy scholarship. If you read Fu et al, you'll see that these samples are pre-U5 with only 2 of the 5 mutations that define U5, and that affects the age estimates for U5. It's easy to spam the discussion board with lots of data gleaned from other sources, some accurate and some not accurate, but it is much more useful to take the time to do a careful analysis.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 04:52 PM
You keep making these extremely speculative claims with very little evidence that any of this is accurate or true. It's very difficult to be certain about ancient haplogroup distributions until we have more ancient DNA and much more sampling of modern full sequence mtDNA in south Asia. You can imagine anything that might be possible, but you should pose it as a theory and carefully consider the evidence that supports or falsifies the theory.

I am theorizing I am not saying any of this is fact. The reason why I say there was little European admixture in the Near east and south asia in Palaeloithic and Mesloithic. Is because in austomal DNA "North Euro"(globe13) which is the pre Neolithic European group is pretty much completely non existent in non Indo Iranian speakers in the Near east and south asia. So I think most European inter marriage in those areas came with spread of Indo Iranian languages. It makes the most sense that people around Greece have been able to inter marry with people in Anatolia for pretty much forever and that U5 in Greece overtime inter marriage after inter marriage could make it to India.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 04:54 PM
It is annoying to have to correct repeated errors of sloppy scholarship. If you read Fu et al, you'll see that these samples are pre-U5 with only 2 of the 5 mutations that define U5, and that affects the age estimates for U5. It's easy to spam the discussion board with lots of data gleaned from other sources, some accurate and some not accurate, but it is much more useful to take the time to do a careful analysis.
I didn't have access to Fu et al I just trusted what FTDNA said. It is still possibly U5.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 04:55 PM
Fu et al. does not report them as U5, but rather U. They have two additional mutations in common with U5, but not all of them. So their haplogroup(s) is actually a precursor or parallel lineage to U5. They cannot be claimed to belong to U5, unless the defining mutations for U5 are changed, which would naturally lead to older dates.

But did they for sure not have the other 3 mutations.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 04:59 PM
U2e is much older than Proto-Indo-European. That did not stop it from being spread by Indo-European speakers. The logic goes like this:

People develop language A.

They are descended from people who did not speak language A.

This has to be the case, because if you develop something new, you cannot be descended from people who developed it. Your ancestors may have developed something similar, a precursor. But not exactly the same thing.

Proto-Indo-European was developed about 4000 BC, as far as we know. The people who developed it did not fly in from Mars. They had ancestors on this earth. So genetically they could be carrying haplogroups which first appeared in the Mesolithic or the Neolithic or whatever. Biology does not conveniently arrange for new SNPS to occur bang on the point of a culture change or migration.

It does make sense the 37,985 year old U2 is connected with Mesolithic and modern European U2e. It makes more sense to me most U2e in Europe is just Mesolithic lineages I guess early Indo Europeans had some but were not spread most of it. What you said about Indo Europeans I have been wanting to say for so long. Maciamo always says THE INDO EUROPEANS and trys to find the Indo European mtDNA haplogroups. They were not unified genetically and came from past people with similar mtDNA haplogroups as the people in Europe they conquered.

GailT
10-19-2013, 05:10 PM
The problem with this argument is that if we have a large sample of people from location A moving to location B, they will take with them a sample of the mtDNA variation in location A. That may include some people carrying a haplogroup that was ancient in location A. I am inclined to think that U2e arose in or near Europe, rather than at the Asian cross-roads. Behar estimates its date as 19,290 years ago, which would make it unlikely that the Kostenki 14 sample was U2e. It dates from c. 37,985 BP.

Of course it is possible that a small forager band from Volga region managed to get into India before it was cut off by desert in the LGM.

I'm cautious about drawing conclusions based on modern day distributions, but a U2e* sample in India, with no similar samples in this branch found in Europe, suggests the possibility that this sample did not derive from a European source.

Based on CR mutaions, Kostenki 14 is certainly NOT U2e - it is an apparently extinct lineage of U2, and I have it's age estimate as between 30,000-33,000 ybp based on stratigraphic evidence - have there been any revisions to this date? Looking at current distribution of U2, we have U2a, U2b and U2c found mostly in south Asia, U2d found mostly in the Near East and Caucasus, and U2e found from Europe to India.

U2e is not very diverse with only 3 named subclades, and the single U2e* from India. I have an age estimate of about 10,000 years for U2e1 and my guess is that expanded in Europe in the Neolithic. U2e2 has only one named subclade, U2e2a, and a U2e2* sample from India, again showing diversity present in India that is not found in Europe. U2e3 has only a few samples, including from the Middle East, Italy, and a young subgroup found in Ireland.

There have been no U2e samples found in Mesolithic western Europe - the earliest ancient U2e sample is at 7500 ybp at Uznyi Oleni Ostrov, in western Russia. So I think the mostly likely scenario is that U2e orignated in the Near East or southwest Asia and the present day European U2e are Neolithic immigrants.

In the recent Danish study of 2000 FMS mtDNA samples, I found 30 U2 samples, all of which are in U2e1 or U2e2, which is also consistent with Neolithic expansion of these branches. If U2e had a Mesolithic origin in Europe, I'd expect a much more diverse U2e distribution, similar to what we see in the 164 U5 samples in the Danish study, which have very large diversity.

Jean M
10-19-2013, 05:11 PM
I got the info that they were U5 from FTDNA.

Where on FTDNA? Surely not the U5 project: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/u5b/default.aspx

Jean M
10-19-2013, 05:20 PM
Kostenki 14 is certainly NOT U2e - it is an apparently extinct lineage of U2, and I have it's age estimate as between 30,000-33,000 ybp based on stratigraphic evidence - have there been any revisions to this date?

Fortunate you asked. I don't know what I have done wrong there Gail. The date is given as 30,000 ya in my book, but 37,985 BP in the online table. Am checking.

[Added] Yes I see the dates you cite from Krause 2010. Hoffecker 2011 just cites Krause and says:


The recent analysis of ancient DNA in a late EUP skeleton from Kostenki suggests the presence of mtDNA haplogroup sub-branch U2 on the central East European Plain roughly 35,000 cal BP. Although uncertainties remain about the dating of this skeleton ....

I'll fix the table.

GailT
10-19-2013, 05:25 PM
I didn't have access to Fu et al I just trusted what FTDNA said. It is still possibly U5.

On the FTDNA U5 page I call these two samples U5, but I was very clear that they have only 2 of the five mtuations:


The Dolni Vestonice samples have only two of the five mutations ( C16192T and C16270T) that define the present day U5. This indicates that the U5-(C16192T and C16270T) mtDNA sequence is ancestral to the present day U5 population that includes the additional three mutations.


Anything is possible, but we can only rely on the data that we actually have. An age of 31,155 ypb for the Dolni Vestonice Czech U5 samples is roughly consistent with Behar's age estimate of 30,248 ybp for U5. It is likely that there was a diverse population of U5 present at that time, and it is possible that other individuals with some or all of the extra 3 mutations were already living in Europe at that time. Or the extra 3 may have arisen later. There is no way to know without more ancient samples. In any case, the mtDNA mutation rate is highly variable and it provides extremely uncertain age estimate when we only have a small number of samples.

Edit: It would be more accurate to call them pre-U5 now, but Mannis plans to update U5 to be defined by only these 2 mutations in the next update to Phylotree, so they will be U5 with the next update.

GailT
10-19-2013, 05:36 PM
Fortunate you asked. I don't know what I have done wrong there Gail. The date is given as 30,000 ya in my book, but 37,985 BP in the online table. Am checking.


Also, here is the rCRS GenBank sequence from Ian Logan:
FN600416(Early modern human) Haplogroup U2 Krause 27-JAN-2010
A73G A263G C542T T711C A750G A1438G A1811G A2706G A4769G C7028T A8860G A11467G G11719A A12308G G12372A A13269G C14766T T15262C A15326G A16051G


The extra mutations that make this a new U2* lineage are: 542, 711, 13269, 15262

Jean M
10-19-2013, 05:36 PM
On the FTDNA U5 page I call these two samples U5 .. ...the Dolni Vestonice Czech U5 samples.

But why do you call them U5, if they are actually U.

GailT
10-19-2013, 05:40 PM
But why do you call them U5, if they are actually U.

They are intermediate between U and the old definition of U5. It would be more accurate to call them pre-U5 now, but Mannis plans to update U5 to be defined by only these 2 mutations in the next update to Phylotree, so they will be U5 with the next update.

Jean M
10-19-2013, 05:49 PM
The date is given as 30,000 ya in my book, but 37,985 BP in the online table.

Found it now. The 37,985 cal BP date is from Fu 2013.

[Added] Tracked down the source: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/04/17/1116328109.full.pdf

[Added] But that gives a date of 33,250 500 BP!

GailT
10-19-2013, 05:56 PM
An age of 31,155 ypb for the Dolni Vestonice Czech U5 samples is roughly consistent with Behar's age estimate of 30,248 ybp for U5. It is likely that there was a diverse population of U5 present at that time, and it is possible that other individuals with some or all of the extra 3 mutations were already living in Europe at that time. Or the extra 3 may have arisen later. There is no way to know without more ancient samples.

Here is the planned Phylotree update to U5. It is possible that U5a'b was also living in Europe before 31,000 ybp. Or it may have arisen later. It's impossible to say. It's great having a single pre-U5 haplotype at Dolni Vestonice, but it would take many more samples from that period to fully resolve the U5 phylogeny and population at that time.

785

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 06:18 PM
U2e in Europe is deifntley not Neolithic there are very few mtDNa samples in Mesolithic just because we have no for sure U2e in western Europe does not mean it wasn't there. You cant judge a whole period of thosuends of years and millions and millions of people based on 20 mtDNA samples. Do you ignore the 7,500 year old U2e's and I would bet 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000$ they will find more all over Mesolithic Europe. How popular is U2e in the Near east probably much less popular than in Europe and the European people who spread Indo Iranian languages ancient DNA proves they had U2e with one for sure U2e1(Indo Iranian and Tocherian DNA (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anthrogenica.com%2Fshowthread .php%3F1431-INdo-Iranian-and-Tocherian-DNA&ei=ZMhiUpLoG8XuyQHMsIHIDg&usg=AFQjCNGX-h9mnuMkHMeLwv6lHTyP5hxrqQ&sig2=Btgxn0lIN-eQDyTcNLwtlQ)). Gailt your definitely overrating Indian U2e you cant argue for a Neolithic origin in Europe when we have Mesolithic samples.

Some people think if a mtDNA haplogroup is not just found in Europe then it has to have originated in the non European spot. People assume that it will always be a migration into Europe from the Near east not the other way around when Europe-Near east is just as likely. U2e1 and U2e2 are mainly found in Europe and there is a unidentified branch in India U2e* and a unidentified branch of U2e2* in India. I don't see how India has more diversity if two branch's are mainly in Europe and just one extremely rare in India. U2e2a mainly in Europe with one Indian branch U2e2* how does India have any more diversity.

It doesn't matter if that 37,985 year old U2 is not U2e and in another lineage. In my opinion is still evidence of U2 in Europe that later became U2e it doesn't mean he was apart of that branch that became U2e. There were many branches of U2 only one became U2e.

SveinD
10-19-2013, 06:22 PM
Maciamo has added a ton more data to mtDNA frequencies (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_mtdna_haplogroups_frequency.shtml)and now has enough info to make mtDNA maps. Something to always remember the Sami who take up most of northern Scandinavia have nearly 100% mtDNA V and U5(almost all under U51b1b and under that U5b1b1a) so almost every haplogroup will be close to 0% in northern Scandinavia.


I don't know if I misunderstand you Fire Haired, but you cannot mean that there are only mtHg V and U5 in northern Scandinavia. That statement is true for the Saami population, but I'm sure you are aware of the fact that the Saami are in the minority in all three northern Scandinavian countries, Norway, Sweden and Finland, i.e. the rest of the population are spread among the other haplogroups.

There are at the moment just over 500 mtDNA results reported in the FTDNA Norway project and I'll try to find out how many are located in the northern three counties and to which haplogroup they belong.

PS.

I love your posts, but I hate your avatar!!

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 06:22 PM
Where on FTDNA? Surely not the U5 project: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/u5b/default.aspx

click here (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/u5b/default.aspx?section=results)

A 2013 study by Fu et al. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213002157) found two U5 individuals at the Dolni Vestonice burial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doln%C3%AD_V%C4%9Bstonice_%28archaeology%29) site in the Czech Republic that has been dated to 31,155 years ago. A third person from the same burial was identified as haplogroup U8. The Dolni Vestonice samples have only two of the five mutations ( C16192T and C16270T) that define the present day U5. This indicates that the U5-(C16192T and C16270T) mtDNA sequence is ancestral to the present day U5 population that includes the additional three mutations.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 06:26 PM
I don't know if I misunderstand you Fire Haired, but you cannot mean that there are only mtHg V and U5 in northern Scandinavia. That statement is true for the Saami population, but I's sure you are aware of the fact that the Saami are in the minority in all three northern Scandinavian countries, Norway, Sweden and Finland, i.e. the rest of the population are spread among the other haplogroups.

There are at the moment just over 500 mtDNA results reported in the FTDNA Norway project and I'll try to find out how many are located in the northern three counties and to which haplogroup they belong.

PS.

I love your posts, but I hate your avatar!!

Actually since Germanic peoples in Scandinavia have always been in southern southern Sweden and Norway when you get up north Sami are the majority same with northern Finland and parts of Russia. Its the same reason why red hair percentages decrease the more north you go in Scandinavia really the farther away you get from Germanic R1b1a2a1a1 S21. I know there are many more hair color samples than Y DNA so I think its true Sami are the majority in central and northern Sweden and Norway. Also if you look at hair and eye color maps Sami have much less light hair and eyes than other Scandinavians in far northern it gets as low as in central France, Iberia, and Italy.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 06:34 PM
On the FTDNA U5 page I call these two samples U5, but I was very clear that they have only 2 of the five mtuations:


Anything is possible, but we can only rely on the data that we actually have. An age of 31,155 ypb for the Dolni Vestonice Czech U5 samples is roughly consistent with Behar's age estimate of 30,248 ybp for U5. It is likely that there was a diverse population of U5 present at that time, and it is possible that other individuals with some or all of the extra 3 mutations were already living in Europe at that time. Or the extra 3 may have arisen later. There is no way to know without more ancient samples. In any case, the mtDNA mutation rate is highly variable and it provides extremely uncertain age estimate when we only have a small number of samples.

Edit: It would be more accurate to call them pre-U5 now, but Mannis plans to update U5 to be defined by only these 2 mutations in the next update to Phylotree, so they will be U5 with the next update.

I hope to learn how the mutations work on defining haplogroups. Does all modern U5 have all 5 mutations and was the 31,155 year old U for sure X for three of them or do we just no know? Does all modern U5 have all 5 mutations and will there now be new branches of U5?

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 06:38 PM
So now modern U5 is going to be called U5a'b that makes a lot of sense since the 31,155ybp wasn't in-between modern U5 and U do you think there are more intermediates.

SveinD
10-19-2013, 08:11 PM
Actually since Germanic peoples in Scandinavia have always been in southern southern Sweden and Norway when you get up north Sami are the majority same with northern Finland and parts of Russia. Its the same reason why red hair percentages decrease the more north you go in Scandinavia really the farther away you get from Germanic R1b1a2a1a1 S21. I know there are many more hair color samples than Y DNA so I think its true Sami are the majority in central and northern Sweden and Norway. Also if you look at hair and eye color maps Sami have much less light hair and eyes than other Scandinavians in far northern it gets as low as in central France, Iberia, and Italy.

I have absolutely no information on the distribution of hair colour in Scandinavia so I cannot comment on that, but your statement that the Saami are in the majority in the north is not correct.

Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saami_people "According to the Swedish Sami Parliament, the Sami population of Norway is 40,000. If all people who speak Sami or have a parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent who speaks or spoke Sami are included, the number reaches 70,000. As of 2005, 12,538 people were registered to vote in the election for the Sami Parliament in Norway".

The population in the three northernmost counties in Norway, where the majority of the Saami live, is about 470,000 so even using the 70,000 number above the Saami population represent less than 20%. In Sweden with a much larger population the Saami percentage will be even smaller. I don't have any figures for Finland and it is possible that some of the northern areas there will have a majority Saami population - depending how you define Saami of course, but may be someone from Finland can supply the correct numbers.

I have been through the 500+ mtDNA results in the FTDNA Norway project, but people have not been very good at filling in the location of their oldest known maternal ancestor and there are only 25 entries that can be identified with the three northern counties so the sample is far too small to draw any conclusion. The largest numbers however are U5=6, H1=5, V=2, J=2, H3=2, make of that what you will.

Keep posting Fire Haired!

parasar
10-19-2013, 08:58 PM
...

It doesn't matter if that 37,985 year old U2 is not U2e and in another lineage. In my opinion is still evidence of U2 in Europe that later became U2e it doesn't mean he was apart of that branch that became U2e. There were many branches of U2 only one became U2e.

It is not certain that the same Kostenki IV U2 lineage became U2e. U2e could have been in the mix along with U2xU2e. This was undoubtedly a movement of tropical folk to Europe in the Upper Paleolithic. The Markina Gora sample is of tropical origin. As to where in the tropics, difficult to say, but the skeleton has characteristics of Papuans and Melanesians.


The Markina Gora skeleton was examined by G.F. Debetz, who estimated the individual’s age at 20-25. The man was rather low-statured (about 160 cm). The morphology of his skeleton is generally quite modern. Certain cranial features, including very narrow braincase, low and narrow face, marked prognathism (anterior protrusion of the midface), and very wide nose, are typical of tropical populations. The trait combination links the cranium with those of Papuans and Melanesians. http://www.kunstkamera.ru/en/temporary_exhibitions/virtual/gerasimov/09/

This particular sample's morphology had been studied much before its mtDNA was tested and found to be U2, and it was considered an intrusive element into eastern Europe.

"The exceptional prognathism and enormous breadth of the piriform opening set the skull apart from all the other Upper Paleolithic skulls of Europe ... published in the atlas of Gerasimov (1964), is highly reminiscent of the modern Papuan, and G. F. Debetz, assessing the morphological type of human from the Kostenki XIV site, considered it to be evidence of the appearance of some group of people of East African origin on the eastern European plain."
http://books.google.com/books?id=e75T03MIp3sC&pg=PA225

GailT
10-19-2013, 09:18 PM
It is not certain that the same Kostenki IV U2 lineage became U2e.

It is absolutely certain that the Kostenki U2 did NOT become U2e. It has none of the U2e mutations, and it has several extra mutations that U2e lacks, so we know with certainty that is entirely different lineage of U2.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 09:32 PM
I have absolutely no information on the distribution of hair colour in Scandinavia so I cannot comment on that, but your statement that the Saami are in the majority in the north is not correct.
Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saami_people "According to the Swedish Sami Parliament, the Sami population of Norway is 40,000. If all people who speak Sami or have a parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent who speaks or spoke Sami are included, the number reaches 70,000. As of 2005, 12,538 people were registered to vote in the election for the Sami Parliament in Norway".
The population in the three northernmost counties in Norway, where the majority of the Saami live, is about 470,000 so even using the 70,000 number above the Saami population represent less than 20%. In Sweden with a much larger population the Saami percentage will be even smaller. I don't have any figures for Finland and it is possible that some of the northern areas there will have a majority Saami population - depending how you define Saami of course, but may be someone from Finland can supply the correct numbers.
I have been through the 500+ mtDNA results in the FTDNA Norway project, but people have not been very good at filling in the location of their oldest known maternal ancestor and there are only 25 entries that can be identified with the three northern counties so the sample is far too small to draw any conclusion. The largest numbers however are U5=6, H1=5, V=2, J=2, H3=2, make of that what you will.
Keep posting Fire Haired!
Here is a red hair map of Europe and you can see especially in Scandinavia it is connected with R1b1a2a1a1 S21 and also I2a2(Y DNA maps Eupedia (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml)) which proto Germanic speakers got from native central Europeans then brought it to Scandinavia.

http://www.theapricity.com/images/content/Haplogroup-I2b.gif

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/red_hair_map_europe.jpg (http://www.anthrogenica.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=BsCqTfhv1J6BfM&tbnid=MPNngjMilzHyYM:&ved=0CAgQjRwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eupedia.com%2Fgenetics%2Forig ins_of_red_hair.shtml&ei=qOxiUtQtxPjIAau9gMAB&psig=AFQjCNH6l1Uhwb8QIT58Jh4eu0BxoQYElg&ust=1382301224062978)Also here are some light hair and eye maps of Europe you can see in the northerneastern tip of Scandinavia it as dark as central France, Iberia, Italy, etc.
http://mappery.com/maps/Europe-Blond-Hair-Map.mediumthumb.jpg (http://[URL]http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=Oxi6Jd_L9hmp7M&tbnid=vXf-6Ih3aCOiyM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmappery.com%2FEurope-Blond-Hair-Map&ei=KvpiUvuIA-m4yAHTzIGQBw&psig=AFQjCNGu7k7ySlC38VUgvckiYpYqyNuOsg&ust=1382304644823323)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Light_Eyes_Map.png[/URL (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=Ok9QpYkVDN_uIM&tbnid=l2WiWEwnOK1AtM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHazel _eyes&ei=RPpiUp-5MsSyyAG-sICwCA&psig=AFQjCNGu7k7ySlC38VUgvckiYpYqyNuOsg&ust=1382304644823323)].
http://www.anthrogenica.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S21.gif

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 09:46 PM
It is not certain that the same Kostenki IV U2 lineage became U2e. U2e could have been in the mix along with U2xU2e. This was undoubtedly a movement of tropical folk to Europe in the Upper Paleolithic. The Markina Gora sample is of tropical origin. As to where in the tropics, difficult to say, but the skeleton has characteristics of Papuans and Melanesians.

http://www.kunstkamera.ru/en/temporary_exhibitions/virtual/gerasimov/09/

This particular sample's morphology had been studied much before its mtDNA was tested and found to be U2, and it was considered an intrusive element into eastern Europe.

http://books.google.com/books?id=e75T03MIp3sC&pg=PA225

I really doubt he was anything but Caucasian like all Palaeolithic skulls in Europe. mtDNA U is a Caucasian mtDNa haplogroup if he had non Caucasian features it had nothing to do with his U2. What does tropical human mean.Polynesians who have huge frames are not similar to the small tropical people in the Philippines their skin color, hair texture, and facial feature are also different.
http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/Polynesians-Came-from-Taiwan-2.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=c1xocrlpsiARZM&tbnid=xL_WzLrCw21q3M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.softpedia.com%2FnewsImage%2F Polynesians-Came-from-Taiwan-2.jpg%2F&ei=MfxiUo3-I6SayQH2woAo&psig=AFQjCNFctNn9EAdUJwBoE3HCqtZ3nmCE3g&ust=1382305167051199)https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTR7bTiRdi5MqNl_DXzlziOJxljW-1rnO4tvqI2YE_5lZVt-t8u (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=M4f703EbaDjQdM&tbnid=qyHSSzZLONJ28M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitikalon.blogspot.com%2F2013_0 8_01_archive.html&ei=SfxiUunNOIThyQG5-oHoDg&psig=AFQjCNEnB0cnVltfLeUGuudP_L_5sQKS8g&ust=1382305219334249)

What is tropical folk? Europeans main ancestry went through the last glacial maximum from 26,600-19,500ybp we have their skeletal remains and body types of modern Europeans. And its is really no different than other Caucasians in hot climates in the near east and north Africa so they didn't adapt in any major way with their body build. Look at Inuit their body build or whatever is really not that different from Chinese who have lived in a very different climate for at least 6,000 years. Look how different Inuit are to Sami in far northern Scandinavia so I don't think we should generalize physical features for certain climates.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 09:47 PM
It is absolutely certain that the Kostenki U2 did NOT become U2e. It has none of the U2e mutations, and it has several extra mutations that U2e lacks, so we know with certainty that is entirely different lineage of U2.
But like I said before there was a lot of U2 in the population U2e originated but her lineage survived. Possible Kostenki was in one of the lineages that did not survive but was from the same U2 population U2e came from.

GailT
10-19-2013, 09:48 PM
U2e in Europe is deifntley not Neolithic there are very few mtDNa samples in Mesolithic just because we have no for sure U2e in western Europe does not mean it wasn't there. ... Gailt your definitely overrating Indian U2e you cant argue for a Neolithic origin in Europe when we have Mesolithic samples.

Yes, it is possible that U2e could have been in Europe 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, or even earlier. What is the evidence?

1. An unrelated U2 sample in western Russia dated earlier than 30,000 ybp.

2. U2e samples dated at 7500 ybp also in western Russia.

3. Present day distribution in Europe of U2e1 and U2e2 subclades with estimated ages of around 10,000 ybp. These same subclades, along with older and more diverse branches of U2e, are also found from the Near East to India.

None of this provides any evidence that U2e originated in Europe or that it was even present in Europe before 7500 ybp. We can't be certain where it originated based on the limited data available. If I had to make a guess, my best guess is that U2e may have originated in southwest Asia, or perhaps Russia, and spread to both western Europe and India from there. It is also possible that it originated in Europe. But I don't have to guess. I'll just wait for some actual data that provides better evidence.

If you start with a conclusion and only search for evidence that supports that conclusion, and ignore any evidence that contradicts it, you are are going to waste an enormous amount of time pursuing bad theories. A much better approach is to look for evidence that proves your theory false.

There has been a lot of research published in the last several years using exactly this flawed approach, with a very naive phylogeographic analysis that basically assumes haplogroups originated where ever they are found in the present day, and looking for data that confirms that belief.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 09:49 PM
Here is the planned Phylotree update to U5. It is possible that U5a'b was also living in Europe before 31,000 ybp. Or it may have arisen later. It's impossible to say. It's great having a single pre-U5 haplotype at Dolni Vestonice, but it would take many more samples from that period to fully resolve the U5 phylogeny and population at that time.

785

Are they now making old U5 U5'a'b because of 31,155 year old pre U5.

GailT
10-19-2013, 09:59 PM
I hope to learn how the mutations work on defining haplogroups. Does all modern U5 have all 5 mutations and was the 31,155 year old U for sure X for three of them or do we just no know? Does all modern U5 have all 5 mutations and will there now be new branches of U5?

To date, all modern U5 samples fall into either U5a or U5b, and they all share the same 5 mutations (with the exception of occasional back migrations in younger branches of the tree, e.g., T16270C!).

It is still possible that we could find an earlier branch point before U5a'b, or perhaps a U5c branch. But it does not seem likely that we will find this in Europe because we already have very high sampling density there. It's more likely we would find a new branch in Asia where we don't have many samples. We still occasionally get new European U5 samples at branch points that date to around 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. For example, there is a new U5a1* sample in the Danish study. It seems likely the LGM bottleneck may have eliminated any diversity in U5 that might have been present earlier.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 10:10 PM
Yes, it is possible that U2e could have been in Europe 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, or even earlier. What is the evidence?

1. An unrelated U2 sample in western Russia dated earlier than 30,000 ybp.

2. U2e samples dated at 7500 ybp also in western Russia.

3. Present day distribution in Europe of U2e1 and U2e2 subclades with estimated ages of around 10,000 ybp. These same subclades, along with older and more diverse branches of U2e, are also found from the Near East to India.

None of this provides any evidence that U2e originated in Europe or that it was even present in Europe before 7500 ybp. We can't be certain where it originated based on the limited data available. If I had to make a guess, my best guess is that U2e may have originated in southwest Asia, or perhaps Russia, and spread to both western Europe and India from there. It is also possible that it originated in Europe. But I don't have to guess. I'll just wait for some actual data that provides better evidence.

If you start with a conclusion and only search for evidence that supports that conclusion, and ignore any evidence that contradicts it, you are are going to waste an enormous amount of time pursuing bad theories. A much better approach is to look for evidence that proves your theory false.

There has been a lot of research published in the last several years using exactly this flawed approach, with a very naive phylogeographic analysis that basically assumes haplogroups originated where ever they are found in the present day, and looking for data that confirms that belief.

What do you mean by older subclades and more diverse U2e in the Near east and India. There's a Indian unidentified U2e* and U2e2* subclade that is not in Europe. What about Near eastern U2e what info do you have for that? You can explain most U2e in Near east and India because of European inter marriage which it seems you don't consider it doesn't always have to go Near east-Europe. Indo Iranian languages were spread by European people from Yamna culture in Russia and Ukriane and we know through ancient DNA they had U2e and overall out of 83 samples U was 35% all were U5a, U2e(one was U2 didn't show subclade), and U4 except one U7 and U1. Which connects them with Mesolithic Russian mtDNA. Also 6,000-5,000 year old mtDNA from Ust Tartus Russia had some U2e and U5a.

U2e didn't take a airplane to Russia 7,500ybp of course it has been in Europe longer than that. The more ancient DNA will help click here (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/10/ancient-central-european-mtdna-across.html)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YcsB-CUMn5I/Ulb5ST2U1WI/AAAAAAAAJMA/nLXQi8Ljbi4/s320/blatterhohle.jpg

It lists a U2e sample from central Europe dating to 9,210BC(11,210ybp) which is huge news. It means in was in northeastern corner of Europe at least 7,500ybp and in central Europe 11,210ybp. If like you said U2e2 and U2e1 are estimated to be around 10,000 years old a origin in Europe and spreading later to the Near east and India makes sense. Since there is a U2e lineage and U2e2 lineage in India I guess that makes it more complicated when figuring out were U2e itself originated.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 10:21 PM
To date, all modern U5 samples fall into either U5a or U5b, and they all share the same 5 mutations (with the exception of occasional back migrations in younger branches of the tree, e.g., T16270C!).

It is still possible that we could find an earlier branch point before U5a'b, or perhaps a U5c branch. But it does not seem likely that we will find this in Europe because we already have very high sampling density there. It's more likely we would find a new branch in Asia where we don't have many samples. We still occasionally get new European U5 samples at branch points that date to around 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. For example, there is a new U5a1* sample in the Danish study. It seems likely the LGM bottleneck may have eliminated any diversity in U5 that might have been present earlier.

We know that a intermediate between U5 and U was in Czech republic 31,155 years ago which is evidence pre U5 became U5a'b while in Europe. I think the vast majority of U5 in the Near east or anywhere that is not Europe can be explained as European inter marriage. pre U5 could have originated in asia so maybe there is a brother clade to U5a'b. When you say diversity you mean many differ lineages of U5 right.

GailT
10-19-2013, 10:38 PM
We know that a intermediate between U5 and U was in Czech republic 31,155 years ago which is evidence pre U5 became U5a'b while in Europe. I think the vast majority of U5 in the Near east or anywhere that is not Europe can be explained as European inter marriage. pre U5 could have originated in asia so maybe there is a brother clade to U5a'b. When you say diversity you mean many differ lineages of U5 right.

Yes, we long suspected that U5 originated in Europe, and the Dolni Vestonice samples confirm that pre-U5 was actually in Europe before the LGM. It's unusual that we find such compelling physical evidence to confirm a theory. Hopefully we will get more pre-LGM samples.

As to U5 outside of Europe - it's difficult to say. People moved around a lot, and it is also possible that U5 migrated from Europe elsewhere during and after the LGM. U5a1 has it's greatest diversity in central Europe, and it seems likely it originated in Europe during the LGM, but it also appears to have expanded into eastern Europe and western Asia after the LGM, and some of the U5a1 that we find in Europe today are very likely from back migrations from the those eastern populations back into Europe.

The U5b2* sample from India does not have any similar matches in Europe, so it could indicate a 20,000 year old branch of U5 that migrated eastward during the LGM. We need more Indian samples to be certain, but its possible there could be many people in this branch in India. My opinion is that people were very mobile, and that it is very difficult to reconstruct ancient haplogroup distribution and origins based on the present day locations. Populations densities were low, and with bottlenecks and drift, it's possible that much of the ancient diversity is lost.


Yes, by diversity I mean different subclades or lineages. And in the case of U5a'b, it would have to be a sister clade, not a brother clade. :)

GailT
10-19-2013, 11:02 PM
It lists a U2e sample from central Europe dating to 9,210BC(11,210ybp) which is huge news. It means in was in northeastern corner of Europe at least 7,500ybp and in central Europe 11,210ybp. If like you said U2e2 and U2e1 are estimated to be around 10,000 years old a origin in Europe and spreading later to the Near east and India makes sense. Since there is a U2e lineage and U2e2 lineage in India I guess that makes it more complicated when figuring out were U2e itself originated.

I agree, that is huge news. I haven't looked at all of the data in the Bollinger et al paper yet, but they do identify the U2e sample as Mesolithic. It would be very helpful to have the full sequence, as the sample can only be assigned to U2e based on the HVR data. Hopefully they will do this.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 11:06 PM
GailT have you heard of the 24,000 year old mtDNA U and Y DNA R from dark skinned Siberian. click here (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/10/surprising-adna-results-from.html?showComment=1382223835042#c5552365722662 289893) my opinon on It is here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1483-24-000-year-old-Y-DNA-R-AND-MTDNA-U-FOUND-IN-SIBERIA!!!!&goto=newpost).

J Man
10-20-2013, 03:55 PM
Those Czech Upper Paleolithic samples are not U5.

Correct they are pre-U5.