mtDNA Haplogroup U Types Among Pre-Historic Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers

[Black Wolf]

It is now quite clear that mtDNA haplogroup U and namely it's subclades U5, U4 and U2 made up a very substantial part of the maternal lineages of Eurasian hunter-gatherers in pre-historic times and extended all the way from Iberia in the far west of Eurasia deep into Siberia in the far east where they mixed with East Asian (Mongoloid) type peoples at some points in the past. These ancient mtDNA haplogroup U peoples in Siberia were probably ancient Caucasoid Cro-Magnon types when it comes to phenotype. We know that U types mainly of the U5, U4 and U2 types made up the majority of maternal lineages among ancient European Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and interestingly enough U types have appeared among Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from much further east into Siberia. It would seem then that the presence of mtDNA haplogroup U in Eurasia then is extremely old. Some of the U subclades were probably present among the earliest farming peoples of the Near East as well such as the U3 and K (subclade of U8) subclades. In this thread though I am focusing on the U types that were present among the ancient hunter-gatherer peoples of Eurasia who adopted farming later on after it spread out of the Near East. It is probably pretty safe now to say that the original Cro-Magnons of Europe would have carried quite a bit of mtDNA haplogroup U among them. Actually some ancient results from Kostenki in Russia and Dolni Vestonice in Czech Rep. have shown that these Cro-Magnon type peoples did possess U types. These tables with ancient DNA results that I will link below shows how widespread U types were among Eurasian hunter-gatherers from the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic ages. It seems that after the Neolithic many of these U lineages were replaced especially in Europe by new haplogroups arriving mainly or at least expanding mainly with Neolithic farming communities carrying a whole new array of mtDNA haplogroups such as T, J, H, K (U subclade) and more.

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/palaeolithicdna.shtml

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml

[The King, I am]

why is u6 (and u5) so popular among Berbers?

[Black Wolf]

why is u6 (and u5) so popular among Berbers?

U6 probably arrived in North Africa in Upper Paleolithic times.

[The King, I am]

U6 probably arrived in North Africa in Upper Paleolithic times.

wot about all the H1? and the maternal connection with the Saamis?

[Fire Haired]

U5, U4, U2(U2e, and probably U2d), U8, and U-MA1 have all been found in Ancient north Eurasians. They were all from the same source, i don't want to list all of the evidence. The most recent evidence comes from Polako at Eurogenes, he made two admixtures one with la Brana-1 as the mammoth steppe reference and one with MA-1 as the mammoth steppe reference. The distribution of La Brana-1 and MA-1 components are nearly identical(click here (http://bga101.blogspot.com/2014/03/updated-eurogenes-k13-population.html)). They were dominated by mtDNA U and had a great variety of U subclades. I wonder if early members of mtDNA U in west Asia over 50,000 years ago were stuck together and only later mixed with other lineages. The diversity of Y DNA of ancient north eurasians is surprising: I, C1a2-V20, R, and probably F-96. C1a2-V20 and F-96 are very basal Eurasian so may be descended of some of the earliest north Eurasians, who settled there has far back as 50,000 years ago.

[Fire Haired]

A study from 2005 may have already found U6 in Morocco from 10,000BC. Two out of 23 samples had HVR1 mutation 16172C which is the only HVR1 mutation of U6 and exists in no other U subclades.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

why is u6 (and u5) so popular among Berbers?

Because Berbers have a high level of Eurasian genetics!

[Fire Haired]

why is u6 (and u5) so popular among Berbers?

U5b1b1 in berbers came from Europe(Iberia) at somepoint. U6 in Berbers is native to north Africa and may have originally come from the near east.

[Anglojew]

So both my haplogroups are Siberian? How weird.

[Fire Haired]

So both my haplogroups are Siberian? How weird.

No, U5 probably originated in or near Europe(two over 30,000 year old samples in Czech republic). Early U5 carriers had relatives in Siberia like MA-1 who were probably also dominated by mtDNA U.

[Anglojew]

No, U5 probably originated in or near Europe(two over 30,000 year old samples in Czech republic). Early U5 carriers had relatives in Siberia like MA-1 who were probably also dominated by mtDNA U.

Where did U originate?

[Fire Haired]

Where did U originate?

Probably west asia.

[Anglojew]

Probably west asia.

Not far away then;

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-a1MexrcISvY/T_OtML8l9eI/AAAAAAAAAhY/wnzlgM3fHeA/s1600/Huns-sm.jpg

[Fire Haired]

Not far away then;

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-a1MexrcISvY/T_OtML8l9eI/AAAAAAAAAhY/wnzlgM3fHeA/s1600/Huns-sm.jpg

I have heard some theories that say Y DNA Q is actulley a west eurasian lineage(brotherclade to R, MA-1 has R) and that Q1b is exclusive to west eurasians. So that would mean your paternal lineage is not east Asian at all.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

No, U5 probably originated in or near Europe(two over 30,000 year old samples in Czech republic). Early U5 carriers had relatives in Siberia like MA-1 who were probably also dominated by mtDNA U.

The Saami are the only people left with majority U haplogroup.

I guess the Saami are the original Europeans!?

[Fire Haired]

The Saami are the only people left with majority U haplogroup.

I guess the Saami are the original Europeans!?

The sami have over 45% U5b1b1a, a very young subclade estimated to be 4,000 years old. They have so much U because of a founder effect, same reason they have almost as much as likely farmer descended mtDNA V. The Sami do have the highest amount of native European(Mesolithic-Upper Palaeolithic) ancestry and in total the highest amount of Upper Paleolithic north Eurasian ancestry(including ANE, nothing to do with east asians), but they are still modern Europeans. They have a very high amount of middle eastern ancestry just less than all other Europeans. They probably migrated to Scandinavia in the bronze age at the earliest, and have relatives in Russia.

[The King, I am]

Because Berbers have a high level of Eurasian genetics!

They are Eurasian

[Fire Haired]

They are Eurasian

And constintley score ~20% in sub Saharan African components in admixtures.

[Argang]

The sami have over 45% U5b1b1a, a very young subclade estimated to be 4,000 years old. They have so much U because of a founder effect, same reason they have almost as much as likely farmer descended mtDNA V. The Sami do have the highest amount of native European(Mesolithic-Upper Palaeolithic) ancestry and in total the highest amount of Upper Paleolithic north Eurasian ancestry(including ANE, nothing to do with east asians), but they are still modern Europeans. They have a very high amount of middle eastern ancestry just less than all other Europeans. They probably migrated to Scandinavia in the bronze age at the earliest, and have relatives in Russia.

It can't really be said where the ancestors of those with young subclades were during Mesolithic or Paleolithic. U5b1b1a has originated from U5b1 (found in many places like ancient Poland), and only Bronze age remains with U5b1b1a could indicate where it happened.

There's also been MtDNA C1f in mesolithic White Sea area, but the subclade hasn't been found in living populations.

[Black Wolf]

U5, U4, U2(U2e, and probably U2d), U8, and U-MA1 have all been found in Ancient north Eurasians. They were all from the same source, i don't want to list all of the evidence. The most recent evidence comes from Polako at Eurogenes, he made two admixtures one with la Brana-1 as the mammoth steppe reference and one with MA-1 as the mammoth steppe reference. The distribution of La Brana-1 and MA-1 components are nearly identical(click here (http://bga101.blogspot.com/2014/03/updated-eurogenes-k13-population.html)). They were dominated by mtDNA U and had a great variety of U subclades. I wonder if early members of mtDNA U in west Asia over 50,000 years ago were stuck together and only later mixed with other lineages. The diversity of Y DNA of ancient north eurasians is surprising: I, C1a2-V20, R, and probably F-96. C1a2-V20 and F-96 are very basal Eurasian so may be descended of some of the earliest north Eurasians, who settled there has far back as 50,000 years ago.

That is very interesting and is something I have thought about a bit before myself. mtDNA haplogroup U seems to be what unites La Brana and MA-1 more than their Y-DNA as one is C1a2-V20 and the other is R yet they show similarities to each other when it comes to mtDNA and autosomal DNA. The Y-DNA of ancient European and possibly many Eurasian hunter-gatherers already seems to be more diverse than the mtDNA.

[The King, I am]

And constintley score ~20% in sub Saharan African components in admixtures.

Not kabyles

[Argang]

Not kabyles

They score a bit less, but Davidski who runs Eurogenes project has checked Kabyle and Riffian samples and they fit within North African variation.

[The King, I am]

They score a bit less, but Davidski who runs Eurogenes project has checked Kabyle and Riffian samples and they fit within North African variation.

No shit they ARE North African

[Argang]

No shit they ARE North African

And all that entails.

Nevertheless an interesting group that should be studied more. Academic samples of their autosomal genetics are still missing.

[The King, I am]

And all that entails.

Nevertheless an interesting group that should be studied more. Academic samples of their autosomal genetics are still missing.

I know :(
When I start receiving welfare im gonna buy a 23andme kit

[Fire Haired]

It can't really be said where the ancestors of those with young subclades were during Mesolithic or Paleolithic. U5b1b1a has originated from U5b1 (found in many places like ancient Poland), and only Bronze age remains with U5b1b1a could indicate where it happened.

There's also been MtDNA C1f in mesolithic White Sea area, but the subclade hasn't been found in living populations.

I think the C1f is of east Asian origin since in the site the mtDNA was sampled some of the skull's had Mongoloid shapes. Plus there is prove in mtDNA and skeletal remains of western(WHG+ANE) and east Asian admixture in the Baraba steppe. (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?119347-Population-History-of-the-Baraba-Forest-Steppe-from-the-Neolithic-Iron-age)

[Argang]

I think the C1f is of east Asian origin since in the site the mtDNA was sampled some of the skull's had Mongoloid shapes. Plus there is prove in mtDNA and skeletal remains of western(WHG+ANE) and east Asian admixture in the Baraba steppe. (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?119347-Population-History-of-the-Baraba-Forest-Steppe-from-the-Neolithic-Iron-age)

The C1f is not very related to any extant C1, and not more related to East Asian or Siberian C1 than to Amerindian and Icelandic clades. It may represent (perhaps more ANE-like?) extinct Siberians or something, but autosomals from those remains would tell more.

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0087612.g003&representation=PNG_L

Craniometrics alone don't tell enough, it would be hard to tell Loschbour skull and La Braña skull belonged to guys (mesolithic hunter-gatherers) who were more close to each other than any modern european genetically.

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/59/590x/secondary/121625.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-R_BZZam1jlk/Urwk1uI31XI/AAAAAAAACVM/_LI7YcKEdZU/s1600/Lochsbourskull.png

[Fire Haired]

The C1f is not very related to any extant C1, and not more related to East Asian or Siberian C1 than to Amerindian and Icelandic clades. It may represent (perhaps more ANE-like?) extinct Siberians or something, but autosomals from those remains would tell more.

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0087612.g003&representation=PNG_L

I agree, but still it's most likely east Asian.

[Argang]

I agree, but still it's most likely east Asian.

The suggested origination point for all C is not too far from Mal'ta. There probably were ancient contacts around Eurasia that were mostly hidden by neolithic population movements.

Eurogenes' IBS sharing test showed that La Braña had more genomewide similarity with Kets than with Armenians or Cypriots, I think there are no living populations in Europe today who would get similar results - and that can only be due to neolithic farmer admixture.

[Black Wolf]

It makes you wonder if mtDNA haplogroup U was the very first Homo Sapiens mtDNA lineage to spread north out of the Near East into Eurasia and then went both west into Europe and east into Siberia/Asia in Upper Paleolithic times since it is present among Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic peoples from Iberia in the far west to Siberia in the far east. I think it may be the main mtDNA lineage of the earliest Caucasoids or proto-Caucasoids of west and north Eurasia.

[Longbowman]

U5, U4, U2(U2e, and probably U2d), U8, and U-MA1 have all been found in Ancient north Eurasians. They were all from the same source, i don't want to list all of the evidence. The most recent evidence comes from Polako at Eurogenes, he made two admixtures one with la Brana-1 as the mammoth steppe reference and one with MA-1 as the mammoth steppe reference. The distribution of La Brana-1 and MA-1 components are nearly identical(click here (http://bga101.blogspot.com/2014/03/updated-eurogenes-k13-population.html)). They were dominated by mtDNA U and had a great variety of U subclades. I wonder if early members of mtDNA U in west Asia over 50,000 years ago were stuck together and only later mixed with other lineages. The diversity of Y DNA of ancient north eurasians is surprising: I, C1a2-V20, R, and probably F-96. C1a2-V20 and F-96 are very basal Eurasian so may be descended of some of the earliest north Eurasians, who settled there has far back as 50,000 years ago.

Our glorious ancestors, who spawned the greatest of clades.

[Fire Haired]

The suggested origination point for all C is not too far from Mal'ta. There probably were ancient contacts around Eurasia that were mostly hidden by neolithic population movements.

Eurogenes' IBS sharing test showed that La Braña had more genomewide similarity with Kets than with Armenians or Cypriots, I think there are no living populations in Europe today who would get similar results - and that can only be due to neolithic farmer admixture.

I totally dis agree. IBS stands for identity by decent, that's why so many south asians are at the top of MA-1's list even though La Brana-1 is MA-1's closest known relative and La brana-1 show's no relation to south asians. I am pretty sure all that means is Kets have more ancestry from La brana-1 like populations. Many modern Siberians have recent east European ancestry plus some ANE, so that can easily explain it. MA-1(for at least the most part) and La Brana-1(for at least the most part) were west Eurasians and so were early European farmers(for at least the most part).

[Argang]

I totally dis agree. IBS stands for identity by decent, that's why so many south asians are at the top of MA-1's list even though La Brana-1 is MA-1's closest known relative and La brana-1 show's no relation to south asians. I am pretty sure all that means is Kets have more ancestry from La brana-1 like populations. Many modern Siberians have recent east European ancestry plus some ANE, so that can easily explain it. MA-1(for at least the most part) and La Brana-1(for at least the most part) were west Eurasians and so were early European farmers(for at least the most part).

You are mistaken here, IBD is identity by descent, IBS is "identity by state" and measures total genomewide similarity.

La Braña not only shared more with Kets than with Middle Easterners, it shared more with Evens, who are one of the most "pure" modern Siberians than with Hakkipikki (South Asians) and Pakistani.
It has a pronounced affinity with modern Siberians, even if it is closest to North Europeans.

[Fire Haired]

It makes you wonder if mtDNA haplogroup U was the very first Homo Sapiens mtDNA lineage to spread north out of the Near East into Eurasia and then went both west into Europe and east into Siberia/Asia in Upper Paleolithic times since it is present among Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic peoples from Iberia in the far west to Siberia in the far east. I think it may be the main mtDNA lineage of the earliest Caucasoids or proto-Caucasoids of west and north Eurasia.

Well your forgetting about east Eurasians and south asians(know almost nothing about them). East asians ancestors were already as far north and east as Beijing, China by over 40,000 years ago(proven by ancient DNA). I imagine that east Eurasians(including Oceania and east asians) were in eastern Asia by 50,000-60,000BP, but i have hardly any evidence to back up that claim. I do agree that a west Eurasian people with mainly mtDNA U(proto WHG-ANE) were some of the earliest people directly north of the near east and in Europe(pretty much already been proven). A genome of a 45,000 year old human in central Asia(could be proto WHG-ANE) was just sampled in case you didn't know(click here (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/03/oldest-modern-human-genome-from-siberia.html))

[Argang]

Well your forgetting about east Eurasians and south asians(know almost nothing about them). East asians ancestors were already as far north and east as Beijing, China by over 40,000 years ago(proven by ancient DNA).

You're referring to the Tianyuan remains. While the initial idea was that they were proto-east asians, the later f3 tests performed on the remains in the Anzick-1 study showed it's in fact equally distant to East Eurasians, West Eurasians and Amerindians. It so old that could predate the divergence of these populations altogether, but we will see more about that when Pääbo study about the 45k years old Siberian comes out.

Here's the test. As you can see, Europeans, East Asians and Amerindians are equally close to Tianyuan.

http://oi58.tinypic.com/2ivzm93.jpg

[Fire Haired]

You are mistaken here, IBD is identity by descent, IBS is "identity by state" and measures total genomewide similarity.

La Braña not only shared more with Kets than with Middle Easterners, it shared more with Evens, who are one of the most "pure" modern Siberians than with Hakkipikki (South Asians) and Pakistani.
It has a pronounced affinity with modern Siberians, even if it is closest to North Europeans.

Davidski

MA-1 IBS 25

Mayan 0.586167
Pima 0.585889
Karitiana 0.585352
Ket 0.584177
Surui 0.581552
Selkup 0.581229
Chukchi 0.580879
Koryak 0.580564
Shors 0.580310
Mari 0.580132
Hakas 0.579568
Ecuadorian 0.579237
Chuvash 0.578796
Erzya 0.578751
Mexican 0.578742
Burusho 0.578633
Brahmin_UP 0.578451
Meena 0.578415
Yukaghir 0.578183
Kargopol_Russian 0.578013
Altaian 0.577756
Uttar_Pradesh 0.577752
Kshatriya 0.577733
Punjabi_Jat 0.577717
Kalash 0.577519


La Brana-1 IBS 25

Estonian 0.589714
Lithuanian 0.589613
Finnish 0.589404
Belorussian 0.589066
Kargopol_Russian 0.588399
Erzya 0.588261
Ukrainian_Kharkov 0.588180
Ukrainian_Belgorod 0.587799
Polish 0.587555
Norwegian 0.587393
Swedish 0.587370
Ukrainian_Poltava 0.587205
French_Basque 0.587186
Ukrainian_Lviv 0.586996
Moksha 0.586553
Orcadian 0.586552
Irish 0.586402
Austrian 0.586167
Belgian 0.585886
German 0.585764
Dutch 0.585606
Danish 0.585569
French 0.585492
Hungarian 0.584657
Moldovan 0.584531

Obviously decent has alot to do with this. French Basque are closer to la brana-1 than are Danish even though in this admixture (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdEYxTnFCZTJ5UWhabHhHT3c0UkxCZ VE#gid=0) Danish are shown to have more la Brana-1 related ancestry than French Basque. The probable explanation is French Basque have more Mesolithic west European ancestry than Danish. Overall Danish are certainly more related to La Brana-1 than are French basque. Also Lithuanians who score close to 50% WHG in EEF-WHG-ANE(and in reality have close to 70% or more WHG-ANE ancestry (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/03/ancient-north-eurasian-ane-levels.html)) are not in the top 25 for MA-1 IBS list, even though they are much more related to MA-1 than any of those top 25 are.

[Fire Haired]

You're referring to the Tianyuan remains. While the initial idea was that they were proto-east asians, the later f3 tests performed on the remains in the Anzick-1 study showed it's in fact equally distant to East Eurasians, West Eurasians and Amerindians. It so old that could predate the divergence of these populations altogether, but we will see more about that when Pääbo study about the 45k years old Siberian comes out.

Here's the test. As you can see, Europeans, East Asians and Amerindians are equally close to Tianyuan.

http://oi58.tinypic.com/2ivzm93.jpg

He had mtDNA B which is an east asian haplogroup so come on he was more connected to east asians.

[Argang]

He had mtDNA B which is an east asian haplogroup so come on he was more connected to east asians.

You're putting chicken before the egg here. MtDNA B could very well predate East Asians as an autosomally and phenotypically distinguishable group. :)

[Argang]

Obviously decent has alot to do with this. French Basque are closer to la brana-1 than are Danish even though in this admixture Danish are shown to have more la Brana-1 related ancestry than French Basque. The probable explanation is French Basque have more Mesolithic west European ancestry than Danish. Overall Danish are certainly more related to La Brana-1 than are French basque. Also Lithuanians who score close to 50% WHG in EEF-WHG-ANE(and in reality have close to 70% or more WHG-ANE ancestry) are not in the top 25 for MA-1 IBS list, even though they are much more related to MA-1 than any of those top 25 are.


No, IBS is genomewide similarity, and those IBS numbers mean that Karitiana and Kets are more close to MA-1 than Lithuanians are in genomewide similarity. I don't know where you got the idea that MA-1 is more related to Northeast Europeans than to Kets or Karitiana, it is not so in either shared drift or genomewide similarity. The full similarity lists from Davidski for both ancient genomes:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQRHVYR1ZLR2NhMUU/edit?pli=1

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQUFdqNmpfYjE3dFE/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1

These are from La Braña's list:
Yakut 0.568222
Algerian 0.568092
Kurumba 0.568018
Cochin_Jewish 0.567866
Buryat 0.567865
Evens 0.567799
Hakkipikki 0.567699
Mongola 0.567689
Tunisian 0.567534
Evenki 0.567486
Austroasiatic_Savara 0.567477
Sakilli 0.567210
Mayan 0.567194
Chukchi 0.567175
Tibeto-Burman_Burmese 0.567143
Koryak 0.567122
Mozabite_Berber 0.567048
Nganassan 0.567023
Pakistani 0.566970

So La Braña-1 really is more similar to full Siberians like Yakuts than to many South Asians. Those Mammoth Steppe tests are based on a small number of SNP's, and do not show total similarity as well as IBS, which was over 100,000 SNP's.

[Fire Haired]

You're putting chicken before the egg here. MtDNA B could very well predate East Asians as an autosomally and phenotypically distinguishable group. :)

I know but still he was probably more related to east asians, just he can't be distinguished(will have to look into that eventulley) between modern Eurasian groups with autosomal DNA(possible because not many SNP's were tested).

[Fire Haired]

Argang, La Brana-1 is MA-1's closest known relative, fact. Lithuanians probably have more than 50% WHG(La Brana-1 like) ancestry they also have close to 20% ANE(MA-1 like) ancestry. The rest of their ancestry is almost entirely middle eastern, which mainly comes from the same source as WHG and ANE. Upper Palaeolithic-mesolithic Europeans had the same basic Caucasiod skull shape as modern Europeans and MIDDLE EASTERNS. La Brana-1 clusters with Europeans(who are largely middle eastern) when put into a world PCA(click here (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature12960_SF3.html)). The only reason La Brana-1 and MA-1 show closeness to any non west Eurasians is because of decent not ancient common ancestry.

Karitina are probably more related to MA-1 than Lithuanians because they have close to 50% ANE ancestry. Your mixing up east and west, and confusing decent with ancient common ancestry.

[Argang]

I know but still he was probably more related to east asians, just he can't be distinguished(will have to look into that eventulley) between modern Eurasian groups with autosomal DNA(possible because not many SNP's were tested).

If its autosomal DNA doesn't show anything but generic similarity to all Eurasian and Amerindian groups, it's safe to assume it predates those groups, or belonged to an extinct branch equally related to every non-African.

But you're right, the Tianyuan sequence was poor. The 45,000 years old Siberian which Dienekes blogged about on the other hand is supposed to be a good sequence - a great deal will be revealed by its affinities. If its affinities look similar to Tianyuan, the separation of different Eurasian groups can be assumed to be more recently than 40k years ago.

[Argang]

Argang, La Brana-1 is MA-1's closest known relative, fact. Lithuanians probably have more than 50% WHG(La Brana-1 like) ancestry they also have close to 20% ANE(MA-1 like) ancestry. The rest of their ancestry is almost entirely middle eastern, which mainly comes from the same source as WHG and ANE. Upper Palaeolithic-mesolithic Europeans had the same basic Caucasiod skull shape as modern Europeans and MIDDLE EASTERNS. La Brana-1 clusters with Europeans(who are largely middle eastern) when put into a world PCA(click here (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature12960_SF3.html)). The only reason La Brana-1 and MA-1 show closeness to any non west Eurasians is because of decent not ancient common ancestry.

Ma-1 was not shown to be anatomically a "caucasoid" anywhere. La Braña-1 was, though he clusters to the eastern end of European variation. In Davidski's world PCA he's between the most eastern Kargopol Russians and Tatars/Chuvash. Genetically their affinities are clear. There's nothing surprising about MA-1 having more genomewide similarity with Karitiana or Kets than with Northeast Europeans when it also had more shared drift with Amerindians (and Kets) than with Northeast Europeans. La Braña has most genomewide similarity with Europeans, more similarity with Kets than Middle Easterners,and more similarity with more eastern Siberians than with North Africans and other such groups. That's because he does not have neolithic admixture from the Middle East unlike modern Europeans. The IBS numbers show this, and there's nothing remarkable about it.

[Fire Haired]

Argand, if i have a son with a black woman my son would probably be closer to me than a Finnish person is. That is only because he shares have of the same autosomal DNA as me. Eastern Siberians are not more related to MA-1 than are north-east Europeans. I have already explained to you how La Brana-1 is MA-1's closest known relative and that Lithuanians have close to 70% WHG-ANE ancestry. If you keep believing this idea of yours, it will severally hurt your chances of learning more. What are middle easterns if they have the same basic phenotype as Mesolithic Europeans and deinitley ANE?

Middle eastern specfic ancestry comes mainly from the same source as WHG-ANE, fact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fire Haired]

If its autosomal DNA doesn't show anything but generic similarity to all Eurasian and Amerindian groups, it's safe to assume it predates those groups, or belonged to an extinct branch equally related to every non-African.

But you're right, the Tianyuan sequence was poor. The 45,000 years old Siberian which Dienekes blogged about on the other hand is supposed to be a good sequence - a great deal will be revealed by its affinities. If its affinities look similar to Tianyuan, the separation of different Eurasian groups can be assumed to be more recently than 40k years ago.

Well MA-1 was a west Eurasian(most related to La Brana-1 proves it, his people's non west Eurasian descendants confuse things) which means Europeans as far back as 30,000 years ago also had west Eurasian specific ancestry. Ancient mtDNA has already shown that the separation between Eurasian groups occurred well over 40,000 years ago, it just may be hard to see when looking at autosomal DNA.

[Argang]

Argand, if i have a son with a black woman my son would probably be closer to me than a Finnish person is. That is only because he shares have of the same autosomal DNA as me. Eastern Siberians are not more related to MA-1 than are north-east Europeans. I have already explained to you how La Brana-1 is MA-1's closest known relative and that Lithuanians have close to 70% WHG-ANE ancestry. If you keep believing this idea of yours, it will severally hurt your chances of learning more. What are middle easterns if they have the same basic phenotype as Mesolithic Europeans and deinitley ANE?

Middle eastern specfic ancestry comes mainly from the same source as WHG-ANE, fact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chukchi and Koryaks have more genomewide similarity to MA-1 than Northeast Europeans. Look at the top 25 IBS-sharing list you posted yourself. Nganassans and Yakuts OTOH have not, for example Erzya and Kargopol Russians best them. Chukchi and Koryaks also happen to be in the Beringian migration route, and more similar to Amerindians than other Siberians are, so why is this such an issue to you?

Middle Eastern specific ancestry is not similar to ANE in any way, though modern Middle East has some ANE admixture. Mal'ta shares more drift with Han Chinese than with Bedouins and has more IBS similarity with Han Chinese than with Bedouins.

[Black Wolf]

Well your forgetting about east Eurasians and south asians(know almost nothing about them). East asians ancestors were already as far north and east as Beijing, China by over 40,000 years ago(proven by ancient DNA). I imagine that east Eurasians(including Oceania and east asians) were in eastern Asia by 50,000-60,000BP, but i have hardly any evidence to back up that claim. I do agree that a west Eurasian people with mainly mtDNA U(proto WHG-ANE) were some of the earliest people directly north of the near east and in Europe(pretty much already been proven). A genome of a 45,000 year old human in central Asia(could be proto WHG-ANE) was just sampled in case you didn't know(click here (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/03/oldest-modern-human-genome-from-siberia.html))

Well I am actually not forgetting about East Asians (East Eurasians) but I should have worded my post better now I see. It does appear that some East Eurasian type people were also spread out very far during at least the Mesolithic and probably also Upper Paleolithic by looking at the results from Karelia where mtDNA haplogroup C1f. They would have been spread from East Eurasia (Siberia) into parts of Europe which kind of mirrors the distribution of West Eurasian mtDNA haplogroup U extending from Europe into Siberia during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic.

[Fire Haired]

What your saying contradicts foundational knowledge, like i said before if you believe these things your going to have problems trying to figure things out in the future. Remeber what i said about WHG and ANE closeness, and the high amount of north-east Europeans so in no way could Siberian people be more related.

[Argang]

What your saying contradicts foundational knowledge, like i said before if you believe these things your going to have problems trying to figure things out in the future. Remeber what i said about WHG and ANE closeness, and the high amount of north-east Europeans so in no way could Siberian people be more related.

Look, this is not ButlerKing you're speaking to. What I said about Mal'ta sharing more drift with East Asians than with Middle Easterners like Bedouins or Palestinians (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/fig_tab/nature13025_SF5.html) is foundational knowledge. Davidski's IBS test shows the genomewide similarity part.

http://oi60.tinypic.com/2l9kuhw.jpg

[Fire Haired]

Argang there is no reason to argue with you. MA-1 was a west Eurasian and had just as much relation to east asians as did Mesolithic Europeans(who happen to be his closest relatives and the main ancestors of modern north Europeans whoa re west Eurasian).

[Fire Haired]

Your mixing east and west, take those results with a grain of salt.

[Argang]

Argang there is no reason to argue with you. MA-1 was a west Eurasian and had just as much relation to east asians as did Mesolithic Europeans(who happen to be his closest relatives and the main ancestors of modern north Europeans whoa re west Eurasian).

MA-1 had significantly more relation to East Eurasians and Amerindians than La Braña had - even though he was closely related to La Braña he wasn't a mesolithic European but a paleolithic Siberian. It's not just evident in his IBS sharing, but also his shared drift values and placing in global PCA's. He was also less related to Middle Easterners than La Braña, who in turn was less related to them than modern Northeast Europeans are. There's nothing controversial in this, it's what the data shows.

[Fire Haired]

Have you read Laz 2013? It found that MA-1 was just as related to east Eurasians as is Loschbour and Motala-1. So what this means is the same is true for La Brana-1, who was almost entirely of the same source as Loschbour. MA-1 had no affinities to east asians.

Palaeolithic Siberian's are the brothers of Mesolithic/Upper Paleolithic Europeans.

[Argang]

Have you read Laz 2013? It found that MA-1 was just as related to east Eurasians as is Loschbour and Motala-1. So what this means is the same is true for La Brana-1, who was almost entirely of the same source as Loschbour. MA-1 had no affinities to east asians.

Palaeolithic Siberian's are the brothers of Mesolithic/Upper Paleolithic Europeans.

Lazaridis et al. measured only shared drift, which is not the same thing as genomewide similarity. Shared drift could be reduced by many things, like for example the huge in-situ expansion of the modern East Asian population, but the genomewide similarity stays. If we compare shared drift stats to another eastern population, Ma-1 has more shared drift with Kets who are mostly East Eurasian or Chukchis who are fully East Eurasian than Loschbour or La Braña have.

But even then, MA-1 has more shared drift with non-Siberian East Asians than it has with Bedouins, and the situation is the same with genomewide similarity. Middle Easterners and the Denisovan-admixed Oceanians are the least similar non-African groups to MA-1. If MA-1 is West Eurasian it's the kind of West Eurasian that's more related to Chinese than to Arabs.

http://oi57.tinypic.com/2q24cg7.jpg

[Fire Haired]

Have you read anything from the original study that sampled MA-1, it was all about his west Eurasianism.

>La Brana-1 and MA-1 largely or completely come from the same Upper Palaeolithic north Eurasian source.'

>WHG-ANE were dominated by west Eurasian specific mtDNA U subclades.

>Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic Europeans had the same basic Caucasoid skull shape ad do modern west Eurasians.

>La Brana-1 clusters with modern Europeans when put into a world PCA. Modern Europeans are largely middle eastern and middle easterns cluster with Europeans(and La brana-1) when put into a world PCA. Therefore MA-1 should cluster with west Eurasians in a world PCA but does not because many non west Eurasians partly descend from his people.

>WHG(from same source as ANE) ancestry in modern Europeans does not make them any less west Eurasians than for example Bedouin, so why would ANE not be west Eurasian?

I am done arguing with you. Just wait and see......

[Argang]

Have you read anything from the original study that sampled MA-1, it was all about his west Eurasianism.

>La Brana-1 and MA-1 largely or completely come from the same Upper Palaeolithic north Eurasian source.'

>WHG-ANE were dominated by west Eurasian specific mtDNA U subclades.

>Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic Europeans had the same basic Caucasoid skull shape ad do modern west Eurasians.

>La Brana-1 clusters with modern Europeans when put into a world PCA. Modern Europeans are largely middle eastern and middle easterns cluster with Europeans(and La brana-1) when put into a world PCA. Therefore
MA-1 should cluster with west Eurasians in a world PCA but does not because many non west Eurasians partly descend from his people.

>WHG(from same source as ANE) ancestry in modern Europeans does not make them any less west Eurasians than for example Bedouin, so why would ANE not be west Eurasian?

I am done arguing with you. Just wait and see......

La Brana-1 and MA-1 largely come from a same source. Not completely, and nothing indicates this. Haplogroups have little to do with autosomals.

La Braña clusters to the east of least Middle-Eastern influenced Europeans, and MA-1 clusters much more to the east of him. PCA's don't show hard total similarity numbers either, just two dimensions representing some of their variation. And...


MA-1 should cluster with west Eurasians in a world PCA but does not because many non west Eurasians partly descend from his people.

Since MA-1 has most genomewide similarity and the most shared drift with Amerindians, it would be more realistic to say he was an Amerindian and only clusters closer to West Eurasians because they partially descend from him! But that's not really the truth either, he was his own thing, and ancestral to multiple modern populations including modern Europeans.

[Fire Haired]

Argang i will argue later just i am busy now. Anyways Davidski agrees with me, i used to think he was mixed or from extinct Eurasian branch till Davidski showed me the evidence of hum being west Eurasian and brother to WHG.

[Argang]

Argang i will argue later just i am busy now. Anyways Davidski agrees with me, i used to think he was mixed or from extinct Eurasian branch till Davidski showed me the evidence of hum being west Eurasian and brother to WHG.

To me he seems to be saying the IBS results saying he shares most with Amerindians and some Siberians, then South Asians and Northeast Euros, make sense, which is what I've been arguing all along. Just to be certain, are you "barakobama"?
http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-story-of-r1a-academics-flounder-as.html

IBS means Identical-by-State. See here...

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002287

And yeah, the results for MA-1 make sense. They're very similar to the drift stats from the Raghavan paper, but with South Asians higher on the list.

http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/4151/zubo.png

[Fire Haired]

Yes i am barakobama. My opinon has not changed and i will post about this later when i have time.

[Fire Haired]

Davidski

MA-1 isn't the link between West and East Eurasians because he's 0% East Eurasian. I'm not sure why some people aren't getting this?

West Eurasians and Amerindians are the ones who are mixed, with the African-like Basal Eurasian and East Asian ancestry, respectively.

I'm guessing that 45K year-old Ust-Ishim sample will turn out to be ancestral to MA-1, La Brana-1, Loschbour and Motala12. So in other words, he'll look like the first of the Mammoth Steppe hunters who, one way or another, contributed 50-60% ancestry to our genomes.

[Argang]

Davidski
No one's saying he's East Eurasian or Amerindian or Siberian or European. He's ancestral to them.

He's also 0% Middle Eastern, and genetically more similar to East Asians like Chinese than to Bedouins or Palestinians. In this regard he's unlike any modern European and unlike La Braña.

[Fire Haired]

Davidski was actulley saying he is west Eurasian just middle eastern(therefore so do many other people) also have basal Eurasian ancestry and native Americans also have east Asian ancestry. There is a reason why native americans are more related to Eurasian hunter gatherer(Loschhbour, MA-1, Motala12) and modern west Eurasians than any other east asians are, their ANE ancestry is west Eurasian. 24,000 years ago is to recent for an intermediate Eurasian.

[Harkonnen]

Davidski was actulley saying he is west Eurasian just middle eastern(therefore so do many other people) also have basal Eurasian ancestry and native Americans also have east Asian ancestry. There is a reason why native americans are more related to Eurasian hunter gatherer(Loschhbour, MA-1, Motala12) and modern west Eurasians than any other east asians are, their ANE ancestry is west Eurasian. 24,000 years ago is to recent for an intermediate Eurasian.

But if it as Polako suggests that modern West Eurasians are admixed with 'African like' basal Eurasian which entered Eurasia only in neolithic times, then that would of course mean that even East Asians could be regarded as 'purer' descendants of the original OOA West Eurasians contra us modern mischlings.

[Insuperable]

But if it as Polako suggests that modern West Eurasians are admixed with 'African like' basal Eurasian which entered Eurasia only in neolithic times, then that would of course mean that even East Asians could be regarded as 'purer' descendants of the original OOA West Eurasians contra as modern mischlings.

On what basis is this basal Eurasian referred to as "African-like"? It has nothing to do with Africa we know it.

[Fire Haired]

I don't know all the reasons why LAz 2013 theorized about basal Eurasian, even if it is true i think it's contribution to early European farmers and modern middle easterns is exaggerated. Polako recently made some PCA's and it seems there may be sometype of basal Eurasian effect on west Eurasians that is strongest in south-west Europeans(ecspecially Sardinians) and north-west Africans, but has just as much effect on most west asians as it does on most Europeans. I think what defines middle eastern and WHG+ANE mainly comes from the same ancient west Eurasian source.

[Fire Haired]

Argang you forgot that La Brana-1 and MA-1 are close relatives, therefore MA-1 was west Eurasian.

[Argang]

On what basis is this basal Eurasian referred to as "African-like"? It has nothing to do with Africa we know it.

Basal Eurasian is a theory, and the effects attributed to it might be nothing more than old East African admixture in Middle East and neolithic farmers. Or it might not even exist. They managed to do successful models to fit the ancient genomes and modern populations without assuming any Basal Eurasian-like admixture


In Fig. S12.5 we propose two successful models without basal Eurasian admixture but that instead
invoke variable admixture in either direction across Eurasia. These models propose two admixture
events for the set of considered populations, but make Karitiana and Onge (left) and Loschbour and
Stuttgart (right) be composed of the same ancestral elements but in different proportions

[Argang]

Argang you forgot that La Brana-1 and MA-1 are close relatives, therefore MA-1 was west Eurasian.

It could be said that MA-1 was an ancient West Eurasian, but not a modern one or a mesolithic one. La Braña is more related to Bedouins than to Chinese, and so are all modern Northeast Europeans including outliers like Saami and Chuvash. MA-1 is not.

[Fire Haired]

Mesolithic Europeans and MA-1 come from the same ancient source, there is no common ancestry between them and Bedouin that would have made them modern west Eurasians. Time itself could not have made Mesolithic Europeans modern west Eurasians.

[Argang]

Mesolithic Europeans and MA-1 come from the same ancient source, there is no common ancestry between them and Bedouin that would have made them modern west Eurasians. Time itself could not have made Mesolithic Europeans modern west Eurasians.

Time hasn't changed MA-1 like people into mesolithic Europeans, there have certainly been several population movements and admixture events in Europe during the 20,000 years separating La Braña and MA-1.

As you can see in graph c, Middle Easterners (except North African Berbers in the lower left corner) have more similarity to La Braña and Sardinians than East Asians do, while East Asians have more similarity to MA-1 than Middle Easterners do and one of the East Asian populations (they are all from HGDP so it's most likely Yakuts or Mongolians) is more similar to MA-1 than Sardinians are! When it comes to shared drift with Sardinians, MA-1 is closer to East Asian level than to La Braña's level (graph a).

http://oi60.tinypic.com/14y73mg.jpg

[Black Wolf]

It is also interesting to note the distribution of the ancient Venus figurines and mtDNA haplogroup U as well. These Venus figurines were widespread from Europe into Siberia and the MA-1 boy's people also seem to have made them..

[SobieskisavedEurope]

It can't really be said where the ancestors of those with young subclades were during Mesolithic or Paleolithic. U5b1b1a has originated from U5b1 (found in many places like ancient Poland), and only Bronze age remains with U5b1b1a could indicate where it happened.

There's also been MtDNA C1f in mesolithic White Sea area, but the subclade hasn't been found in living populations.

Are you suggesting that the Sami came from Poland!?

[SobieskisavedEurope]

It is also interesting to note the distribution of the ancient Venus figurines and mtDNA haplogroup U as well. These Venus figurines were widespread from Europe into Siberia and the MA-1 boy's people also seem to have made them..

Paleolithic - Mesolithic Europeans were more advanced than other regions of the world at the time!

A Venus of Dolni Vestonice Czech Republic was made with the first ceramics inb the world! Also in Dolni Vestonice is found the first woven fabric in the world!

A number of inventions are seen in Paleolithic - Mesolithic Europeans including the first clothes, first houses, first ovens for cooking food, first maps, first possible writing & number systems even like those found in Kamyana Mohyla.

There is also a chance that the first flute & art in the world came from Paleolithic Europeans too although it might have been from Neanderthals.

[Argang]

Are you suggesting that the Sami came from Poland!?

Their ancestors could have come from any place, or places, with old U5b1. Poland is one of many possibilities.

[Styrian Mujo]

Paleolithic - Mesolithic Europeans were more advanced than other regions of the world at the time!

A Venus of Dolni Vestonice Czech Republic was made with the first ceramics inb the world! Also in Dolni Vestonice is found the first woven fabric in the world!

A number of inventions are seen in Paleolithic - Mesolithic Europeans including the first clothes, first houses, first ovens for cooking food, first maps, first possible writing & number systems even like those found in Kamyana Mohyla
Im sure some of those Nordic Europeans migrated to the near east where with the use of local cheap Mediterranean labour created the well-known civillizations like Sumeria etc.

[Fire Haired]

Im sure some of those Nordic Europeans migrated to the near east where with the use of local cheap Mediterranean labour created the well-known civillizations like Sumeria etc.

Brudny is not a raciest or anything, most of what he said is true. It's a little exaggerated and some of what he said is probably assumption. It is pretty amazing what has been found from Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, but why would he or anyone else be biasdly in favor of Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic Europeans if our other 50% or so was in the middle east.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

Im sure some of those Nordic Europeans migrated to the near east where with the use of local cheap Mediterranean labour created the well-known civillizations like Sumeria etc.

There is some possible evidence linking Sumerians with Ukraine.

Seen in the development of writing & the swastika which both may start in Ukraine where the earliest example of a possible swastika is found in Mezine Ukraine while the first possible writing is found in Kamyana Mohyla Ukraine!

Later swastika & writing evidence then is found in the Balkan Vinca culture & then later found in Mesopotamia (Sumeria)

There is a link between Kamyana Mohyla petroglyphs & Sumerian Cuneiform.

Here is Kamyana Mohyla petroglyphs being compared to Sumerian Cuneiform below.

http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/20073/P70_18.jpg

[Longbowman]

Brudny is like the Polish equivalent of Kuvayie Mille.

[Black Wolf]

Paleolithic - Mesolithic Europeans were more advanced than other regions of the world at the time!

A Venus of Dolni Vestonice Czech Republic was made with the first ceramics inb the world! Also in Dolni Vestonice is found the first woven fabric in the world!

And yet they remained hunter-gatherers until agriculture and animal husbandry arrived from the Near East which makes it all even more interesting. They were very advanced hunter-gatherers.
A number of inventions are seen in Paleolithic - Mesolithic Europeans including the first clothes, first houses, first ovens for cooking food, first maps, first possible writing & number systems even like those found in Kamyana Mohyla.

There is also a chance that the first flute & art in the world came from Paleolithic Europeans too although it might have been from Neanderthals.

[Black Wolf]

Paleolithic - Mesolithic Europeans were more advanced than other regions of the world at the time!

A Venus of Dolni Vestonice Czech Republic was made with the first ceramics inb the world! Also in Dolni Vestonice is found the first woven fabric in the world!

A number of inventions are seen in Paleolithic - Mesolithic Europeans including the first clothes, first houses, first ovens for cooking food, first maps, first possible writing & number systems even like those found in Kamyana Mohyla.

There is also a chance that the first flute & art in the world came from Paleolithic Europeans too although it might have been from Neanderthals.

Yes they were quite advanced in many ways yet they remained hunter-gatherers until farming arrived from the Near East during the Neolithic. We can call them advanced hunter-gatherers I suppose. :)

[Black Wolf]

I have thought about this a bit more with the recent results of more stone age hunter-gatherers from Sweden. Their mtDNA haplogroups were all U types again and their autosomal DNA was again very similar to that of La Brana and Lochsbour.

[Fire Haired]

I have thought about this a bit more with the recent results of more stone age hunter-gatherers from Sweden. Their mtDNA haplogroups were all U types again and their autosomal DNA was again very similar to that of La Brana and Lochsbour.

It is now established knowledge that European hunter gatherers were a very uniform population autosomally and maternally, and were largely descended of people who had lived in Europe before the last ice age.

[Black Wolf]

It is now established knowledge that European hunter gatherers were a very uniform population autosomally and maternally, and were largely descended of people who had lived in Europe before the last ice age.

I wonder if the shared autosomal ancestry among the European hunter-gatherers related mainly to them being pretty much all mtDNA haplogroup U types such as U5, U4, and U2e? On the Y-DNA side most seem to be I2a and La Brana is C.

[Black Wolf]

I suppose we can also add U6 expansions into and from North Africa to this as North Africa is very Eurasian genetically.

[Black Wolf]

A few new ones that both belong to U5b.

Croatia Vela Spila/Island Korčula 6080-6020 BC: U5b2a5

Poland Janisławice 6000 BC: U5b1b

[Pjeter Pan]

U1a3 here

[Black Wolf]

U3a1 here

U3a1 or U1a3?

[Pjeter Pan]

U3a1 or U1a3?

U1a3 sorry

[Black Wolf]

U1a3 sorry

Your maternal line ancestor was probably a Neolithic farmer or a later migrant to Europe. :)