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

[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...c-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...esolithic.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/sho...-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...n-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/sho...-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...n-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/...l.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.