Strong Evidence mtDNA H in Europe did not Spread in the Neolithic age

[Fire Haired]

I have noticed people in this website assume that mtDNA H was not popular in Europe till the Neolithic age and it was spread by mid eastern farmers and Bell Beaker culture I have read news articles that don't even consider H was in Europe before the Neolithic age to many people assume mtDNA H spread in Europe during the Neolithic and did not exist before that

So, these are arguments I have created that argue against the so strongly believed theory that mtDNA H spread in Europe during the Neolithic age


I want to know what peoples think about this so please vote on the poll and post your opinion


There is not Enough Investigation pre Neolithic European mtDNA samples and people only mention the ones that don't have alot of H

mtDNA H was 41.52% from from 236 mtDNA samples in Iberia from 7,000- 4,340ybp http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28808-New-DNA-results-from-early-steppe-people-belived-to-be-very-early-indo-europeans
and in the same article i showed that mtDNA H was 46.6% from 14 mtDNA sample from pre Neolithic Iberian s 20,000-7,500ybp from 3 mtDNA 15,000 year old mtDNA samples in northern spain 2 had mtDNA H one had H6 from 9 mtDNA 9,500-7,500 year old samples in Portugal 5 out of 9 had mtDNA H two had H1b which orignated in Iberia

also the oldest mtDNA samples in Iberia from 20,000-18,000years ago one had for sure U and for the other all they know is it was in the RO family mtDNA RO is the grandmother of H today it is almost only found in Arabia and it is over 50,000 years old and probably never migrated to Europe but its daughter mtDNA HV did and so did H so this sample most likely had either mtDNA HV or H also this sample had the R* CRS muation which is usulley reported as mtDNA H but they just did not have enough DNA information to say it was for sure but it probably was H

also a 26,000 year old mtDNA sample from Wales also had the R* CRS muation which means it almost definitely had mtDNA H and now that the technology for receiving DNA from ancient remains is getting much better maybe they can do another test on this remains from Wales the one from Spain this will confirm that we have

two 25,000 year old mtDNA samples from central Russia most likely brother and sister had the CRS and mutation 161219A which means they where for sure mtDNA H17

and 28,000 year old mtDNA sample on the south tip of Italy was for sure mtDNA H and it was not contamination because all of the people that where near it or had contact mtDNA did not match.

so that means we have 4 mtDNA samples in Europe from over 25,000ybp with mtDNA H in Italy, Wales, and Russia and one even had a subclade and we also have 3 mtDNA mtDNA H samples in Europe from 20,000-15,000ybp all in Spain this means mtDNA H has been in Europe for about 35,000 years

i took a National Genographic DNA test and i have mtDNA H64 they tried to explain my DNA story and said mtDNA H orignated in the middle east just 20,000-25,000ybp why would they say that if we have four over 25,000 year mtDNA H samples from all over europe one even had H17 this means mtDNA H probably originated in the middle east over 40,000 years ago it is nearly twice as old as DNA experts predicted i think this also means age predictions on DNA haplogroups are not always accurate usulley they ave a dat at least 5,000 years to young because they also saud mtDNA V is only 9,000 years ago in Spain and migrated acroos Europe and north Africa just 7,000ybp then we find four 12,000 year old mtDNA V samples in north Africa.

here is all the mtDNA samples from Paloithci Europe 37,985-12,300ybp there are 20
U=12 60%(U5=6(U5b=3(U5b1=2, U5b2b1=1), U2/3/4/7/8/9=1, U2=1), H=7 35%(almost defintley H=2, H*unknown subclade=2, H17=2, H6=1), HV=1 5%

and mtDNA H1 and H3 are the most popular H subclades in Europe and northwest Africa they all come from a huge migration that started in north Spain about 15,000ybp also mtDNA V and some U5b subclades also migrated with that group from northern Spain.

from 22 mtDNA samples that are dated as 12,000 years old in Morocco which is far northwest North Africa
H/V/U=12, H=4, H/V=3, V=2
mtDNA V is only 15,000 years old and originated in northern Spain it is apart of that group that migrated across Europe and north west Africa 10,000-15,000ybp so these are remains of the ones that went to north Africa so really we have mtDNA samples from Mesolithic Spaniards who immigrated to north Africa only one had the possibility of being mtDNA U which is strange compared to other Mesolithic mtDNA samples all of them had the possibility of being H or V four where for sure H and two where for sure V i am guessing the rest where H but who knows i think this and the other Mesolithic and Paleolithic Iberian remains are good evidence that mtDNA H was dominant in Iberia at least 15,000ybp and the fact that about 30-50% of Iberian mtDNA are H1 and H3 which originated in Iberia about 15,000ybp

I also made a thread http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28809-Middle-to-late-Neolithic-6-625-4-025-year-old-mtDNA-and-Y-DNA-from-German
which shows that from 86 mtDNA samples all came from Germany except two came from Denmark from 6,625- 4,025 ybp 40.7% had mtDNA H just like modern Europeans and H1 and H3 where th main subclades even though most where not well enough preserved to show subclades this means even back then most of central European mtDNA H was H1 and H3 like today and originated in Spain 15,000ybp

also the pre Bell Beaker Germany remains also had mainly mtDNA H and the same subclades so that mean Bell Beaker probably did not spread mtDNA H in central Europe and there is no way they spread it to Scandinavia, Britain, or any where east of Germany because Bell Beaker culture never expanded there so i think Bell Beaker is not the reason mtDNA H is so popular in Europe

only about 24% of the small sample size of 29 5,000 year old mtDNA samples from Trellis southwestern France had mtDNA H but all had European H1 and H3 which take up 20-30% of mtDNA in that area today.


The main mtDNA H subclades in Europe are rarly found in the middle east
mtDNA H1 and H3 takes up about 30-75% of the H subclades in central, western, and northern Europe and are also the most popular H subclades in all of Europe they take up about 10-30% of their total mtDNA in central, western, and northern Europe in the Middle east mtDNA H1 and H3 only take up about 5-10% of their H subclades and take up usulley less than 1-5% of their total mtDNA and almost all experts believe both mtDNA H1 and H3 originated in northern Spain about 15,000ybp and spread across Europe 10,000-15,000ybp they call it the Iberian refuge http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/1/19.full
so that means mtDNA H1 and H3 where already 10-30% or more in central and western Europe before the Neolithic age and there is no way they came from middle eastern farmers and they expanded during the Mesolithic age 10,000-15,000ybp not the Neolithic 6,000-10,000ybp

also mtDNA H6 which takes up 5-40% of mtDNA in volga Russia and far eastern Europe it also is believed to have originated in Europe about 15,000-20,000ybp and a 15,000 year old remain in northern Spain had H6 and mtDNA H6 is actually very spread out in all of Europe and also found in the middle east it is probably one of the oldest H subclades

mtDNA H5 and H13 are about 10% of H subclades in the middle east but they are very very very rarely ever found in central, western, northern Europe at the most they reach 3% of the mtDNA H subclades they are commonly found though in north Italy and eastern Europe they usulley hit about 5-15% of H subclades in eastern Europe sometimes more popular than in the middle east but in some areas they are less than 1% of the H subclades.

there are many H subclades found in Europe and the middle east but i could not find any information of where they originated or how old they are so right now i cant say which mtDNA H subclades in Europe are from the middle east but in general most Europeans have mtDNA H subclades did not come from middle eastern farmers.

and if there is any one with information out there on where H13, H5, H7, H9, H15, H16, H18, H11, H10, H20, H21, H4 originated that would be extremely helpful



It is impossible for Bell Beaker to Have spread mtDNA H
I have heard many people say Bell Beaker spread mtDNA H in Europe but to me that sound impossible sure Bell Beaker probably started in Iberia where mtDNA H has been popular for 15,000 years and their culture spread across all of western Europe between just 4,800-3,800ybp there are no real signs Bell Beaker spread their culture from Spain by conquering western Europe all they did was spread a culture and bell beaker culture is identified only by a type of pottery style that is all it may have not even been a culture just a type of pottery that spread but lets say it was a culture that started in Spain and conquered most of western Europe when people conquer the native women are not killed off the native men are mainly because they are the ones that fight in the war the invading army replaces the old Y DNA not mtDNA so the Bell Beaker would have done something from what we know no people group has done in history and Internationally only kill off the women and also Bell Beaker never expanded to Scandinavia or east of Germany but in those areas mtDNA H is still 40% so Bell Beaker is not a good explination and H1 and H3 are still the most popular mtDNA H subclades in areas bell Beaker never spread so to me the Bell Beaker argument does not have good evidence just assumptions
and Bell Beaker was actulley conquered by proto Germanic speakers and proto Italoi Celtic it is explained in this link https://www.google.com/url? sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eupedia.com%2Feurope%2FHaplog roup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml&ei=We3IUYTMFeGqyAHts4GAAQ&usg=AFQjCNHXsHj4Btu0ZPVHyQKiyCoKbeHnKw

Europeans have Different mtDNA H subclades from each other

eastern Europe has very diffenrt mtDNA H subclades than western Europe in eastern Europe H13 and H5 are very popular but they are almost never found in western Europe in western Europe H1 and H3 are very popular but not nearly as popular as in eastern Europe it is true most of Europe has 40% mtDNA H but different regions have different subclades which means it did not spread in the same event and that it is just luck most of Europe turned out to have 40% mtDNA H eastern Europe has many similar subclades as the middle east which could mean its spread in the Neolithic age but western, central, and northern Europe do not so obviously mtDNA H was spread in western, central, and northern Europe from the same event probably Iberian refuge 10,000-15,000ybp but mtDNA H is eastern Europe had to of been spread by a different even they do have some H1 and H3 which means they got some b fro Iberian refuge but since they has many similar subclades to mid easterns it probably spread from the middle east. but mtDNA H1 and H3 are still the most popular mtDNA H subclades in all of Europe which probably means the Iberian refuge made a huge impact on European mtDNA


Conclusion
so basically what i am trying to say is people do not investigate the origin of mtDNA H in europe enough they just assume it came from the Neolithic age based in the few mtDNA samples we have of pre Neolithic Europe but for some reason they dont realize that 35% of Paloithic EUropean mtDNa samples had H and people do not look at subclades i think the origin of mtDNA H in Europe mostly comes from the Iberian refuge and Mesolithic Europe 10,000-15,000ybp some does come from the Neolithic age but most does not and people only mention the few Neolithic cultures like LBK that did not have 40% mtDNA H but most did which people don't mention

also another big thing is a 28,000 year old mtDNA sample from south tip Italy, two 25,000 year old mtDNA samples in central russia have H17, one 26,000 year old sample in wales most likley had mtDNA H it defintley did not have U, 20,000-18,000 year old mtDNa sample in south tip Spain also almost defintley had mtDNA H, and two mtDNA samples from norther Spain had mtDNA H one had H6 had H so it probably first arrived in Europe over 35,000ybp



what i want people to know is mtDNA H is alot more popular in Paleolithic and Mesloithci European remains than advertised and mtDNA U is not 100% like the impression they give mtDNA H also shows up in Mesolithic European remains all of this proves mtDNA H was deifntley present in pre Neolithic Europe and was actulley very popular and most mtDNA H subclades in Europe originated in Europe most mtDNA mid eastern farmers brought was T, X, K, J orignalley i think Europe was just U, H, and HV but i may be wrong they might find a T or K in pre Neolithic European remains


so lets say most mtDNA and Y DNA haplogroups in europe arrived in the Neolithic age but still Europeans ancestry is from Paleolithic Europeans modern Europeans have a unique austomnal DNA type some tests call it north European other Atlantic Baltic because it is mainly in those areas but since Europeans are dominated by a austomnal DNA type that originated in Europe almost definitely in the Paleolithic age that means most of Europeans ancestry are the so called Cro Magnon or people that arrived over 30,000ybp

and when people say well none of the 31 Neolithic European Y DNA samples had R1a or R1b and 50% of modern Europeans have them this does not mean Europeans did not arrive in Europe till 5,000ybp because Y DNA and mtDNA are just direct lineages there are black people with European Y DNA but they are only about 5% European this is because their great great great great grandfather was European so it does not tell your full ancestry the Indo Europeans brought R1a and R1b to Europe 6,000-4,000ybp in June 2013 they released some DNA information from 6,000 and 5,000 year old remains from some of the very first Indo European cultures in the Pontic Steppes they said there is no doubt they where a European population they had all of the some light skin genes that dominate Europeans today and they also said they had mainly brown eyes and 4,000 and 3,8000 year old DNA from Indo Iranian Indo Europeans in south Siberia and west china they spread the Indo European language in asia they also had the same white skin genes as modern Europeans and had mainly light eyes and hair and some even had red hair. what i am trying to say is the Indo Europeans that spread the language in Europe and Asia where ethnically European just like the European people they conquered so even before R1a and R1b where popular in Europe the people where already Europeans and the main ancestors of modern ones

Also austomnal DNA from 7,000 year old late Mesolithic hunter gather in Spain with mtDNA U5b had more north European than most modern Europeans and the only true Mesolithic Europeans left are Finnish and Sami people in Scandinavia they have almost only north European globe13 austomnal DNA and the speak a uralic language which according to Maciamo migration map arrived in Scandinavia from north east Asia about 7,000-8,000ybp and since Sami have about 50% mtDNA V and 50% mtDNA U5b and they have unique subclades which are about 8,000 years old this means Sami, Finnish, and all Scandinavians come from Mesolithic hunter gathers who came there at least 10,000ybp since they where already spread out 8,000ybp and Sami and Finnish people's ancestors where not affected by the Neolithic age like other Europeans that is why they have almost no none European austomnal DNA so they are really the last living Mesolithic Europeans and they are the closet modern relatives to Genomes of the Mesolithic hunter gather in Spain and two 5,000 year old hunter gathers from Sweden and they don't look any different from the rest of Europe they actually are paler and have light hair and eyes than any other people in Europe so the European ethnicity is not defined by mtDNA H and did not arrive in the Neolithic age the part of Europeans blood that makes them European arrived in Europe at least 35,000ybp-50,000ybp most of Europeans mtDNA any ways traces back to ancestors that arrived over 35,000ybp

the latest mtDNA haplogroup to arrive in Europe was H and it came 33,000-36,000ybp but mtDNA U5 arrived 50,000-60,000ybp

Here are some resources i used
http://www.genebase.com/doc/mtdnaHaplogroup_H_Subclade_Distribution_Map.pdf

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_mtdna_haplogroups_frequency.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culturehttp://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002700

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080715204741.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DNA-tested_mummies

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buildinghistory.org%2Fdistant past%2Fnafricaadna.shtml&ei=8SzJUfaECaK_yQGwh4DABg&usg=AFQjCNEFeH0zRH5_qmu0pOKphS2kkGf_vA

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.es/p/ancient-mtdna-maps-of-europe.html

[101DT]

The first time i ever hear of mtDNA spreading with the Neolithic;

From the studies i know; mtDNA (especially H) is paleolithic; spreading after the Younger Dryas;
Who the hell told (mis-informed) you about the Neolithic?


Torroni et al 1998 -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9545392

haplogroup, H, which is distributed throughout the entire range of Caucasoid populations and which originated in the Near East approximately 25,000-30,000 years ago, also took part in this expansion, thus rendering it by far the most frequent (40%-60%) haplogroup in western Europe. Subsequent migrations after the Younger Dryas eventually carried those "Atlantic" mtDNAs into central and northern Europe.

app. an East > West migration and after Younger Dryas a West > East (across Europe) spread;

Roostalu et al 2007
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/436.full.pdf+html

Achilli et al 2004
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182122/

[Fire Haired]

actually many people say it came from the Neolithic including national Genographic leader spencer wells

here are some links to online artcles which prove many people have this thoery
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22252099

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/04/neolithic-mtdna-h-genomes-bell-beaker.html

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/04/mtdna-haplogroup-h-and-origin-of.html

from what i have heard that is what everyone thinks and i totally disagree that all H is from Neolithic age and i think they have very weak evidence and come to quick conclusions are are spreading lies i have talked to many people in this website who think that ur the first person online i have seen who thinks in came in paleolithic age

i have watched his video the human journey it is so of and against what experts say he said R1b came to Europe in paleolithic age and that Europeans and east asians developed white skin together in central Asia and they are closely related it shows how much more we know now than we did just 3 years ago

he was also very afrocentric and said that Australian aboriginals where the first to leave Africa mainly because they look more black but in reality Australian aboriginals are in the same family as east Asians and native Americans they migrated with their ancestors and they where not the first to leave africa they also let with Caucasians ancestors so really it was Australian aboriginals, and mongoloids ancestors who where the first to leave the mid east

so basicalley don't trust spencer wells he almost never knows what he is talking about i dont know why nationla geographic gave him the job the only reason people use him as a resource is because he has a big name but most of what he says is like genetic stuff from 3 years ago that has been proven wrong

and mtDNA H is probably over 40,000 years old because four over 25,000 year old myDNA samples from Europe had H two in russia,from 25,000ybp, one from wales from 26,000ybp and in from italy from 28,000ybp

so mtdna h which orignated in west asia was already spread out in europe 25,000-30,000yb[ at least and the two in russia had subclade H17 so in my opinon H is at least 40,000 years old

[Artek]

H is even Paleolithic in some regions of Europe(Iberian part of Magdalenian culture?) but couldn't be considered as a typical paleolithic/mesolithic mtDNA across the Europe. If it's not the sampling bias among those ancient remains that are tested.

To be properly understood - by typical, I mean geographically widespread at that times

[Fire Haired]

i am pretty sure i mentined in this thread two mtdna h17 or h27 samples are in european russia from 25,000ybp they where for syre because they had the crs muation and the 1629a muation which means they can only be one of thos two so for a fact they are h17 or h27 but i read this hing called ancient eurasian dna they said it was not conclusive and unrelible they wanted to deny a h subclade in europe 25,000ybp it destrys their idea iit came in neloithic all other studies said hey where h17 or h27

also a very faous find of mtdna h in south italy from 28,000ybp study in 2008 concluded it was mtdna h but ancient eurasin dnarefernced that study but said it was hv or u all other resurses i looked up said it was for sure h but he mtdna h neloithic people claimed there was some mistake they said contamination sp they tested all people that had contact with remain none of them had matcing muation it was for sure mtdna h but pmany people deny it and just ignore the vast evidence mtdna h has been spread out in europe for probably over 33,000 years

[Artek]

i am pretty sure i mentined in this thread two mtdna h17 or h27 samples are in european russia from 25,000ybp they where for syre because they had the crs muation and the 1629a muation which means they can only be one of thos two so for a fact they are h17 or h27 but i read this hing called ancient eurasian dna they said it was not conclusive and unrelible they wanted to deny a h subclade in europe 25,000ybp it destrys their idea iit came in neloithic all other studies said hey where h17 or h27

also a very faous find of mtdna h in south italy from 28,000ybp study in 2008 concluded it was mtdna h but ancient eurasin dnarefernced that study but said it was hv or u all other resurses i looked up said it was for sure h but he mtdna h neloithic people claimed there was some mistake they said contamination sp they tested all people that had contact with remain none of them had matcing muation it was for sure mtdna h but pmany people deny it and just ignore the vast evidence mtdna h has been spread out in europe for probably over 33,000 years

Well, that can be true. There was a similar case with Cro-Magnon 1 who was typed for mtDNA T2b. But I seriously think it was a contamination because T2b cannot be that old. They actually cancelled a results.

Let's wait for some more fossils tested.

[Atlantic Islander]

It's probably older than the Neolithic.

[Caismeachd]

My dad has H1 but I can't figure out much about it online. Is this a type that is common in Scotland and where would it have originated from?

[Fire Haired]

My dad has H1 but I can't figure out much about it online. Is this a type that is common in Scotland and where would it have originated from?

I posted this more than a half a year ago so not everything I say here is what I believe now. A lot has been learned about Mesolithic European hunter gatherers and near eastern farmers through ancient DNA in the last 6 or so months. I think there may have been H in pre Neolithic Europe but most H in modern Europe descends from the near eastern farmers. Without any ancient mtDNA people concluded much of H and other mtDNA in Europe are pre Neolithic because there are many exclusively European subclades. Now we know through ancient mtDNA they were absent(H, J, T in Karelian hunter gatherers, debated H in Mesolithic and Palaeolithic Iberia, for sure RO members in Palaeolithic Iberi and Italy, and in Palaeolithic Italy) from European hunter gatherers and dominate in near eastern farmer immigrants. I planned(not enough time and lazy) about a month ago to gather as much mtDNA from Europe, west Eurasia, or where ever as I possible could and then could create hypothesis on where it all came from. I am just assuming almost all non U5, U4, U2e, U2d in Europe is from the Neolithic or afterwards but it is probably more complicated.

H1 is very popular in Europe. It is usefully around 15% or more in west-central-north Europe(including Finland) and spread out throughout Europe. I think it is a near eastern farmer lineage(even though today is most diverse in Europe and very exclusive to Europe). It has an age estimate of around 15,000 years old and seems very European but I think it originated in the near east and almost all H1 came to Europe with farming.

What subclade of R1b L11 do you have L21, Df27, etc? My paternal lineage is from Britain, my grandpa says his dad said the family was originally Scotch Irish but my great uncle said their dad said the family was originally Scottish, English, and Irish(maybe meaning Scotch Irish). My paternal lineage could be from Scotland or England(I really doubt Wales and Ireland) and I am pretty sure I am under subclade Df27. Me and you have Y DNA R1b L11 and mtDNA U5b2a(I have U5b2a2 maybe you do to), it is pretty rare to find someone with that combination. My dad also has H but a very rare subclade H64 less than 10 members have been found at FTDNA(my dad test was Geno 2,0) Norway(the same area my dads maternal lineage is from)=2, Ireland=2, and Germany=1.

Our maternal linage is from Mesolithic central-west Europe. U5b and more specifically U5b2 dominates mtDNA from Mesolithic central-west Europeans. Already an over 10,000 year old U5b2a2 sample has been found in Germany. Our paternal lineages are from Indo European conquerors(specifically Insular Celts) and maternal lineage from native Mesolithic central-west Europeans, who probably first mixed in with near eastern farmers then Indo Europeans.

[Hanibalas Lekteris]

I want to say that the fact that H's phylogeny tends to portray European-specific clades reminds me of mtDNA haplogroup J's J1c clade.

I think that H expanded in Europe during the 8.2 kiloyear event with the Neolithic and subsequently diversified in situ... This is what the aDNA is showing actually.

The earlier Mesolithic and Palaeolithic H samples seem to represent early expansions which never really took off... Outliers, if you ask me.

[Artek]

The earlier Mesolithic and Palaeolithic H samples seem to represent early expansions which never really took off... Outliers, if you ask me.
The earlier Mesolithic and Paleolithic H samples are probably not H, maybe HV at best. Those results aren't certain, even a single one of them.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I'm almost certain it spread from spain, and that r1b did, as well.

I don't buy for a second that these two can be split apart, either. One didn't come from siberia while the other came from north africa (just as example) and any theory that says that's the case is utter crap.

[Artek]

I'm almost certain it spread from spain, and that r1b did, as well.
So when did R1b spread from Spain?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

So when did R1b spread from Spain?

At end of ice age.

[Artek]

At end of ice age.
Well, that's one of the theories. For now I don't see it as credible enough but maybe aDNA will confirm it to the elation of Spaniards that they were always there :laugh:

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Well, that's one of the theories. For now I don't see it as credible enough but maybe aDNA will confirm it to the elation of Spaniards that they were always there :laugh:

I can't really buy anything else, except maybe north african origin. 6k years ago there was no sahara and things were pretty paradisical.

The idea farming came to europe from near east via land is utterly dead, though. That probably kills the idea LBK spread H or r1b.

[Hanibalas Lekteris]

At end of ice age.

That's a seriously outdated theory, nothing enables us to put faith in it.

[Black Wolf]

I want to say that the fact that H's phylogeny tends to portray European-specific clades reminds me of mtDNA haplogroup's J1c clade.

I think that H expanded in Europe during the 8.2 kiloyear event with the Neolithic and subsequently diversified in situ... This is what the aDNA is showing actually.

The earlier Mesolithic and Palaeolithic H samples seem to represent early expansions which never really took off... Outliers, if you ask me.

I agree with what you say here as this seems to be the most likely case from the evidence/data we have to date. I know that the H sample from Mesolithic Karelia is H2a2 or something along those lines. H just like U is a very large and broad haplogroup. To get a better idea of it's spread and time lines we need to look at subclades like H1, H2, H3, etc.

[Hanibalas Lekteris]

I agree with what you say here as this seems to be the most likely case from the evidence/data we have to date. I know that the H sample from Mesolithic Karelia is H2a2 or something along those lines. H just like U is a very large and broad haplogroup. To get a better idea of it's spread and time lines we need to look at subclades like H1, H2, H3, etc.

I tend to think that most uniparental lineages we find nowadays have expanded within the last 7000 years, this scheme tends to fit for most H clades (including H5).
Y-DNA haplogroups R1b, J2 and R1a seem to have spread much later, probably during the late Chalcolithic and early Bronze Age.
The same holds true for most I and G clades found in Europe.

[Caismeachd]

I posted this more than a half a year ago so not everything I say here is what I believe now. A lot has been learned about Mesolithic European hunter gatherers and near eastern farmers through ancient DNA in the last 6 or so months. I think there may have been H in pre Neolithic Europe but most H in modern Europe descends from the near eastern farmers. Without any ancient mtDNA people concluded much of H and other mtDNA in Europe are pre Neolithic because there are many exclusively European subclades. Now we know through ancient mtDNA they were absent(H, J, T in Karelian hunter gatherers, debated H in Mesolithic and Palaeolithic Iberia, for sure RO members in Palaeolithic Iberi and Italy, and in Palaeolithic Italy) from European hunter gatherers and dominate in near eastern farmer immigrants. I planned(not enough time and lazy) about a month ago to gather as much mtDNA from Europe, west Eurasia, or where ever as I possible could and then could create hypothesis on where it all came from. I am just assuming almost all non U5, U4, U2e, U2d in Europe is from the Neolithic or afterwards but it is probably more complicated.

H1 is very popular in Europe. It is usefully around 15% or more in west-central-north Europe(including Finland) and spread out throughout Europe. I think it is a near eastern farmer lineage(even though today is most diverse in Europe and very exclusive to Europe). It has an age estimate of around 15,000 years old and seems very European but I think it originated in the near east and almost all H1 came to Europe with farming.

What subclade of R1b L11 do you have L21, Df27, etc? My paternal lineage is from Britain, my grandpa says his dad said the family was originally Scotch Irish but my great uncle said their dad said the family was originally Scottish, English, and Irish(maybe meaning Scotch Irish). My paternal lineage could be from Scotland or England(I really doubt Wales and Ireland) and I am pretty sure I am under subclade Df27. Me and you have Y DNA R1b L11 and mtDNA U5b2a(I have U5b2a2 maybe you do to), it is pretty rare to find someone with that combination. My dad also has H but a very rare subclade H64 less than 10 members have been found at FTDNA(my dad test was Geno 2,0) Norway(the same area my dads maternal lineage is from)=2, Ireland=2, and Germany=1.

Our maternal linage is from Mesolithic central-west Europe. U5b and more specifically U5b2 dominates mtDNA from Mesolithic central-west Europeans. Already an over 10,000 year old U5b2a2 sample has been found in Germany. Our paternal lineages are from Indo European conquerors(specifically Insular Celts) and maternal lineage from native Mesolithic central-west Europeans, who probably first mixed in with near eastern farmers then Indo Europeans.

I have the same subclade as Graham, L-21, but I don't know much about subclades. I know U5 history well enough but wasn't certain of H1 since so much information out there is vague.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

That's a seriously outdated theory, nothing enables us to put faith in it.

The correct one, though.

[Hanibalas Lekteris]

The correct one, though.

I seriously doubt that.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Well, let's look at the wikipedia entry.



Haplogroup H is a descendant of haplogroup HV. The Cambridge Reference Sequence (CRS), the human mitochondrial sequence to which all other sequences are compared, belongs to haplogroup H2a2a. Several independent studies conclude that haplogroup H probably evolved in West Asia c. 25,000 years ago. It was carried to Europe by migrations c. 20-25,000 years ago, and spread with population of the southwest of the continent.[3][4] Its arrival was roughly contemporary with the rise of the Gravettian culture. The spread of subclades H1, H3 and the sister haplogroup V reflect a second intra-European expansion from the Franco-Cantabrian region after the last glacial maximum, c. 13,000 years ago.[1][3]


In July 2008 ancient mtDNA from an individual called Paglicci 23, whose remains were dated to 25,000 years ago and excavated from Paglicci Cave (Apulia, Italy), were found to be identical to the Cambridge Reference Sequence in HVR1.[5] This once was believed to indicate haplogroup H, but researchers now recognize that CRS can also appear in U or HV.


Now this makes perfect sense to me.

The talk about spreading from near east through neolithic farmers doesn't come from real scientists. It comes from dudes on the internet who read some studies then make up some BS.

That doesn't mean they are wrong and that's basically what we are, too. But you are making some kind of appeal to authority when authorities don't agree any of this is true.

There's also a lot of factors to say this didn't happen.

1. FARMING DID NOT SPREAD TO EUROPE VIA LAND. LBK DID NOT POPULATE EUROPE. We now know this is a 100% busted theory. Can't tell you how many times I have seen people drag this up even as it gets less and less likely. There's farming further west, earlier. And farming MUCH sooner in Greece, that comes from the sea, thousands of years sooner. Didn't happen, period.

2. FARMING ALSO DID NOT COME TO EUROPE FROM 'WEST ASIA'. The farming in greece also predates the farming in near east people try to claim spread to europe by thousands of years, as well. There's some earlier possible farming in levant but it did not seem to take off. Farming in egypt came WAY later than in western europe too (and not just greece), so if this is the origin of farming then it must have been an extremely strange expansion pattern.


This is just stuff that amateurs made up, and has been given way more legs that it ever should have had mainly because the clown at eupedia makes up whatever nordicist/anti western europe nonsense he wants and then publishes it as if it's truth. That guy has a heavy political agenda, though. It was retarded but possible before. Now it's clearly impossible.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?104982-Farming-came-to-greece-from-the-sea

[Black Wolf]

I tend to think that most uniparental lineages we find nowadays have expanded within the last 7000 years, this scheme tends to fit for most H clades (including H5).
Y-DNA haplogroups R1b, J2 and R1a seem to have spread much later, probably during the late Chalcolithic and early Bronze Age.
The same holds true for most I and G clades found in Europe.

I am quite curious about when Y-DNA haplogroup J2a spread into Europe from West Asia/Near East as this is my own Y-DNA haplogroup. Most if not all of it seems to be a rather late arrival.

[Fire Haired]

I want to say that the fact that H's phylogeny tends to portray European-specific clades reminds me of mtDNA haplogroup J's J1c clade.

I think that H expanded in Europe during the 8.2 kiloyear event with the Neolithic and subsequently diversified in situ... This is what the aDNA is showing actually.

The earlier Mesolithic and Palaeolithic H samples seem to represent early expansions which never really took off... Outliers, if you ask me.

There are confirmed RO's in Palaeolithic Spain and Italy, all the H's though from Mesolithic or Palaeolithic Iberia and Italy are debated. Ancient mtDNA is pretty much proven "European" subclades of pretty much everything that is not under mtDNA U(K-) came with near eastern farmers. The near eastern farmers descended from the same root modern near easterns do but there are still some major differences because of admixture that came to the near east after farming spread to Europe and European(hunter gatherer) admixture in early European farmers. I think there also may be many different forms of near eastern that are related in various ways to the types that spread with farming in Europe. Why is near eastern mtDNA in Europe almost never found in modern near easterns? European farmer subclades have common ancestors with their modern near eastern relatives going back 10,000-20,000 years so mostly before farming began. It is like an entire population of early farmers in the near east migrated to Europe.

Not all pre-Neolithic Europeans were like Loschbour. I bet the ones in Greece and much of the Balkans had a lot of near eastern ancestry. There was probably some gene flow between near eastern and European hunter gatherers that could explain RO's, H's, T, and J found in Mesolithic Europeans. There also could be very rare subclades in Europe of haplogroups that are typical of early European farmers that actually descend from Mesolithic Europeans.

[Fire Haired]

I am quite curious about when Y-DNA haplogroup J2a spread into Europe from West Asia/Near East as this is my own Y-DNA haplogroup. Most if not all of it seems to be a rather late arrival.

I have not thought about Y DNA J in Europe for a long time. It could have multiple origins some may even be pre Neolithic like J2b. My guess right now(know almost nothing about it) is that most is post Neolithic.

[Fire Haired]

Well, let's look at the wikipedia entry.



Now this makes perfect sense to me.

The talk about spreading from near east through neolithic farmers doesn't come from real scientists. It comes from dudes on the internet who read some studies then make up some BS.

That doesn't mean they are wrong and that's basically what we are, too. But you are making some kind of appeal to authority when authorities don't agree any of this is true.

There's also a lot of factors to say this didn't happen.

1. FARMING DID NOT SPREAD TO EUROPE VIA LAND. LBK DID NOT POPULATE EUROPE. We now know this is a 100% busted theory. Can't tell you how many times I have seen people drag this up even as it gets less and less likely. There's farming further west, earlier. And farming MUCH sooner in Greece, that comes from the sea, thousands of years sooner. Didn't happen, period.

2. FARMING ALSO DID NOT COME TO EUROPE FROM 'WEST ASIA'. The farming in greece also predates the farming in near east people try to claim spread to europe by thousands of years, as well. There's some earlier possible farming in levant but it did not seem to take off. Farming in egypt came WAY later than in western europe too (and not just greece), so if this is the origin of farming then it must have been an extremely strange expansion pattern.


This is just stuff that amateurs made up, and has been given way more legs that it ever should have had mainly because the clown at eupedia makes up whatever nordicist/anti western europe nonsense he wants and then publishes it as if it's truth. That guy has a heavy political agenda, though. It was retarded but possible before. Now it's clearly impossible.

Melonhead you are Eurocentric and surprisingly also feminist(how common is that combination?). The majority of what you say is motivated by some type of agenda or is just rebelling against what mainstream thinks. Farming did spread to Europe from the near east we now have ancient DNA to prove it. You don't always have to make big theories and know all the answers right away(I have this problem too), humbly do research and consider every possible answer. Most of the "experts" who say and said farming spread from the near east to Europe were and are European themselves so if they had an agenda it would make more sense for them to say farming spread to the near east from Europe.

Ancient DNA has taken away almost all possibility that most H or any other non U5, U2, and U4 in Europe being mainly pre Neolithic.

[Fire Haired]

Melonhead what Wikipedia said is based on old theories which didn't have much ancient DNA to look at.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Melonhead you are Eurocentric and surprisingly also feminist(how common is that combination?). The majority of what you say is motivated by some type of agenda or is just rebelling against what mainstream thinks. Farming did spread to Europe from the near east we now have ancient DNA to prove it. You don't always have to make big theories and know all the answers right away(I have this problem too), humbly do research and consider every possible answer. Most of the "experts" who say and said farming spread from the near east to Europe were and are European themselves so if they had an agenda it would make more sense for them to say farming spread to the near east from Europe.

Ancient DNA has taken away almost all possibility that most H or any other non U5, U2, and U4 in Europe being mainly pre Neolithic.

Nope. This is pure bullshit. Every single word. Especially funny you call me a feminist...man, saying that west is more matriarchal is simply fact, and you could look some of this up pretty easily.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/04/mtdna-haplogroup-h-and-origin-of.html

Archaeologically, the theory you accept is completely impossible. All the mtdna found in many studies in spain is 'upstream' of H, but they don't test for H in most the studies.

J was never found as part of neolithic farmers, but they have been pegged as neolithic farmers by retards, anyway.

E is probably not neolithic farmer DNA, either. There's no proof of this being the origin whatsoever. Simply finding it in some (late) neolithic sites is a ridiculous way to assign it as such. Every society we know of with E predominating started off as pastoralists and didn't farm until later.

The place where farming started in greece, is not an E area even today.

[Fire Haired]

Melonhead I am so sick of your pride and stubbornness that don't see reason to respond to you.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Melonhead I am so sick of your pride and stubbornness that don't see reason to respond to you.

Why don't you ever try to prove your case instead of insult me?

First and foremost, show me some ancient r1b outside of europe. Show me some ancient I1 y-dna IN europe. Show me some ancient H outside europe or north africa. You can't. That means you have no case, because obviously it had to come from somewhere.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Melonhead what Wikipedia said is based on old theories which didn't have much ancient DNA to look at.

This is bullshit. Scientists control the wikipedia entries. They delete stupid speculative bullshit.

All those theories are now also completely invalidated by the stuff I linked to already. They are the out of date ones, disproven before ever being accepted by anyone (except some guy on the internet). Farming didn't spread like that, so it's all invalid bullshit. Farming didn't come to europe from LBK but the other way around. Because we have farming thousands of years before that further west.

So how can you dispute this?

[Fire Haired]

Melonhead here is Palaeolithic DNA (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?106275-Palaeolithic-DNA) and Mesolithic DNA (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?106277-Mesolithic-DNA)from ancestral Journeys(very epic name). There are some debated H's and a few samples which are for sure in the RO family. Have you read the original studies? How would you know they didn't test for H? There is hardly any continuum between pre Neolithic and modern European mtDNA. Many "European" subclades appear in near eastern farmer immigrants. Ancient mtDNA has proven the fast majority of non U5, U2, U4, and U* in Europe came with farming from the near east. I don't see why you keep rejecting this? There is really no need for an argument. Genomes of European farmers and hunter gatherers has proven they were two different populations, and the farmers coming from the same root modern near easterns do. Farming spread to Europe from the near east with a new people almost all anthropologist, genetics, archeologist, etc. would agree with that.

Where have you ever heard there is evidence farming spread from Europe to the near east?

Neolithic age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic)

researcher whatever you want nothing will say it spread from Europe to the near east. I cant say much about the mtDNA because I haven't studied much on how subclades are distributed. I don't feel like arguing much because most of the evidence is common sense.

[Fire Haired]

Why don't you ever try to prove your case instead of insult me?

First and foremost, show me some ancient r1b outside of europe. Show me some ancient I1 y-dna IN europe. Show me some ancient H outside europe or north africa. You can't. That means you have no case, because obviously it had to come from somewhere.

Sorry for the insulting.

We don't have genomes of every person to ever live in human history. It is no big deal that I1 has not been found in ancient Y DNA. There are actually quite a few of H samples from Neolithic near east(before farmers were even close to central Europe). There is absolutely no evidence R1b originated in Europe. It is absent from all Neolithic and Mesolithic west European Y DNA. Almost all west European R1b traces back to one man who lived only about 5,000-6,000 years ago. European R1b is simply an offspring of near eastern R1b. No R1b outside of Europe is no surprise in ancient Y DNA since there are so FEW samples(including none from the near east).

I read one poster at Eurogenes who argued red hair is only around 6,000 years old because the oldest sample of it is 4,000 years old(I think he is talking about Charchen man who is 3,000 years old). I was thinking does he realize how shocking it is that a bronze age ginger has already been found since red hair is practically non existent from most Europe(and everywhere else in the world) and even where it isn't non existent it is still very rare. Plus that man was in western China which would surprise many people, he was descended of copper age Indo Europeans from Russia. It is great evidence red hair is at least 6,000 years old. Since there is evidence it was somewhat popular(over 1%) in Indo Iranians and Tocharian's.

[Black Wolf]

Farming spread from the Near East to Europe. Not from Europe to the Near East.

[Black Wolf]

So is it safe to say then that the vast majority if not all of the mtDNA haplogroup H, J, K and T lineages in present day Europeans came with Neolithic farmers from the Near East?

[Hanibalas Lekteris]

So is it safe to say then that the vast majority if not all of the mtDNA haplogroup H, J, K and T lineages in present day Europeans came with Neolithic farmers from the Near East?

In my book, it is.

I will answer your question about J2a btw, so hang on.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Farming spread from the Near East to Europe. Not from Europe to the Near East.

They were not related to each other. I don't know how you can see that greece has farming thousands of years sooner, then reiterate the same lame tune.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

So is it safe to say then that the vast majority if not all of the mtDNA haplogroup H, J, K and T lineages in present day Europeans came with Neolithic farmers from the Near East?

No. Basically every single thing you said is wrong.

J, K and T are obviously unrelated to H. They are also very rare in europe. H in anatolia came from the west. There is no way to argue otherwise, especially since anatolian population today is nothing to do with ancient population. T is not a spread by farming at all, either. In fact only K was.

There's no ancient H found in near east, this is bullshit made up by retards.

[Black Wolf]

They were not related to each other. I don't know how you can see that greece has farming thousands of years sooner, then reiterate the same lame tune.

Agriculture (farming) spread from Anatolia and the Near East to Greece and then to the rest of Europe..

[Black Wolf]

No. Basically every single thing you said is wrong.

J, K and T are obviously unrelated to H. They are also very rare in europe. H in anatolia came from the west. There is no way to argue otherwise, especially since anatolian population today is nothing to do with ancient population. T is not a spread by farming at all, either. In fact only K was.

There's no ancient H found in near east, this is bullshit made up by retards.

Obviously J, K and T are not closely related genetically to H. They lived in similar cultures though. How the hell do you know any of that? Where is your evidence?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Sorry for the insulting.

We don't have genomes of every person to ever live in human history. It is no big deal that I1 has not been found in ancient Y DNA. There are actually quite a few of H samples from Neolithic near east(before farmers were even close to central Europe). There is absolutely no evidence R1b originated in Europe. It is absent from all Neolithic and Mesolithic west European Y DNA. Almost all west European R1b traces back to one man who lived only about 5,000-6,000 years ago. European R1b is simply an offspring of near eastern R1b. No R1b outside of Europe is no surprise in ancient Y DNA since there are so FEW samples(including none from the near east).

I read one poster at Eurogenes who argued red hair is only around 6,000 years old because the oldest sample of it is 4,000 years old(I think he is talking about Charchen man who is 3,000 years old). I was thinking does he realize how shocking it is that a bronze age ginger has already been found since red hair is practically non existent from most Europe(and everywhere else in the world) and even where it isn't non existent it is still very rare. Plus that man was in western China which would surprise many people, he was descended of copper age Indo Europeans from Russia. It is great evidence red hair is at least 6,000 years old. Since there is evidence it was somewhat popular(over 1%) in Indo Iranians and Tocharian's.

But we have an ancient r1b about 5k years ago. There's just no way that it went from one guy to 210 million in that short a time.

They used to talk about blue eyes being 5k years old, and same with freckles. That's already blown out of the water.

R1B has dozens of subclades, way more than any other clade. It's simply impossible for it to be that young.

Of course it's a big deal not to have any evidence of its origins. The idea it's that young is just an assumption which is made so it fits the theory they want to promote. Why not apply the same theory to africa and say that everything in a particular palce came from elsewhere? It's all politics, and unless you can demonstrate it did such as find original R1b, it's pissing in the wind.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Agriculture (farming) spread from Anatolia and the Near East to Greece and then to the rest of Europe..

No, it did not. Go back and read the link I already posted about greek farming. Greece had farming which came from the sea, and also came much earlier than the 'land route' farmers. Thousands of years. Also thousands of years before egypt. If it came from the near east then it didn't come from any society we know about. This is now a busted theory.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Obviously J, K and T are not closely related genetically to H. They lived in similar cultures though. How the hell do you know any of that? Where is your evidence?

The question is where is your evidence.

What is the relation between any of these clades? There is none. Just look at the maps of each clade and try to piece it together.

If it was spread in some society that had all three it would be pervasive in europe. It's obvious that is not the case and there was never a mass colonization of europe in this manner. Not by peoples with any of these clades.

The only one arguable at all is H, and that argument is laughable. That's the only one any anthropologists try to argue anyway. The rest is just made up.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

There's also only specific cultures that can be candiates as well. The land route hypothesis says bell beaker. But that's clearly wrong is it's about 4k years behind greece and several thousand years after several more western sites.

They are in europe in very low levels because they never came in through a mass colonization. T is almost certainly pastoral as well.

[Fire Haired]

No. Basically every single thing you said is wrong.

J, K and T are obviously unrelated to H. They are also very rare in europe. H in anatolia came from the west. There is no way to argue otherwise, especially since anatolian population today is nothing to do with ancient population. T is not a spread by farming at all, either. In fact only K was.

There's no ancient H found in near east, this is bullshit made up by retards.

Combined J,K, T can get to about 30% in average Europeans. How would you know H in Anatolia came from the west? How would you know modern Anatolians have nothing to do with ancient ones? I am not your enemy, I just think you make assumptions. Why is T non existent(except for a few samples during the Neolithic age) in European hunter gatherers but distinctfully European subclades appear in early farmers?

There are H samples from the ancient near east.
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/wasianneolithicdna.shtml

[Fire Haired]

The question is where is your evidence.

What is the relation between any of these clades? There is none. Just look at the maps of each clade and try to piece it together.

If it was spread in some society that had all three it would be pervasive in europe. It's obvious that is not the case and there was never a mass colonization of europe in this manner. Not by peoples with any of these clades.

The only one arguable at all is H, and that argument is laughable.

If H, J, T, and K were spread to Europe by people who had them at similar frequencies as modern Europeans it would make sense. There were no mtDNA T people 10,000 years ago. Those lineages had mixed into many different populations. You are ignoring ancient DNA if you say only most of European H comes from near eastern farmers

[Hanibalas Lekteris]

I am quite curious about when Y-DNA haplogroup J2a spread into Europe from West Asia/Near East as this is my own Y-DNA haplogroup. Most if not all of it seems to be a rather late arrival.

The older theory about the spread of J2a-M410 was that it followed the emergence and spread of agriculture from the Near East.
This was primarly based on comparison between J2a's distribution and the amount of annual precipitations.
Of course, J2a happened to correlate with a higher amount of rainfall while J1 correlates with lower amounts.

This is a valid criteria, but the Neolithic farming hypothesis for J2a's spread is actually dying a horrible death.
This is mainly due to the fact that J2a simply hasn't been found in any given Neolithic sample, whereas G2a appears to have been a major lineage associated with the spread of farming.
Now absence of evidence doesn't stand for evidence of absence, though it is becoming harder and harder to subscribe to a farming-linked dispersal of J2a.

In fact, considering most of J2a clades' age estimates, the late neolithich/chalcolithic period is looks like a serious contender.
It also tends to fit with the fact that M67 is of relatively recent origin amongst Nakh speakers, this is corroborated by the fact that NE Caucasian (and North Caucasian in general) unity seems to go back to the late neolithic-early Chalcolithic.
So it is very likely that J2a spread with the emergence of copper work, I would associate this mainly with L70 and M67 clades (not M530).

The J2a folk would've spoken North Caucasian-like languages, would've had high ANI (though I could be wrong about this) and took up IE languages later on (some clades, such as M92, even fit with the spread of Greek settlements throughout the Mediterranean basin and the Black Sea).

Hope this answers your question.

[Black Wolf]

No, it did not. Go back and read the link I already posted about greek farming. Greece had farming which came from the sea, and also came much earlier than the 'land route' farmers. Thousands of years. Also thousands of years before egypt. If it came from the near east then it didn't come from any society we know about. This is now a busted theory.

Ya and where do you think those farmers who came to Greece by sea came from? They came from the Near East and Anatolia.

[Hanibalas Lekteris]

Also, the coastal Levant would've been mainly J2a prior to the Bronze Age Collapse circa 1200 BCE, which isn't exactly surprising since J2a originated in Central-South Anatolia and the Transcaucasus (J2a clades seem pretty diverse and basal in the Levant, Jews included, so there must have been loads of different J2a migrations to the area though I think that the most important ones had to do with the Hurrians during the Bronze Age).

[Fire Haired]

But we have an ancient r1b about 5k years ago. There's just no way that it went from one guy to 210 million in that short a time.

They used to talk about blue eyes being 5k years old, and same with freckles. That's already blown out of the water.

R1B has dozens of subclades, way more than any other clade. It's simply impossible for it to be that young.

Of course it's a big deal not to have any evidence of its origins. The idea it's that young is just an assumption which is made so it fits the theory they want to promote. Why not apply the same theory to africa and say that everything in a particular palce came from elsewhere? It's all politics, and unless you can demonstrate it did such as find original R1b, it's pissing in the wind.

I am totally against any type of racial agenda, whether it is Eurocentric, Afrocentric, anti-European, anti-naïve American, etc. Name one of the over 30 Y DNA samples from Neolithic central-west Europe with R1b? None did, now try to name one of the close to 10 Y DNA samples from Mesolithic north-west Europe? You cant name any. R1b arrived in west Europe about 5,000 years ago. There is hardly any diversity of R1b in west Europe there almost all is under one lineage R1b L11 which has an age estimate of about 5,000-6,000 years old. The way it spread was probably conquest by Indo European Celts, Germans, and Italians. It is connected to a bunch of other genetic shifts in western Europe that occurred after the Neolithic.

[Fire Haired]

The older theory about the spread of J2a-M410 was that it followed the emergence and spread of agriculture from the Near East.
This was primarly based on comparison between J2a's distribution and the amount of annual precipitations.
Of course, J2a happened to correlate with a higher amount of rainfall while J1 correlates with lower amounts.

This is a valid criteria, but the Neolithic farming hypothesis for J2a's spread is actually dying a horrible death.
This is mainly due to the fact that J2a simply hasn't been found in any given Neolithic sample, whereas G2a appears to have been a major lineage associated with the spread of farming.
Now absence of evidence doesn't stand for evidence of absence, though it is becoming harder and harder to subscribe to a farming-linked dispersal of J2a.

In fact, considering most of J2a clades' age estimates, the late neolithich/chalcolithic period is looks like a serious contender.
It also tends to fit with the fact that M67 is of relatively recent origin amongst Nakh speakers, this is corroborated by the fact that NE Caucasian (and North Caucasian in general) unity seems to go back to the late neolithic-early Chalcolithic.
So it is very likely that J2a spread with the emergence of copper work, I would associate this mainly with L70 and M67 clades (not M530).

The J2a folk would've spoken North Caucasian-like languages, would've had high ANI (though I could be wrong about this) and took up IE languages later on (some clades, such as M92, even fit with the spread of Greek settlements throughout the Mediterranean basin and the Black Sea).

Hope this answers your question.

There is a pretty large amount of post Neolithic near eastern ancestry in Italy and Balkans, could be connected with some forms of Y DNA J.

[Anthropologique]

H may be Mesolithic. It's very European.

[Black Wolf]

The question is where is your evidence.

What is the relation between any of these clades? There is none. Just look at the maps of each clade and try to piece it together.

If it was spread in some society that had all three it would be pervasive in europe. It's obvious that is not the case and there was never a mass colonization of europe in this manner. Not by peoples with any of these clades.

The only one arguable at all is H, and that argument is laughable. That's the only one any anthropologists try to argue anyway. The rest is just made up.

Take a look at the link that Fire Haired already provided to you about Jean Manco's ancient DNA page. The answers are all there. H, J, K and T are all far more common among Neolithic farmer remains in Europe than they are among hunter-gatherers. If you can't see this then you are truly blind.

[Black Wolf]

The older theory about the spread of J2a-M410 was that it followed the emergence and spread of agriculture from the Near East.
This was primarly based on comparison between J2a's distribution and the amount of annual precipitations.
Of course, J2a happened to correlate with a higher amount of rainfall while J1 correlates with lower amounts.

This is a valid criteria, but the Neolithic farming hypothesis for J2a's spread is actually dying a horrible death.
This is mainly due to the fact that J2a simply hasn't been found in any given Neolithic sample, whereas G2a appears to have been a major lineage associated with the spread of farming.
Now absence of evidence doesn't stand for evidence of absence, though it is becoming harder and harder to subscribe to a farming-linked dispersal of J2a.

In fact, considering most of J2a clades' age estimates, the late neolithich/chalcolithic period is looks like a serious contender.
It also tends to fit with the fact that M67 is of relatively recent origin amongst Nakh speakers, this is corroborated by the fact that NE Caucasian (and North Caucasian in general) unity seems to go back to the late neolithic-early Chalcolithic.
So it is very likely that J2a spread with the emergence of copper work, I would associate this mainly with L70 and M67 clades (not M530).

The J2a folk would've spoken North Caucasian-like languages, would've had high ANI (though I could be wrong about this) and took up IE languages later on (some clades, such as M92, even fit with the spread of Greek settlements throughout the Mediterranean basin and the Black Sea).

Hope this answers your question.

It does in large part thank you and I agree with what you say here. I also believe that the old theory of J2a-M410 spreading around with the first farmers is dying a pretty horrible death. I think there is a very good chance most if not all of it spread around during the later Neolithic and Chalcolithic possibly with metal workers as you say. I also believe that the early J2a people were probably speakers of Caucasian (Caucasus) type languages. The fact that the modern day Vainakh peoples (Ingush and Chechens) are dominated by the M67 subclade of J2a relates to this I believe in ways.

Now the thing is if the first farmers who spread agriculture around were mainly G2a people then where were the J2a people at that time? Back in the Near East some where?

[Hanibalas Lekteris]

There is a pretty large amount of post Neolithic near eastern ancestry in Italy and Balkans, could be connected with some forms of Y DNA J.

My point exactly, most of it might be M92 which probably came with the Greeks.
Other clades might've come as late as around 1300 BCE with the Proto-Etruscans.

[Hanibalas Lekteris]

Now the thing is if the first farmers who spread agriculture around were mainly G2a people then where were the J2a people at that time? Back in the Near East some where?

They probably stayed put in the Transcaucasian area while J2b was already in Europe for some time.

[Black Wolf]

They probably stayed put in the Transcaucasian area while J2b was already in Europe for some time.

I wonder if J2a-M410 then would have been one of the original Neolithic farmer type haplogroups from the Near East/West Asia? It seems likely but it is G2a that so far seems to have spread with the first farmers mainly.

[Hanibalas Lekteris]

I wonder if J2a-M410 then would have been one of the original Neolithic farmer type haplogroups from the Near East/West Asia? It seems likely but it is G2a that so far seems to have spread with the first farmers mainly.

It is possible and could account for the spread of the M530 clade to the Iranian plateau, I have little doubt that the J2a folk practiced agriculture, the only difference is that they didn't initially spread with it...
Well, at least not westwards it seems.

[Fire Haired]

My point exactly, most of it might be M92 which probably came with the Greeks.
Other clades might've come as late as around 1300 BCE with the Proto-Etruscans.

I think some people assume everyone in Iberia was Iberian, everyone in France was Celtic, and everyone in Italy was Italic before the Roman empire. There were many non Indo European people in Iberia, France, and Italy who's origin is a mystery and make figuring out the genetic origins of those regions very hard and confusing. I know I have said this already, FTDNA is a great source to get mtDNA and Y DNA. It takes days or weeks of work to do one country(except for Y DNA if it is set up like this (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/norway/default.aspx?section=yresults)) but is definitely worth it. I have been to lazy to do a lot of countries.

[Fire Haired]

H may be Mesolithic. It's very European.

It was in Mesolithic Europe there is prove in Karelia. But probably the vast majority of modern European H came with near eastern farmers.

[Black Wolf]

It was in Mesolithic Europe there is prove in Karelia. But probably the vast majority of modern European H came with near eastern farmers.

The H in Mesolithic Karelia was an H2a type. As I said before we need to look at the subclades as they have different histories. Just like the U subclades all have different histories.

[Black Wolf]

It is possible and could account for the spread of the M530 clade to the Iranian plateau, I have little doubt that the J2a folk practiced agriculture, the only difference is that they didn't initially spread with it...
Well, at least not westwards it seems.

Interestingly enough the J2a subclade marked by the Z2227 SNP that I am part of is more closely related to the M67 subclade that dominates the Vainakh peoples of the North Caucasus than other J2a subclades such as L24 are.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?107812-Support-for-celts-coming-out-of-iberia

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Ya and where do you think those farmers who came to Greece by sea came from? They came from the Near East and Anatolia.

No, the dates of greek farming are much earlier, as I already said. Pay attention before mouthing off. If you do say something support it. You are just making shit up again.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Celts, and with it H, spread out of western europe.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?107812-Support-for-celts-coming-out-of-iberia

Europeans with r1b are the least mixed in europe. They show zero sign of mixing in last 5k years.

If they had recently come to europe it would be the opposite.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/02/human-admixture-common-in-human-history.html

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Southern greece (not athens) has had continuous farming for 9k years. Longer than the near east, and much sooner than any possible terrestrial spread of farming from middle east previously theorized.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/early-7th-millennium-bc-initial.html

Sweden had farmers arrive by the sea, long before any possibly near east spread, from unknown origin. They had clades much like today's sweden. They were nothing to do with near east. This is before LBK in central europe....

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/europeans-neolithic-farmers-mesolithic.html

Both of these are older than farming in Egypt, so this also says that a near east spread of farming is bullshit, because there's no way they'd sail to Sweden before Egypt.

[Black Wolf]

No, the dates of greek farming are much earlier, as I already said. Pay attention before mouthing off. If you do say something support it. You are just making shit up again.

Look here asshole it was you who was mouthing off in the first place with the shitty smart ass tones you take in your replies. I am making nothing up while you seem to make shit up all the time. I am wondering if you are just a troll or if you are actually this stupid? I am leaning towards the latter.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Actually it's 9k BC, so 11K years ago. Earlier than any site in the levant, much earlier than anatolia etc.

2k years before farming in cyprus, which was previously thought to be part of route from east to west - a possible way greece got farming.

Since there's some 20K year old signs of harvesting wild grains in north africa, and for a bunch of other reasons, I suspect this is the place to look. Until 6k years ago there was no sahara and it was an extremely fertile region.

[Fire Haired]

Southern greece (not athens) has had continuous farming for 9k years. Longer than the near east, and much sooner than any possible terrestrial spread of farming from middle east previously theorized.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/early-7th-millennium-bc-initial.html

Sweden had farmers arrive by the sea, long before any possibly near east spread, from unknown origin. They had clades much like today's sweden. They were nothing to do with near east. This is before LBK in central europe....

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/europeans-neolithic-farmers-mesolithic.html

Both of these are older than farming in Egypt, so this also says that a near east spread of farming is bullshit, because there's no way they'd sail to Sweden before Egypt.

Melonhead I don't want be your enemy/jerk. I think we just dis agree. I think you should evaluate evidence before making big conclusions. All evidence points towards farming spreading to Europe from the near east. Early farmers in Sweden were nearly identical to early farmers in central Europe(separated by about 2,000 years) and they mainly descended from the same source modern near easterns do. Hunter gatherer ancestry in Europe is the main thing that differentiates Europeans from near easterns. How do you explain Loschbour being probably 100% European and Stuttgart being majority near eastern? How do you explain the huge difference in Y DNA and mtDNA between European hunter gatherers and farmer immigrants from the near east? Even anthropologist agree farming was spread to Europe by a new people from the near east because of the differences in their skeletal features. If almost every expert in the world believes farming spread from the near east to Europe why should we believe you? You are just going off random sources on the internet and interpreting them in ways they were not meant to be.

Why couldn't they sail to Sweden before going to Egypt? Europe and Asia are apart of the same piece of land that is very important to remember. So when experts say farming began in the near east over 10,000 years ago they don't mean everyone from Turkey-Iran was farming, they are talking about specific regions. Greece doesn't stand for all of Europe. It is much closer to Syria than it is to Germany.

[Fire Haired]

Celts, and with it H, spread out of western europe.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?107812-Support-for-celts-coming-out-of-iberia

Europeans with r1b are the least mixed in europe. They show zero sign of mixing in last 5k years.

If they had recently come to europe it would be the opposite.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/02/human-admixture-common-in-human-history.html

The origin of Celts has been debated for hundreds of years and an origin in Iberia makes the least sense since R1b L11 and Indo European languages came from the east not far west. Celts did not spread mtDNA H because how do you explain the same frequencies in Finland and that most of Europe has never had any Celtic influence yet around 40% mtDNA H? mtDNA H doesn't define Europeans anyways that's a terrible assumption many people make.

There are significant amounts of R1b in the Balkans. I have not actually read that paper but from what I have read(from posters) it is probably almost all bull shit. Besides that article never said north-west Europeans(Iberians are south-west) are the most unadmixed Europeans. They just said in the last 4,000 years they have been. Which is totally inaccurate because English are Briton-Germanic mutts. European is Loschbour or I guess also MA-1 so genetically north-east Europeans are the most indigenous people in Europe.

[Fire Haired]

No, the dates of greek farming are much earlier, as I already said. Pay attention before mouthing off. If you do say something support it. You are just making shit up again.

Can you give sources to what you say? Everything I have read says farming in the near east is much older.

[Artek]

Celts, and with it H, spread out of western europe.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?107812-Support-for-celts-coming-out-of-iberia

Europeans with r1b are the least mixed in europe. They show zero sign of mixing in last 5k years.

If they had recently come to europe it would be the opposite.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/02/human-admixture-common-in-human-history.html

Are you trolling or are you really that ignorant, Melonhead? I may sound impolite but what you saying is contradictory to anything we have learned from recent discoveries.

[Hanibalas Lekteris]

Interestingly enough the J2a subclade marked by the Z2227 SNP that I am part of is more closely related to the M67 subclade that dominates the Vainakh peoples of the North Caucasus than other J2a subclades such as L24 are.

I'm well aware, and this is why I think most L70, Z2227 and M67 folk spoke some sort of North Caucasian language originally.

[Black Wolf]

I'm well aware, and this is why I think most L70, Z2227 and M67 folk spoke some sort of North Caucasian language originally.

I agree and think that is definitely a strong possibility. L70 is not as closely related to Z2227 as M67 is but it is still very possible that they all spoke North Caucasian like languages at some point in the past I think.

[Fire Haired]

The H in Mesolithic Karelia was an H2a type. As I said before we need to look at the subclades as they have different histories. Just like the U subclades all have different histories.

Can you give a source? That is very exciting news because H2a is most popular around eastern Europe today and has been found in metal age Indo Iranians. If it was from random farmer inter marriage H2a would almost definitely not be the subclade, unless early farmers in eastern Europe had a lot of H2a.

[Black Wolf]

Can you give a source? That is very exciting news because H2a is most popular around eastern Europe today and has been found in metal age Indo Iranians. If it was from random farmer inter marriage H2a would almost definitely not be the subclade, unless early farmers in eastern Europe had a lot of H2a.

Here you go it is in the paper.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003296

''The detection of haplogroup H in the Mesolithic site of aUz (one haplotype) is noteworthy. To date, haplogroup H has either been rare or absent in groups of hunter-gatherers previously described. It has not been found in hunter-gatherer mtDNA datasets of eastern Europe [12] and Scandinavia [13], but has been found in two hunter-gatherers of the Upper Palaeolithic sites of La Pasiega and La Chora in northern Spain [20]. The closest match to the ancient H haplotype in aUzPo belongs to sub-haplogroup H2a2 [59], which is more common in eastern Europe [60] with highest frequencies in the Caucasus. Current ancient data is too scarce to investigate the past phylogeography of haplogroup H in full detail. However, together with U4, U5 haplotypes this H haplotype suggests continuity of some maternal lineages in (North) East Europe since the Mesolithic.''

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164492/

24k year old remains in italy look to be HV. So the idea that H formed in near east is just buttfuck retarded.

There's countless "could be" H and HV finds in western europe, btw. However they usually simply don't test for H because they don't expect to find H, and it's cheaper (and uses less bones) to use fewer tests. So they have basically ruined most of available bones without performing the test that matters.

[Artek]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164492/

24k year old remains in italy look to be HV.
..or U5b3d, they tested only HVR1.


There's countless "could be" H and HV finds in western europe, btw. However they usually simply don't test for H because they don't expect to find H, and it's cheaper (and uses less bones) to use fewer tests. So they have basically ruined most of available bones without performing the test that matters.
Most of those "could be" tests were made quite early, whereas the recent tests are performed without having unambiguous results in 90% of cases.