Fire Haired
10-15-2013, 09:56 PM
Click here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29157-New-map-of-mtDNA-haplogroup-U5) for original thread on Eupedia MAciamo also made a map of mtDNA K yesterday click here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29155-New-map-of-mtDNA-haplogroup-K).
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-U5-map.png
At first I thought there is no way this is totally accurate there are not samples from every little spot on those maps. But his Y DNA maps seem very accurate and there is a lot more info on mtDNA so these maps are probably very accurate. I agree with him that U5 is very ancient in Europe because of two 31,155 year old U5's in Dolni Vestonice Czech republic (2013 study by fu et al (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213002157)) and that it takes up the majority of mtDNA from all European hunter gathers from Palaeloithic-Neloithic(Ancient Eurasian DNA (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml)). And that its age estimate ranges from 30,000-50,000 years old and is exclusively European. Non European U5 in north Africa and the Near east can deifntley be explained by European inter marriage. U5b1b in North Africa defintley is from Europe and probably came through Iberia around 9,000-15,000ybp(Saami and Berbers—An Unexpected Mitochondrial DNA Link (http://www.globaldiv.eu/SummerSchool/docs/Olivieri/Achilli%20et%20al%202005_hapl%20U_AJHG.pdf)). All the U5 I have seen so far in the Near east were the subclade was shown is under U5a. Which can be explained by spread of Indo Iranian languages in the Near east and India-Pakistan area because of how high U5a is in pale pigmented Indo Iranians in asia in bronze and iron age(Indo Iranian and Tocherian DNA (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1431-INdo-Iranian-and-Tocherian-DNA)). Maciamo also added that inter marriage with other European people like Greeks and in his opinion Hittites, Phrygians, Armenians who he thinks their ancestral languages came from Europe.
Maciamo I think generalized mtDNA U5 which is extremely old possibly 50,000 years old. And who knows why it is more or less popular in certain areas Each U5 subclade has its own story. He said it is the most common maternal lineage of European hunter gathers in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic age and even much later in north east Europe notably with Sami people. I guess technically Sami might be hunter gathers but they are still totally modernized and were even recorded by ancient Roman writer Tacitus 2,000ybp so its not like their as primitive and isolated as hunter gathers in Europe thousands of years ago. He didn't add that majority of Sami(48% U5) and Finnish(20% U5) U5 is under U5b1b.
Here is the mtDNa U and subclades of Finnish mtDNA from FTDNA.
U=460 26%(with subclade=440)
U5=359 78%(with subclade=187)
U5b=130 70%(all with subclade): U5b1=115 88.5%(U5b1b=109 95%(with sublade=108)(U5b1b1=77 71.3%(with subclade=76(U5b1b1-T152C!=1): U5b1b1a=76(with subclade=38): U5b1b1a1=38(with subclade=36) U5b1b1a1a=36)
U5b1b2=32 29.6%
U5b1e1=6 5.3%(of U5b1 subclades)
U5b2a=14 10.8%(of U5b subclades) U5b2a1=10(U5b2a1a=8(U5b2a1a1=5, U5b2a1a2=2, U5b2a1a-T16311C!=3), U5b2a2=2(U5b2a2b=1), U5b2a3=1, U5b2a5=1
U5a=57 30%(all with subclade):
U5a1=32 56%(U5a1b=17(14 with subclade)(U5a1b1=10)(U5a1b1c1=3), U5a1b3=3, U5a1b3=3, U5a1b2=1, U5a1b1a=1)
U5a1a1=6(U5a1a1b=2, U5a1a1a=1, U5a1a1-T152C!=1)
U5a1d2=4(U5a1d2a=2(U5a1d2a1=1), U5a1d2b=2)
U5a1f=2(U5a1f1a1=1)
U5a1c1=1
U5a1g=1
U5a2=25 44%(all with subclade): U5a2a1=18(U5a2a1a=9, U5a2a1b=2), U5a2b=5(U5a2b4=1), U5a2c1=1, U5a2e=1
U5b is 70% then U5b1 is 85% of U5b that means that as a total U5b1 is 61.5% of Finnish U5 and U5b1b is 58.3% of Finnish U5 and U5b1b1a and possibly U5b1b1a1 and U5b1b1a1a is 41.7% of Finnish U5. They don't really have a huge variety of U5 subclades and not as much as Mesolithic European hunter gathers. But about 50% of Finnish U5 so about 10% of their total mtDNA is not under deep subclade U5b1b1a and around 40% is not even U5b1. I would guess Sami 48% total U5 has similar subclade percentages but maybe why also 41.6% of Sami mtDNA is V is because of their founder lineages. If Sami really did have mtDNA percentages like Mesloithic European hunter gather samples you should except to also see a lot of U4 and U2e not just U5 and not such a high amount under the same deep subclade.
I think like Y DNA I1a2c L287 and I1a2d L300 (takes up 80% of Finnish I1) might be connected with the distribution of mtDNA U5b1b1a. Same with distribution Y DNA N1c in Scandinavia because they are all connected with Sami and Finnish people not Germanic Swedish and Norwegian. I also don't understand why Maciamo tried to connect mtDNA U5 with distribution of Y DNA I, N1c, and R1a when it is over 10,000 years older than any of those haplogroups. I think what he meant is I1 which no it doesn't really connect. I it does guess kind of with Y DNA N1c which is actually Mongliod it migrated to north east Europe originally from eastern asia around 8,000-10,000ybp(click here (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-review-of-haplogroup-n-y-dna.html)) so no way was it originally connected with mtDNA U5. It is connected though with Mongliod admixture in austomal DNA and Mongliod mtDNA haplogroups in northeastern Europe.
I think something important to remember is Austomal DNA of U5 dominated Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gathers shows overall they are most related to Finnish, Sami, and Baltic people who have the highest amount of mtDNA U5 but I doubt that means anything. Even though modern European mtDNA percentages is very different from European hunter gathers because of the much lower amount of U(U5, U4, and U2) and very high amount of H and then other groups J, T, K, X, I, and W. Austomal DNA of Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gathers definitely show a big portion of modern European ancestry is from pre Neolithic Europe. I know that in globe13 the group North Euro and groups in other tests with similar distribution were dominate in the hunter gathers and possibly were the only one in pre Neolithic Europe. It is highest in Finnish 79% and northeast Baltic over 75% and has very different percentages across Europe and averages about 40-60%. But I really don't understand the science behind Austomal DNA and figuring out how the U5 dominated hunter gathers are connected with modern Europeans is very complicated. According to this article click here (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/04/ancient-dna-from-neolithic-sweden.html)
We found that compared to a worldwide set of 1,638 individuals (21-23), all four Neolithic individuals clustered within European variation (Fig. S5). However, when focusing the analysis on 505 individuals of European and Levantine descent, the three Neolithic hunterg atherers appeared largely outside the distribution of the modern sample
And it is pretty obvious with mtDNA there was some type of almost extinction of hunter gather maternal lineages with the spread of farming. And the only Y DNa haplogroup that reaches above 1% in Europe that is from before the Palaeolithic is Y DNA I so most European paternal lineages also spread during or after the Neolithic age then why in austomal DNA do modern Europeans like Lithuanians so close to hunter gathers.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-U5-map.png
At first I thought there is no way this is totally accurate there are not samples from every little spot on those maps. But his Y DNA maps seem very accurate and there is a lot more info on mtDNA so these maps are probably very accurate. I agree with him that U5 is very ancient in Europe because of two 31,155 year old U5's in Dolni Vestonice Czech republic (2013 study by fu et al (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213002157)) and that it takes up the majority of mtDNA from all European hunter gathers from Palaeloithic-Neloithic(Ancient Eurasian DNA (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml)). And that its age estimate ranges from 30,000-50,000 years old and is exclusively European. Non European U5 in north Africa and the Near east can deifntley be explained by European inter marriage. U5b1b in North Africa defintley is from Europe and probably came through Iberia around 9,000-15,000ybp(Saami and Berbers—An Unexpected Mitochondrial DNA Link (http://www.globaldiv.eu/SummerSchool/docs/Olivieri/Achilli%20et%20al%202005_hapl%20U_AJHG.pdf)). All the U5 I have seen so far in the Near east were the subclade was shown is under U5a. Which can be explained by spread of Indo Iranian languages in the Near east and India-Pakistan area because of how high U5a is in pale pigmented Indo Iranians in asia in bronze and iron age(Indo Iranian and Tocherian DNA (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1431-INdo-Iranian-and-Tocherian-DNA)). Maciamo also added that inter marriage with other European people like Greeks and in his opinion Hittites, Phrygians, Armenians who he thinks their ancestral languages came from Europe.
Maciamo I think generalized mtDNA U5 which is extremely old possibly 50,000 years old. And who knows why it is more or less popular in certain areas Each U5 subclade has its own story. He said it is the most common maternal lineage of European hunter gathers in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic age and even much later in north east Europe notably with Sami people. I guess technically Sami might be hunter gathers but they are still totally modernized and were even recorded by ancient Roman writer Tacitus 2,000ybp so its not like their as primitive and isolated as hunter gathers in Europe thousands of years ago. He didn't add that majority of Sami(48% U5) and Finnish(20% U5) U5 is under U5b1b.
Here is the mtDNa U and subclades of Finnish mtDNA from FTDNA.
U=460 26%(with subclade=440)
U5=359 78%(with subclade=187)
U5b=130 70%(all with subclade): U5b1=115 88.5%(U5b1b=109 95%(with sublade=108)(U5b1b1=77 71.3%(with subclade=76(U5b1b1-T152C!=1): U5b1b1a=76(with subclade=38): U5b1b1a1=38(with subclade=36) U5b1b1a1a=36)
U5b1b2=32 29.6%
U5b1e1=6 5.3%(of U5b1 subclades)
U5b2a=14 10.8%(of U5b subclades) U5b2a1=10(U5b2a1a=8(U5b2a1a1=5, U5b2a1a2=2, U5b2a1a-T16311C!=3), U5b2a2=2(U5b2a2b=1), U5b2a3=1, U5b2a5=1
U5a=57 30%(all with subclade):
U5a1=32 56%(U5a1b=17(14 with subclade)(U5a1b1=10)(U5a1b1c1=3), U5a1b3=3, U5a1b3=3, U5a1b2=1, U5a1b1a=1)
U5a1a1=6(U5a1a1b=2, U5a1a1a=1, U5a1a1-T152C!=1)
U5a1d2=4(U5a1d2a=2(U5a1d2a1=1), U5a1d2b=2)
U5a1f=2(U5a1f1a1=1)
U5a1c1=1
U5a1g=1
U5a2=25 44%(all with subclade): U5a2a1=18(U5a2a1a=9, U5a2a1b=2), U5a2b=5(U5a2b4=1), U5a2c1=1, U5a2e=1
U5b is 70% then U5b1 is 85% of U5b that means that as a total U5b1 is 61.5% of Finnish U5 and U5b1b is 58.3% of Finnish U5 and U5b1b1a and possibly U5b1b1a1 and U5b1b1a1a is 41.7% of Finnish U5. They don't really have a huge variety of U5 subclades and not as much as Mesolithic European hunter gathers. But about 50% of Finnish U5 so about 10% of their total mtDNA is not under deep subclade U5b1b1a and around 40% is not even U5b1. I would guess Sami 48% total U5 has similar subclade percentages but maybe why also 41.6% of Sami mtDNA is V is because of their founder lineages. If Sami really did have mtDNA percentages like Mesloithic European hunter gather samples you should except to also see a lot of U4 and U2e not just U5 and not such a high amount under the same deep subclade.
I think like Y DNA I1a2c L287 and I1a2d L300 (takes up 80% of Finnish I1) might be connected with the distribution of mtDNA U5b1b1a. Same with distribution Y DNA N1c in Scandinavia because they are all connected with Sami and Finnish people not Germanic Swedish and Norwegian. I also don't understand why Maciamo tried to connect mtDNA U5 with distribution of Y DNA I, N1c, and R1a when it is over 10,000 years older than any of those haplogroups. I think what he meant is I1 which no it doesn't really connect. I it does guess kind of with Y DNA N1c which is actually Mongliod it migrated to north east Europe originally from eastern asia around 8,000-10,000ybp(click here (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-review-of-haplogroup-n-y-dna.html)) so no way was it originally connected with mtDNA U5. It is connected though with Mongliod admixture in austomal DNA and Mongliod mtDNA haplogroups in northeastern Europe.
I think something important to remember is Austomal DNA of U5 dominated Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gathers shows overall they are most related to Finnish, Sami, and Baltic people who have the highest amount of mtDNA U5 but I doubt that means anything. Even though modern European mtDNA percentages is very different from European hunter gathers because of the much lower amount of U(U5, U4, and U2) and very high amount of H and then other groups J, T, K, X, I, and W. Austomal DNA of Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gathers definitely show a big portion of modern European ancestry is from pre Neolithic Europe. I know that in globe13 the group North Euro and groups in other tests with similar distribution were dominate in the hunter gathers and possibly were the only one in pre Neolithic Europe. It is highest in Finnish 79% and northeast Baltic over 75% and has very different percentages across Europe and averages about 40-60%. But I really don't understand the science behind Austomal DNA and figuring out how the U5 dominated hunter gathers are connected with modern Europeans is very complicated. According to this article click here (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/04/ancient-dna-from-neolithic-sweden.html)
We found that compared to a worldwide set of 1,638 individuals (21-23), all four Neolithic individuals clustered within European variation (Fig. S5). However, when focusing the analysis on 505 individuals of European and Levantine descent, the three Neolithic hunterg atherers appeared largely outside the distribution of the modern sample
And it is pretty obvious with mtDNA there was some type of almost extinction of hunter gather maternal lineages with the spread of farming. And the only Y DNa haplogroup that reaches above 1% in Europe that is from before the Palaeolithic is Y DNA I so most European paternal lineages also spread during or after the Neolithic age then why in austomal DNA do modern Europeans like Lithuanians so close to hunter gathers.