Almost all mtDNA except U5, U4, U2e, and U* came to Europe in the Neolithic?

[Fire Haired]

This is open thinking, I just want to get this idea out there and see what other people think about it. Ancient mtDNA from Europe(Ancient Eurasian DNA organized 2 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theapricity.com%2Fforum%2Fsho wthread.php%3F106283-Ancient-Eurasian-DNA-Organized-2&ei=acy5UqzJDcbuyAHS3IGABw&usg=AFQjCNGa68d7wLwNwroClVfWb2NFyTVyUg&sig2=bguyi90kU537lMqq3urZ2g&bvm=bv.58187178,d.aWc)) makes it pretty clear almost all mtDNA in Europe that is not U5, U4, U2e, and U* came from the near east in the Neolithic. So all those theories that say H1 and H3 originated in southwest Europe 15,000 years ago can't be true. There is not one confirmed H1 or H3 sample from pre Neolithic Europe but both pop up constantly in Neolithic-copper-bronze-iron-modern aka farming Europeans. Even if somehow it is possibly H1 and H3 originated in southwest Europe they did not become widespread till the spread of farming and probably did not become popular like they are today until the Neolithic. Same goes for all those other mtDNA haplogroups that constantly pop up in ancient European farmers(no matter what period they are from) but constantly never(either debatable or the one H sample from Karelia) pop up in ancient European hunter gatherers.

LBK and Cardiel's ancestors had been in Europe for only a few thousand years(at the very most) but already showed very modern European like subclades in mtDNA and not modern near eastern like. Autosomal DNA from ancient European farmers has shown they were very different from modern near easterns. The near easterns early European farmers descended from were much more related to modern Europeans(mainly southern and especially Sardinia) than modern near easterns. I think many "European" mtDNA lineages were developing and diversifying in the near east for 1,000's of years but today it seems they developed and diversified in Europe because most of those near easterns descendants are in Europe. Even that sole H sample from 7,500BP Karelia is not constant with the frequency H in Europe today and the majority of mtDNA from 7,500BP Karelia had typical European hunter gatherer U5, U4, and U2e.

There are debatable H's from Palaeolithic Europe especially Iberia and some in Mesolithic Iberia but how do you explain modern Iberian H being so similar to the H in the rest of Europe(even Finland). I doubt there were migrations from Iberia that went all over Europe during the Neolithic, early farmers in for example Germany had H and they came originally from the near east. There are many possible members of the RO family from Palaeolithic Europe but that's probably not connected with H and HVO but maybe some RO descendants in Europe today. I see very weak evidence that H or any other non U5, U4, U2e, and U*'s in Europe today descends from Mesolithic Europeans.

I think people need to consider all of this when studying European mtDNA. I still consider people like Maju who passionately push for pre Neolithic H(or other haplogroups) in Europe. Even though Maju is a bit biased, he oftenly try's to find a way to prove his people the Basuqe are the most ancient Europeans. I have just started to study west Eurasian mtDNA more seriously and I know the history of European mtDNA is probably more complicated than hunter gatherer+farmer. Click here (http://bga101.blogspot.com/2013/12/eef-whg-ane-test-for-europeans.html) it has been proven in autosomal DNA a large amount of hunter gatherer ancestry still exists in many parts of Europe today but farmer ancestry is probably higher except in far northeastern Europe and Scandinavia. The hunter gatherers of Europe seem to have been extremely undiverse but the Neolithic changed everything in Europe. Since the Neolithic there have been many migrations and genetic changes in many different areas of Europe.

[Anglojew]

Are most Basque's U?

[Black Wolf]

Are most Basque's U?

Many Basques are U I think it is the second most common haplogroup. H is the most common though.

[Black Wolf]

This is open thinking, I just want to get this idea out there and see what other people think about it. Ancient mtDNA from Europe(Ancient Eurasian DNA organized 2 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theapricity.com%2Fforum%2Fsho wthread.php%3F106283-Ancient-Eurasian-DNA-Organized-2&ei=acy5UqzJDcbuyAHS3IGABw&usg=AFQjCNGa68d7wLwNwroClVfWb2NFyTVyUg&sig2=bguyi90kU537lMqq3urZ2g&bvm=bv.58187178,d.aWc)) makes it pretty clear almost all mtDNA in Europe that is not U5, U4, U2e, and U* came from the near east in the Neolithic. So all those theories that say H1 and H3 originated in southwest Europe 15,000 years ago can't be true. There is not one confirmed H1 or H3 sample from pre Neolithic Europe but both pop up constantly in Neolithic-copper-bronze-iron-modern aka farming Europeans. Even if somehow it is possibly H1 and H3 originated in southwest Europe they did not become widespread till the spread of farming and probably did not become popular like they are today until the Neolithic. Same goes for all those other mtDNA haplogroups that constantly pop up in ancient European farmers(no matter what period they are from) but constantly never(either debatable or the one H sample from Karelia) pop up in ancient European hunter gatherers.

LBK and Cardiel's ancestors had been in Europe for only a few thousand years(at the very most) but already showed very modern European like subclades in mtDNA and not modern near eastern like. Autosomal DNA from ancient European farmers has shown they were very different from modern near easterns. The near easterns early European farmers descended from were much more related to modern Europeans(mainly southern and especially Sardinia) than modern near easterns. I think many "European" mtDNA lineages were developing and diversifying in the near east for 1,000's of years but today it seems they developed and diversified in Europe because most of those near easterns descendants are in Europe. Even that sole H sample from 7,500BP Karelia is not constant with the frequency H in Europe today and the majority of mtDNA from 7,500BP Karelia had typical European hunter gatherer U5, U4, and U2e.

There are debatable H's from Palaeolithic Europe especially Iberia and some in Mesolithic Iberia but how do you explain modern Iberian H being so similar to the H in the rest of Europe(even Finland). I doubt there were migrations from Iberia that went all over Europe during the Neolithic, early farmers in for example Germany had H and they came originally from the near east. There are many possible members of the RO family from Palaeolithic Europe but that's probably not connected with H and HVO but maybe some RO descendants in Europe today. I see very weak evidence that H or any other non U5, U4, U2e, and U*'s in Europe today descends from Mesolithic Europeans.

I think people need to consider all of this when studying European mtDNA. I still consider people like Maju who passionately push for pre Neolithic H(or other haplogroups) in Europe. Even though Maju is a bit biased, he oftenly try's to find a way to prove his people the Basuqe are the most ancient Europeans. I have just started to study west Eurasian mtDNA more seriously and I know the history of European mtDNA is probably more complicated than hunter gatherer+farmer. Click here (http://bga101.blogspot.com/2013/12/eef-whg-ane-test-for-europeans.html) it has been proven in autosomal DNA a large amount of hunter gatherer ancestry still exists in many parts of Europe today but farmer ancestry is probably higher except in far northeastern Europe and Scandinavia. The hunter gatherers of Europe seem to have been extremely undiverse but the Neolithic changed everything in Europe. Since the Neolithic there have been many migrations and genetic changes in many different areas of Europe.

Indeed this is something that I have wondered about myself before. Personally I do think on the whole that all or most non U5, U4, U21 and U* mtDNA haplogroups among Europeans came with Neolithic farmers or some maybe even a bit later. H definitely was not widespread among Central and Northern Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans ancient DNA results have pretty much proved that now. I still think there may be a chance that some H will show up in the Balkans from the Mesolithic period but the Balkans was not much different from the Near East during that time so people probably moved back and forth a lot. Some H in Mesolithic Iberia may be possibly as well but time will tell. The apparent H and J samples from Mesolithic Karelia though are interesting. I really don't know what to say about them really.

[Fire Haired]

Indeed this is something that I have wondered about myself before. Personally I do think on the whole that all or most non U5, U4, U21 and U* mtDNA haplogroups among Europeans came with Neolithic farmers or some maybe even a bit later. H definitely was not widespread among Central and Northern Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans ancient DNA results have pretty much proved that now. I still think there may be a chance that some H will show up in the Balkans from the Mesolithic period but the Balkans was not much different from the Near East during that time so people probably moved back and forth a lot. Some H in Mesolithic Iberia may be possibly as well but time will tell. The apparent H and J samples from Mesolithic Karelia though are interesting. I really don't know what to say about them really.

The Balkans in the Mesolithic may have been just like the rest of Europe. Mesolithic Europeans were extremely pure genetically they probably traced almost all their ancestry in Europe over 30,000 years. It is hard to believe it the spread of farmers was the first major genetic change in Europe in probably 10,000's of years.

In ancient mtDNA there is not one H from pre Neolithic central, northern, and eastern Europe. There are some debated H's or just RO's in Iberia and Italy. Click here (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2012/04/ancient-mitochondrial-dna-from-basque.html) to see "unmistakable H in Magdalenian Cantabria". There are also reported H's in Mesolithic Portugal including a H1b and possibly H7 click here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25163). You can look at Ancient Eurasian Palaeolithic DNA (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/palaeolithicdna.shtml)and see there are a bunch of possibly RO members. There are also some H?'s and V"'s from Palaeolithic Morocco (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/nafricaadna.shtml). Click here (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013378#pone-0013378-t001) it is a great study on H1 in north Africa, they tested 11 Libyan Turags with H1 and found they belonged to newly discovered(was not anymore) "African-specific" H1x, H1w, and H1v and their coalescence age was 8,000-9,000ybp.

They assumed the H1 went from Europe to north Africa, ancient mtDNA is very good evidence H1 came to Europe from the near east, so that may also be where north African H1 is from. I am definitely going to read that study in detail later. But if the H1 is not from Europe how do you explain U5b1b, H3, and V in north Africa? I have no idea I just started looking more seriously into mtDNA a few days ago. I have been able to organize all the mtDNA subclades from Germany in FTDNA fully did Finland and I just started on Norway today. Once I get detailed percentages of subclades from as many countries, ethnicity's, etc. in west Eurasia and north Africa as I can, I will start to compare them to each other, read those study's, compare them to ancient mtDNA, etc. and start to make my own conclusions.

Autosomal DNA from ancient European farmers(LBK girl, Otzi, Funnel beakers) has proven the farmers(maybe other were different) that spread to Europe from the near east were very different from modern near eastern people. They are the source of the Meditreaen type ancestry(I know that isn't specific) in Europe and also some west Asian and southwest Asian type ancestry. In autosomal DNA it seems their only similarity to modern near eastern people is some shared ancestry and the fact they were west Eurasian. The Mesolithic hunter gatherers of Europe were also west Eurasian and the "north European" in globe13 and other tests that are significantly descended from them is extremely close to west Asian, so in that way the hunter gatherers were more related to many modern near easterns than the farmers were.

The mtDNA subclades of Neolithic Europeans fall into subclades that are seen as European today not near eastern. They had many of the same basic haplogroups like H, J, K, T, etc. but they were still different. Neolithic Europeans near eastern ancestors would have been very separate from modern near easterns ancestors. So I think that it is possibly typically modern European subclades developed in the near east, spread to Europe with farming, and are now rare in the near east, so they seem to have originated in Europe. H1, H3, and V in north Africa may have come from a related people to the near eastern ancestors of Neolithic Europeans. H1, H3, and V are absent from Mesolithic Europeans(one debated H1b), but constantly pop up in Neolithic central Europeans with subclades like H1e. it seems unlikely H1* could have come to north Africa from Mesolithic Iberians, and H1 probably came to Europe in the Neolithic not as H1*. If H1 and H3 existed in only Mesolithic Iberians why did it also exist in early Near eastern farmers? I guess there are a lot of different possibilities and we deifntley need to get DNA from Mesolithic Balkans.

Just saying in case you have trouble with remembering where every mtDNA haplogroup is placed phylogenetically just look at Phylotree.org (http://www.phylotree.org/tree/main.htm)and for Y DNA ISOGG (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isogg.org%2Ftree%2FISOGG_YDNA TreeTrunk.html&ei=2iTBUrzxH66FyQHkqoHwAQ&usg=AFQjCNEhwOCVcSgOkUwxvMhKd4BJVEkC9A&sig2=tqdp2o3ZHFDpgBk6TvpqqA). I always couldn't remember stuff perfectly and I found those websites a few days ago it helps a lot. C

[Fire Haired]

Are most Basque's U?

You can go to Eupedia and see for yourself. The Basque I have heard have a lot of U5b and U5 overall is just over 10%, so not a ton. The Basque are mainly Neolithic descended. North east Baltics like Lithuanians and Estonians have the most Mesolithic ancestry in Europe. All three people that have posted in this thread have U5, and two have U5b2. That is rare since U5 is just shy of 10% in Europe.

[Styrian Mujo]

Does this mean whole of Europe was once mostly populated by Nordo-CM ubermench?

[Fire Haired]

Does this mean whole of Europe was once mostly populated by Nordo-CM ubermench?

What is a Nordo-CM ubermench?

Here is a very summarized answer. Most of Europe and possibly parts of Asia(mixed) was covered by a race of hunter gatherers. They all seemed to have been pretty unmixed but it is was probably much more complicated. They were conquered and in some areas almost completely replaced by farmers who migrated out of the near east. The farmers and hunter gatherers represent the two most major sources modern Europeans ancestry. Not every region of Europe has stayed the same since the Neolithic there have been migrations and population changes since then. Modern Europeans are mixed in a similar way as Mexicans are between Spanish and native Americans.

[Styrian Mujo]

42573

[Artek]

42573
But probably more swarthy :)


They should definitely rerun Gravettian samples but I also think that they rather couldn't be other than U :)

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Celts were about 90% H. It is very unlikely that could occur unless that's where H originates. And it's pretty clear celts and bell beaker are the same thing as they cover exact same areas.

I just can't buy that H comes recently to europe, even less so than I can buy r1b does. R1b could theoretically be due to conquest but you could not have spread H to europe like that it's just ridiculous to suggest. The places H exists outsde europe also have celtic influence, and it's to a lesser percentage than in the celt remains.

They have found tons of mtdna that's upstream from H in early europe. However they did not test for H itself which is just ridiculous. Odds are, it's simply all some form of H.

[Fire Haired]

It is very hard to say what Mesolithic and Upper Palaeolithic Europeans looked like, it could have varied by region and time. Two eye color samples from Mesolithic Europe one blue and one probably blue, one hair color sample very dark, and the one skin color sample most likely tannish. Based on the distribution of their blood today I suspect they looked most like Lithuanians, Estonians, and Finnish. I could be very wrong though a lot can change in 10,000 years or so.

[Styrian Mujo]

But probably more swarthy :)


They should definitely rerun Gravettian samples but I also think that they rather couldn't be other than U :)
So they were swarthy and blonde at the same time?:confused3:

[Fire Haired]

Celts were about 90% H. It is very unlikely that could occur unless that's where H originates. And it's pretty clear celts and bell beaker are the same thing as they cover exact same areas.

I just can't buy that H comes recently to europe, even less so than I can buy r1b does. R1b could theoretically be due to conquest but you could not have spread H to europe like that it's just ridiculous to suggest. The places H exists outsde europe also have celtic influence, and it's to a lesser percentage than in the celt remains.

Who ever connected mtDNA H to Celts? Celts expanded way after Bell beaker culture ended, Indo Europeans who became Celts(an Italics and Germans) probably were the conquerors of Bell Beaker culture. Not all Celts were the same, modern Irish and French have about 100% Celtic ancestry but there are many differences. What evidence do you have that Celts were 90% H? Celtic language at the oldest is 4,000 years old. The only area outside of Europe Celts had territory in is central Turkey and that was just for a few hundred years. You cant generalize mtDNA H and R1b. What subclades are you talking about? Modern studies of west European R1b(L11) and ancient Y DNA are very good evidence it first arrived 5,000 years ago and dominated west Europe by 3,000 years ago I think because of the spread of Germans, Celts, and Italians. Ancient mtDNA tells us that almost all H in Europe did come from the near east in the Neolithic. The Celts were not a race they were a people like Turks or Semitics, Celts formed and spread in the bronze age. Their ancestry was not pure they were a result of mixing of different ethnic groups before them. There is definitely common ancestry in all Celts but don't overate it. Today genetically the most ancient Europeans are Baltics. I don't mean their ethnicity is I just mean they have the highest amount of pre Neolithic ancestry in Europe. You should look at this Ancient human genomes suggest (more than) three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/12/ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three.html). Genetics is a lot more complicated than they are Celts they are Chinese they are Arab. It takes a lot of work to figure out population history of areas over 10,000's of years it is never simple.

[Cern]

But probably more swarthy :)


http://g.api.no/obscura/API/image/r1/escenic/978x1200r/1348990915/archive/04528/20120930-005_4528088a.jpg

[Fire Haired]

.

They have found tons of mtdna that's upstream from H in early europe. However they did not test for H itself which is just ridiculous. Odds are, it's simply all some form of H.

If you consider everything else there is no way H in Europe today was all there before the Neolithic. If you believe that you are denying all the evidence in Neolithic and Mesolithic mtDNA. I wont be surprised if there was some type of RO in Europe before the Neolithic but it seems obvious most H and many other haplogroups like T, J, K, I, W, X, V(and HVO) came in the Neolithic.

[Harkonnen]

All of the ancient samples seem to tell the same story thus far, they were not as light featured as the modern north euros, even though some had the mutation to fex light eyes. They were also clearly separate from modern Europeans who are rather mixture of two, three or more particles.

[Styrian Mujo]

http://g.api.no/obscura/API/image/r1/escenic/978x1200r/1348990915/archive/04528/20120930-005_4528088a.jpg
She looks part Mong.

[Fire Haired]

So they were swarthy and blonde at the same time?:confused3:

I highly doubt the average Mesolithic European was swarthy. That seems impossible since from two eye color samples from Mesolithic Europe one was blue and one was most likely blue. Today Mesolithic ancestry(click here (http://bga101.blogspot.com/2013/12/eef-whg-ane-test-for-europeans.html)) correlates very well with blonde hair and light eyes. Those features are extremely exclusively Europeans just like Mesolithic European ancestry. The reason some say Mesolithic Europeans had swarthy skin is because 8,000 year old hunter gatherer from Luxmeburg reportedly probably had darker skin than 7,500BP farmer from Germany. First we have to find what skin tone the farmer had I am guessing white-olive. So that hunter gatherer probably had somewhat tannish skin but who knows. With the new paper about 7,000BP Iberian hunter gatherer La Brana-1 it will probably be reported he had light skin like modern Europeans we already know he had blue eyes. It is likely the near eastern farmers that spread to Europe had white-olive skin and the hunter gatherers probably lighter. We need more ancient pigmentation genes to confirm what I just said, a lot can happen in 10,000 years so we don't know for sure what pigmentation those ancient groups had.

[Fire Haired]

All of the ancient samples seem to tell the same story thus far, they were not as light featured as the modern north euros, even though some had the mutation to fex light eyes. They were also clearly separate from modern Europeans who are rather mixture of two, three or more particles.

What are you basing this one? Just one 8,000 year old sample from Luxemburg that had most likely blue eyes, very dark hair, and probably darker skin than a 7,500BP farmer from Germany? If the scientist report La Brana-1 had blue eyes and that Luxmeburg gut probably did that proves blue eyes existed in Mesolithic Europe. Are you a scientist and know how those genes work? No. The hunter gatherers were not separate to modern Europeans they are major ancestors of modern Europeans.

Click here (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/12/ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three.html). My best guess right now is that Mesolithic Europeans were light skinned, possibly very dark haired, light eyes were probably popular, and possibly very light haired, my best guess for red hair is that it was only above 1% in Russia. The depigmentation(dark to light) process probably occurred in pre Neolithic Europe and maybe also in the near eastern ancestors of early European farmers. I just started to learn about all these different ethnic groups a few months ago. In Europe all I knew were western Europeans, some eastern Europeans, some southern Europeans like Greece and that's all. I thought of Lithuanians and Finnish as strange people from eastern Europe maybe related to Russians. I am always surprised by how Finnish and Baltics phenotype is pretty much identical to Germans, British, etc. Even though Finnish and Baltics have much more Mesolithic European ancestry they look extremely similar. I am sure Mesolithic Europeans looked basically the same as many modern ones.

[Cern]

...

[Black Wolf]

The Balkans in the Mesolithic may have been just like the rest of Europe. Mesolithic Europeans were extremely pure genetically they probably traced almost all their ancestry in Europe over 30,000 years. It is hard to believe it the spread of farmers was the first major genetic change in Europe in probably 10,000's of years.

In ancient mtDNA there is not one H from pre Neolithic central, northern, and eastern Europe. There are some debated H's or just RO's in Iberia and Italy. Click here (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2012/04/ancient-mitochondrial-dna-from-basque.html) to see "unmistakable H in Magdalenian Cantabria". There are also reported H's in Mesolithic Portugal including a H1b and possibly H7 click here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25163). You can look at Ancient Eurasian Palaeolithic DNA (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/palaeolithicdna.shtml)and see there are a bunch of possibly RO members. There are also some H?'s and V"'s from Palaeolithic Morocco (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/nafricaadna.shtml). Click here (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013378#pone-0013378-t001) it is a great study on H1 in north Africa, they tested 11 Libyan Turags with H1 and found they belonged to newly discovered(was not anymore) "African-specific" H1x, H1w, and H1v and their coalescence age was 8,000-9,000ybp.

They assumed the H1 went from Europe to north Africa, ancient mtDNA is very good evidence H1 came to Europe from the near east, so that may also be where north African H1 is from. I am definitely going to read that study in detail later. But if the H1 is not from Europe how do you explain U5b1b, H3, and V in north Africa? I have no idea I just started looking more seriously into mtDNA a few days ago. I have been able to organize all the mtDNA subclades from Germany in FTDNA fully did Finland and I just started on Norway today. Once I get detailed percentages of subclades from as many countries, ethnicity's, etc. in west Eurasia and north Africa as I can, I will start to compare them to each other, read those study's, compare them to ancient mtDNA, etc. and start to make my own conclusions.

Autosomal DNA from ancient European farmers(LBK girl, Otzi, Funnel beakers) has proven the farmers(maybe other were different) that spread to Europe from the near east were very different from modern near eastern people. They are the source of the Meditreaen type ancestry(I know that isn't specific) in Europe and also some west Asian and southwest Asian type ancestry. In autosomal DNA it seems their only similarity to modern near eastern people is some shared ancestry and the fact they were west Eurasian. The Mesolithic hunter gatherers of Europe were also west Eurasian and the "north European" in globe13 and other tests that are significantly descended from them is extremely close to west Asian, so in that way the hunter gatherers were more related to many modern near easterns than the farmers were.

The mtDNA subclades of Neolithic Europeans fall into subclades that are seen as European today not near eastern. They had many of the same basic haplogroups like H, J, K, T, etc. but they were still different. Neolithic Europeans near eastern ancestors would have been very separate from modern near easterns ancestors. So I think that it is possibly typically modern European subclades developed in the near east, spread to Europe with farming, and are now rare in the near east, so they seem to have originated in Europe. H1, H3, and V in north Africa may have come from a related people to the near eastern ancestors of Neolithic Europeans. H1, H3, and V are absent from Mesolithic Europeans(one debated H1b), but constantly pop up in Neolithic central Europeans with subclades like H1e. it seems unlikely H1* could have come to north Africa from Mesolithic Iberians, and H1 probably came to Europe in the Neolithic not as H1*. If H1 and H3 existed in only Mesolithic Iberians why did it also exist in early Near eastern farmers? I guess there are a lot of different possibilities and we deifntley need to get DNA from Mesolithic Balkans.

Just saying in case you have trouble with remembering where every mtDNA haplogroup is placed phylogenetically just look at Phylotree.org (http://www.phylotree.org/tree/main.htm)and for Y DNA ISOGG (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isogg.org%2Ftree%2FISOGG_YDNA TreeTrunk.html&ei=2iTBUrzxH66FyQHkqoHwAQ&usg=AFQjCNEhwOCVcSgOkUwxvMhKd4BJVEkC9A&sig2=tqdp2o3ZHFDpgBk6TvpqqA). I always couldn't remember stuff perfectly and I found those websites a few days ago it helps a lot. C

SO basically then do you think it is probably safe to say that all mtDNA haplogroups in Europeans today that are not U5, U4, U2e and U* probably came from Neolithic farmers? That is H, J, K and T all came from Neolithic farmers?

[Hevo]

Check this out.:cool:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0049802#pone.0 049802.s001

[Stimpy]

This is how I imagine what the hunter-gatherers during the mesolithic looked like.

http://a.cdn-expressen.se/ImageHandler.axd?guid=156f15b1-ee44-44db-b6e5-80f547ea3f4b&imageFormat=secondColumn

http://www.svt.se/cachable_image/1368144151/svts/article1211266.svt/alternates/large/l%C3%B6fven.jpg

[Artek]

Check this out.:cool:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0049802#pone.0 049802.s001

HV-1? Still, limited to the South. As well as C and Z are for now limited to the Northeast and East. No one has said that some early H or HV/R0 was totally nonexistant. Just U's are totally typical :)

[Vesuvian Sky]

What about H13a1a then? Also Neolithic?

[Artek]

What about H13a1a then? Also Neolithic?
Rather so. If not proven by finding an unambiguous H13a1a result from other periods.
Wasn't it found at the Bell Beaker and Minoan remains?

[Vesuvian Sky]

Rather so. If not proven by finding an unambiguous H13a1a result from other periods.
Wasn't it found at the Bell Beaker and Minoan remains?

Yes. Come to think of it, it was indeed.

[Fire Haired]

HV-1? Still, limited to the South. As well as C and Z are for now limited to the Northeast and East. No one has said that some early H or HV/R0 was totally nonexistant. Just U's are totally typical :)

According to Jean Manco creator of Ancient Eurasian DNA 16067T in HVR1 also exists in U5b3d that would make a lot more sense than HVR-1. I know pre Neolithic European mtDNA must be more complicated than U5, U4, and U2e but those do seem to be the dominate haplogroups that traced back some 30,000 years in Europe. No one can ignore that there was a huge change in European mtDNA in the Neolithic.

[Fire Haired]

What about H13a1a then? Also Neolithic?
Yes H13a1a in Europe probably has a Neolithic origin. Really all European mtDNA is very connected and has recent common ancestors with near eastern mtDNA except U5, U4, and U2e(I may be wrong) it makes sense those come from pre Neolithic Europeans. WGH ancestry(click here (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/12/ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three.html)) is exclusive to Europe, Y DNA I is very exclusive to Europe, very light features common in Europe are found almost no where else. So all those things probably have their source in pre Neolithic Europeans, and all have been found already in pre Neolithic Europeans.

[Fire Haired]

Rather so. If not proven by finding an unambiguous H13a1a result from other periods.
Wasn't it found at the Bell Beaker and Minoan remains?
Just study my thread study the source and you can become an expert in ancient DNA. Ancient Eurasian DNA organized 2 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theapricity.com%2Fforum%2Fsho wthread.php%3F106283-Ancient-Eurasian-DNA-Organized-2&ei=qsLBUo7TLOa42gXe3oCIDg&usg=AFQjCNGa68d7wLwNwroClVfWb2NFyTVyUg&sig2=FPen6SrD5-2RX9tHJx3Ipg&bvm=bv.58187178,d.b2I)

[Fire Haired]

This is how I imagine what the hunter-gatherers during the mesolithic looked like.

http://a.cdn-expressen.se/ImageHandler.axd?guid=156f15b1-ee44-44db-b6e5-80f547ea3f4b&imageFormat=secondColumn

http://www.svt.se/cachable_image/1368144151/svts/article1211266.svt/alternates/large/l%C3%B6fven.jpg

I am sure many did. I don't know that much about their skeletal features though. I would imagine this is what the Luxemburg man and La Brana-1 looked like. He has the right hair(little lighter than Luxemburg man) and eye color I have heard Mesolithic Europeans were more robust and had wider faces, but I would imagine were typical west Eurasians aka Caucasians in facial features. There are some wide noses and faces in my family, I wonder if it descends from Mesolithic Europeans its possible.

[Fire Haired]

SO basically then do you think it is probably safe to say that all mtDNA haplogroups in Europeans today that are not U5, U4, U2e and U* probably came from Neolithic farmers? That is H, J, K and T all came from Neolithic farmers?

Yes, I would also include HVO(ancestor of V), I, W, and X. Of course H, J, K, and T are the main ones there is only some argument of H or just plain RO members in DNA from pre Neolithic Europe, except for the J* in Karelia I will have to look at the real paper to see if its there I don't know why it isn't in ancient Eurasian DNA. J from Finland to Iberia to Italy to Ireland to Poland, etc. is almost entirely under J1c and they share many of the same subclades. I think that is evidence it was all spread pretty recently with Neolithic Europeans.


Here is a little evidence I see in European J that it arrived and was spread in the Neolithic. J(besides Karelia) is non existent in pre Neolithic Europeans but is very popular in Neolithic Europeans and almost entirely under J1c and already show many subclades found all over Europe today. There is no other way to explain that but by saying it came in the Neolithic. There is a large amount of Near eastern farmer ancestry in modern Europeans and it is probably higher in most parts than hunter gatherer ancestry, except in northeast, other parts of northern European, and Scandinavia. I wish I could put myself in the new WGH, EEF, and ANE admixture. click here (http://bga101.blogspot.com/2013/12/eef-whg-ane-test-for-europeans.html).

Even Sami and Finnish have significant farmer ancestry. I bet the reason Sami have around 50% U5b(U5b1b1a?) and 50% V is random genetic drift. It gets annoying when people assume Sami are the last hunter gatherers left, their not. Where is the U2e where is the U4 where is the variety of U5 subclades? V is most likely came in the Neolithic. There Is almost not continuum between mtDNA of hunter gatherers from Scandinavia(including Karelia) with modern Sami. Even though today Sami are hunter gatherers I guarantee you most of their ancestors 4,000 years ago were farmers. They probably do have mainly hunter gatherer ancestry but still they are not even close to what the Luxmeburg man was.