Iberian DNA haplogroups from 20,000-4,340 years ago exactly like modern Europeans

[Atlantic Islander]

These people are just Iberians with I guess maybe some extra north African.

Actually (this is also old):

HLA class I and II polymorphisms in Azores show different settlements in Oriental and Central islands.

Human leucocyte antigen-A, -B, -Cw, -DRB1, -DQA1 and -DQB1 polymorphisms were examined in the Azorean population. The data were obtained at high-resolution level, using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with sequence-specific primer, PCR-sequence-specific oligonucleotides and sequence-based typing. The most frequent allele in each locus was: A*0201 (24.5%), B*510101 (9.8%), Cw*0401 (14.8%), DRB1*070101 (18.3%), DQA1*0201 (17.4%) and DQB1*0301 (19.4%). The predominant extended haplotype was A*0202-B*1503-Cw*0202-DRB1*090102-DQA1*0303- DQB1*0202 (1.9%), which was found to be absent in the Portuguese mainland. The present study corroborates historical sources that say the Azores were populated not only by Portuguese but also by other Europeans, mostly Flemish people. Despite dendrogram analysis showing some remote Asian genetic affinities, the lack of specific alleles and haplotypes from those populations does not allow us to conclude for direct influence. Haplotype and allele frequencies in Azores show no homogeneous distribution between Oriental and Central islands of this archipelago. The Oriental islands harbour several haplotypes already found in mainland Portugal and identified as Mediterranean and European. The Central group of islands on the contrary clearly shows an influence of north Europeans (most probably derived from a well-documented Flemish settlement), with much less affinity to mainland Portugal.

[Fire Haired]

Stop mumbling, right now. I asked you an specific question:
Who else was living in "Russia and else in Eastern Europe" during Copper Age ?.

I know early Indo Europeans. But Uralic's were separate and Finnish have little ancestry from Indo Europeans that migrated west out of the Russia. Sure you can argue for them having a lot of common ancestry with those early Indo Europeans of Russia but that's it. I showed you how U5a dominates U5 of pre historic Russia and Ukraine including early indo Iranians while Finnish and Sami are dominated by U5b. I showed you how there was also a high amount of U4 and U2e in Mesolithic Russians and early Indo Iranians in Asia while those two haplogroups are almost completely non existent in Finnish and Sami. You should look at the DNA results of early Indo Iranians in Asia because they were direct descendants of early Indo Europeans in Russia. Of course though not all were the same that is evident in the difference in eye color between copper age Pontiac steppe people(very dark) and bronze and iron age Indo Iranians(very light).

I've no idea where you pull your data (probably from Eupedia or some other trash source). Both types of U5 are present in East Baltic area, including in Finns. U4 is also present.

Lappalainen et al 2008, Migration Waves to the Baltic Sea Region.

I pull my sources from Ancestral Journeys and I organized it in my thread Ancient Eurasian DNA organized I have had to organize mtDNA myself from FTDNA to get an idea of how deep subclades are distributed(Sweden mtDNA from FTDNA) it takes literally a over 15 hours of pure work my brain feels like it will explode it takes so long. I am not surprised all the U5 from Russia is under U5a it is constant with pre historic U5 from Russia all were under U5a. All the populations with a decent amount of U5b1b are from Scandinavia or around Karelia. The Baltic people also have mostly U5a(of course including U5a1) not U5b and almost no U5b1b.

I don't understand are these only results for the haplogroups they listed does it not add up to 100% for each ethnic group? Would U5a that is not U5a1 go into the U5a section. I wish they would organize it in a more understandable way like I do.

There is no such population as Finnish-Saami, there are Finns and there are Saamis, two separate population having very different genetic makeup. You really think someone could take you seriously if you don't even know basic stuff ?.

Settle down I didn't curse at the Finnish people just I know they are genetically connected with Sami or Saami whatever you want to call them. The high amount of U5b1b1a and V in both is enough evidence to say there is a genetic connection. I guess Estonian is more related to Finnish than Sami language but still they are genetically connected. When comparing the to other Europeans a lot of times they are united in their differences. I will remember they are not the same people and not always say Finnish-Sami. Just last year I had no idea there were so many strange ethnic groups in Europe like Uralic and Turks.

Indeed but I was not writing about y-dna. Finns are rarity within Finno-Ugric speaking populations for having so very little of R1a1a*, all other F-U speaking populations have much much more of it. R1b-L11 has nothing to do with Indo-Europeans and there is absolutely no evidence for it ever been present in the Volga-Urals, where from both Finno-Ugric and Indo-European language groups originate from. Strain of R1b which MIGHT have been present at Volga-Urals is R1b-M73 which is pretty much nill at Europe (excluding Ukraine, Russia). It's mostly found from Turkic speaking populations today.

But Finnish and Sami do not have a high amount of R1a so they don't have a high amount of paternal lineages from early Indo Europeans. The R1a in Estonians is probably from Corded ware culture like R1a in Balto-Slavs and Swedish-Norwegian and is probably apart of the R1a1a1b1 Z283 branch. I don't know what to say about the R1a in those remote small Uralic ethnic groups in Russia. It could have multiple sources early Yamna people, Indo Iranians, Balto-Slavs. The Y DNa makeup of the early Yaman people no longer exists they probably had close to 100% R1a1a1 M417 based on ancient y DNA of their descendants but today that region has less than 30% and most is probably from back migrations. I don't doubt Uralic and Turkic peoples in Russia have a high amount of ancestry from the Yamna people but I do doubt Finnish and Sami do. The Uralic people are a whole new world in genetics I think I should learn about. I think they are mainly descended from Mesolithic Europeans, with significant near eastern farmer ancestry, and Siberian ancestry. Of course there is also a high amount of ANE according to Laz 2013.

The reason why R1b L11 is connected with Indo Europeans is it dominates Germanic Italo Celts, is absent from Neolithic west Europe but pops up in Bell beaker Germany at ~2,500BC, and is estimated to be 5,000 years old and rapidly spread until 3,000 years ago. It arrived and spread literally at the exact times Indo European languages in west Europe probably did. Those are pretty good reasons to connect it with Indo Europeans. Like I said before Y DNA of the Yamna people is probably mainly gone from Russia so there is a possibility R1b L23 did migrate from there and eventfully made it to west Europe.

[Fire Haired]

Actually (this is also old):

Probably from the 1990's the very begging of that type of stuff.

[Atlantic Islander]

Probably from the 1990's the very begging of that type of stuff.

2005.

[Fire Haired]

Yeah, it's old and not many samples were used. Those two islands have a small population (3,907 Flores island, 468 Corvo island).

That means 100 samples from one of those island is like 1 million in Germany(exaggeration).

[Fire Haired]

I've read the study, hence "someone like". Regarding WHG and I1 connection, it's quite plausible. These HG's while not true I* were closer to it than modern I2 types, hence we can assume real I*'s, who were also ancestral to these guys and I1 were mostly WHG as well. After all if I1 in North Europe was anything but WHG origin, there should be evidence suggesting it, like I1 found in neolithic farmer remains or from areas where Indo-European expansions originated. And, of course, if I1 was spread by neolithic farmers, other farmer haplos like G should be common in North Europe too.

Y DNA I is most diverse in Europe and in my opinion probably has been there for some 30,000 years. There is no surprise it is the brother clade to near eastern J. There are many mtDNA U relatives to European hunter gatherer U5, U4, and U2e in the near east, and north Africa and northern South Asia. Autosomal DNA of European hunter gatherers groups with near easterns in the west Eurasian aka Caucasian family. It got me very angry when people ignored that European hunter gatherers were west Eurasian so saying Y DNA R or Q dominated them is unlikely, I a brother to near eastern j makes a lot more sense. I wouldn't be surprised if WGH originated in some of the earliest Europeans who brought Y DNA IJ and mtDNA U to Europe. We can never know until there are a lot of Y DNA, mtDNA, and autosomal DNA taken from upper Palaeolithic Europe.

I1a2 L22 in Scandinavia in my opinion without a doubt is non Germanic, non Uralic, and pre bronze age in Scandinavia. I don't know what to say about the rest of I1 and except I think I1 itself originated in central Europe since that is where it is most diverse. You find I1a1, I1a2, I1a3, I1a4, I1b all in central Europe.

[Argang]

I1a2 L22 in Scandinavia in my opinion without a doubt is non Germanic, non Uralic, and pre bronze age in Scandinavia. I don't know what to say about the rest of I1 and except I think I1 itself originated in central Europe since that is where it is most diverse. You find I1a1, I1a2, I1a3, I1a4, I1b all in central Europe.

Non-L22 I1 has also very obviously Scandinavian subclades.

[Fire Haired]

Non-L22 I1 has also very obviously Scandinavian subclades.

The one you are showing is a deep subclade of Z58 in central Europe, therefore could be descended from Germanic migrations. I haven't been able to study I1 subclades distribution.

[Argang]

The one you are showing is a deep subclade of Z58 in central Europe, therefore could be descended from Germanic migrations. I haven't been able to study I1 subclades distribution.

There isn't really any "germanic" and "non-germanic" divide between Z58+ and L22, Nordtvedt originally just decided to call what turned out to be L22 "Norse" and the rest "Anglo-Saxon" in his STR-based nomenclatura. Normal L22 appears commonly in continental Europe, there are even subclades of L22 like L205+ that don't exist in Scandinavia but exist in continental Europe and as we saw the opposite is true for some subclades of Z58+. Only some of their subclades (like Z74-L813, Z74-L287 and Z58-Z73) have plainly obvious regional concentrations.

[Fire Haired]

There isn't really any "germanic" and "non-germanic" divide between Z58+ and L22, Nordtvedt originally just decided to call what turned out to be L22 "Norse" and the rest "Anglo-Saxon" in his STR-based nomenclatura. Normal L22 appears commonly in continental Europe, there are even subclades of L22 like L205+ that don't exist in Scandinavia but exist in continental Europe and as we saw the opposite is true for some subclades of Z58+. Only some of their subclades (like Z74-L813, Z74-L287 and Z58-Z73) have plainly obvious regional concentrations.

I want to learn more about what the old man Nordtvedt thinks about Y DNA I, I have read he is a member. I can't wait till the I1 mystery is finally resolved, I really doubt it is only 4,000-5,000 years old.