italian genetics

[MOESAN]

R1a non slavic? glup! I swallowed through the wrong hole!
Slavic is a relatively recent cristallization (after iron Ages?), and I respect the traditionnal vews before TRUE new discoveries: cradle surely around western Ukraina south-eastern Poland: SO, in a region that knew AND Y-R1a AND Y-I2a1 AT HIGH LEVELS
R1a has NOTHING SPECIFIC to GERMANICS, it is only one of the populations male markers that take part in the germanic AND slavic cultures formations: R1a is common to both - the others male markers only are different

 

[MOESAN]

The Latin-Italic link is only due to the spurious claim that the Terremare settlements show resemblance to a Roman military camp. - Not sufficient!

Isaac Taylor - The Origin of the Aryans (1890)
Towards the close of the neolithic age the same Aryan-speaking race [Indo-Europeans] which constructed the Swiss pile dwellings seems to have crossed the Alps, erecting their pile dwellings in the Italian lakes and in the marshes of the valley of the Po. Helbig has proved that these people must be identified with those whom we call the Umbrians. This conclusion, established solely on archaeological grounds, is confirmed by the close connection between Celtic and Italic speech, and also by the almost identical civilization disclosed by the pile dwellings of Italy [North] and those of Switzerland.

This Archaological and Linguistical manifestation is further bolstered by the
Historical quotes on post # 8;

also the mutual high levels of R1b-U152 in Switzerland and the Upper Rhine Area further indicates this Migration; from the proto-Keltic Indo-European Swiss Lake dwellings.

Other / more detailed info on the Umbrians - History & Civilisations > Thread: Who where the Sabines? > p.1

The Frequency distributution of R1b-U152 across Italy - North (32%) - Central (19%) - South (8.6%) can only be attributed to the Umbrians [Insubres-Sabines-Samnites]; wouldnt know any other people with that range and settlements.

As for the link between Umbrians and the Ligurians and Pelasgians > History & Civilisations Thread: Who where the Sabines? - p.1

Plutarch - Lives (120 AD)
the [Ambrones] often called out their name Ambrones, either to encourage one another or to terrify the Romans by this announcement. The Ligurians, who were the first of the Italic people to go down to battle with them, hearing their shouts, and understanding what they said, responded by calling out their old national name, which was the same, for the Ligurians also call themselves Ambrones when they refer to their origin.



Either that,
or some Irish-American soldiers had a Bangging time during the Invasion of 1943!

Concerning your remark just above, are you serious or making joke?

all the way, modern militar occupations need a very long time before producing genetic noticeable modifications among the occupied population: it recalls me an aggregationed (?) teacher that told us the modern Bavarians were darker than other Germans because they had been occupied by french troups! So ridiculous!

For Latins & Umbrians, I recall just some old scholars thoughts but your sources seem older than my ones (it is true it does not prove they have no more some worth) -
Umbrians I think were the last italic tribes to reach Italy – I doubt they were linked too close to the Lake Dwelling people I link rather to Ligurians: and for me Ligurians were not Italics even if as the proto-Celts they have some ancestry shared with them, almost everybody agree with that – I red somewhere this sort of dwelling was known in Hungary at old times but the Danaw river saw so many tribes! I link Umbrians to latter movements of Urnfield inspiration, and for me they entered N-E Italy at Iron Age coming from a central Europe position, after having had contacts (a bet of mine) with N-Veneti; I wrote yet I thought P- I-Es (celtic, italic, hellenic) were the last to invest western Europe after their Kw- respective brothers -
Y-R1b-U152, as other SNPs, has an indicative value, but at its stage is not precise enough because surely it was shared by some Celts, Italics and Ligurians, either at Bronze Age or Iron Age – the %s can vary but some cumulative effect can have taken place where pre-Umbrians U152 mixed with Umbrians U152...by the way, your percentages for it are absolute ones, I believe, because I think U152 is relatively heavier within the sole R1b's in even in South

I need some time to cross cyphers before make my mind more sound about Italy -
A SAY HERE THAT ONE MORE TIME THE SURVEYS MIXED DIVERSE POPULATIONS / I DO NOT THINK COASTAL MODERN LIGURIANS (they are not the most Ligurians, Ligurians were more in highlands) ARE VERY CLOSE TO PIEMONTESES, YET SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM RURAL "LOMBARDS" - the Y-E1b seems very stronger among modern so called "Ligurians" than among Lombards or Emilians or NE Toscans - but the problem is the coast of this sort of survey and the samples sufficient to do it
Have a good time this evening

 

[MOESAN]

'coast'??? 'cost' sorry!

 

[oriental]

I doubt there will a significant surviving Roman DNA as they were the 3% filthy rich during the Empire days. Their birth and their ancestoral lineage to being Romans would ensure their high place in society. However, with the downfall all those poor citizens and slaves would have pounced on the Romans and killed them and looted their properties. The smart ones who could foresee this coming, went into hiding with their loot. They probably went to far off places incognito.

Now that would be a good novel if one of surviving Romans penned their stories. There was a movie about Justinian ? being spirited out of the Byzantium Empire with a Roman sword taken to England. I think the son was the who pulled out the sword from the stone. Another variation of King Arthur. It starred Colin Firth, Aishwaria Rai, Ben Kingsley.

 

[Maciamo]

I was about to post this, but Zanipolo beat me to it.

Here is the link to the actual study. The data corresponds very closely to the one I compiled in the Y-DNA tables based on other studies to date. Boattini et al. note that the gradient within Italy is not north-south but rather north-west to south-east + Sardinia, which is exactly what my maps have shown. You can see this most clearly by comparing the R1 map with the E+G+J+T map.

The authors confirm that most Y-DNA lineages in Italy appear to date from the Late Neolithic to the Bronze Age. This is the first official study finally acknowledging what I have been saying for many years, namely that R1b and J2, and not just R1a, came to Europe during the Bronze Age and not the Neolithic.

The strong point of this new study is the depth of the subclades tested. The weak point is the sample size, which would be enough for top-level haplogroups, but is much too small to give a reliable image of the distribution of deep subclades. The deeper the level tested and the larger the sample size should be. There are only about 900 individuals for a country of 60 million inhabitants with a very big historical population. This is less than the Larmuseau et al. study about Flanders which was barely sufficient to show regional disparities at the deep subclade level. Besides the regional diversity in mountainous Italy is far greater than in flat and homogeneous Flanders. I would therefore advise a sample size of at least 1000 for each of Italy's 20 regions to have a reasonable picture at the deep clade level.

Of interest, though to take with a pinch of salt considering the small sample size.

- The hotspot of R1b-L21 (10%) is Emilia-Romagna, a region supposedly settled by Celtic people.

- The highest frequency of R1b-U152 + subclades are found in Tuscany (37.4%), Emilia-Romagna (31%), Piedmont-Lombardy (31%) and Lazio-Umbria-Marche (21%). This roughly correspond to my R1b-U152 map and is in line with my hypothesis that U152 represents the Bronze Age Italic people. If U152 were merely Gaulish Celtic it wouldn't peak in Tuscany and would not be so high in Central Italy in general.

- Germanic migrations can be traced back through R1b-S21, which peaks in Northeast Italy (presumably due to the Langobardi) and Sicily (undeniably because of the Normans). I1 peaks in Emilia-Romagna (11%) and Northeast Italy (10.3%), but is oddly very low in Lombardy-Piedmont (3.1%) and Sicily (1.4%). I guess that this is due to undersampling. My data from other studies had an average of 3% for Sicily. The strangest results come from I2b1 (M223), which is absent from regions with heavy Germanic settlements like Northeast Italy, but highest in southern Italy (2.4%). Also undersampling, I suppose.

- The regional percentages reported for R1a are somewhat contradictory with previous studies. It shows no R1a at all in Northeast Italy, which is supposed to be the region with the highest frequency of R1a. On the other hand the percentages for Sicily (5.7%), Tuscany (4.9%), South Italy (4%) and Lazio-Umbria-Marche (3.9%) is a few points higher than expected.

- Unsurprisingly G peaks in Central Italy (14.3%) and South Italy (16.2%) and is lowest in Northeast Italy (6.8%) and Tuscany (5.7%). On the other hand, the frequency of G appears a bit higher everywhere than in the earlier data.

- Let's note also the very odd 8.2% of L in Northeast Italy and 6.9% of J1e in Bologna. The earlier J1 hotspot in Tuscany is also contradicted by this study, which only found 1.4%.

 

[Maciamo]

Here is the mtDNA table from the supplementary data.

 

[zanipolo]

Here is the mtDNA table from the supplementary data.

Thanks for this

I was wondering that NEI is correctly a home for T1a and K1a ........the H seems infrequent and could be said to have come in via the veneti men marrying celtic women as per the uni of heidelberg 2012 paper on the venetic language. ( i am only referring to mtDna)
Could the celts be the bringers of H into Italy......IIRC Italy is one of the lowest for H in percentage terms.


The "baltic" U seems also in high numbers, again longobardi/goth migration

 

[adamo]

I am maternal H, with no further mutations. I think celts brought that into Italy

 

[adamo]

I am maternal H, with no further mutations. I think celts brought that into Italy. The highest in Italy are HV, H, H1 and K1a.

 

[Nobody1]

Concerning your remark just above, are you serious or making joke?

all the way, modern militar occupations need a very long time before producing genetic noticeable modifications among the occupied population: it recalls me an aggregationed (?) teacher that told us the modern Bavarians were darker than other Germans because they had been occupied by french troups! So ridiculous!

Oh, you mean the Irish-American soldier ref;
who knows, def. not an option that is the primary, but an option nonetheless;

Umbrians I think were the last italic tribes to reach Italy – I doubt they were linked too close to the Lake Dwelling people I link rather to Ligurians:

I dont know, why you consider the Umbrians as the the last Indo-European wave, given what the classical authors wrote:

Pliny - Natural History (79 AD)
The race of the Umbri is considered the oldest in Italy. —(C. Plin. lib. ii. Nat. Hist. c. 14.)

Dionysius - The Roman Antiquities (29 BC)
The Umbri inhabited a great many other parts of Italy, and were an exceeding great, and ancient people.

Cambrian Institute - The Cambrian Journal (1862)
from Caius Sempronius (De Divis. Ital.);
"The portion of the Apennines from the sources of the Tiber to the Nar, the Umbri inhabit, the oldest stock of the Old Gael, (Veteres Galli), as Augustus writes."
[Apenninum colunt Ligures, portionem vero Apennini inhabitant Umbri, prima veterum Gallorum proies, ut Augustus scribit]

Also, the Herodotus map only mentions the Ombri - [next to Thyrreni, Eneti, Ligyes]

The Ligurians are a key people in the Po valley, (also Rhone Valley and Maritime Alps);
It seems [based on Anthropology] that the Ligurians were already present in the Neolithic and were [Brachycephalic] Pre-Indo-Europeans akin to Lapps.

Smithsonian Institution - Report of the Board of Regents: Vol.45 (1891)
In another Neolithic cave, called the Caverna della Matta [north Italy], an Iberian skull was found with an index of 68, and a Ligurian skull with an index of 84. No anthropologist would admit that these skulls could have belonged to men of the same race.

Roberto Bosi - The Lapps (1977)
Then [Rudolf Karl] Virchow. examining a number of Lappish skulls at Helsinki, Lund and Copenhagen, in conjunction with ancient Ligurian skulls, discovered many mutual features suggesting an identical strain.

The Umbrians must have mixed with the Ligurians,
as Plutarch informs us that the Ligurians referred to themselves as AMBROnes in connections to their Origins;

Anthropological evidence:

Anthropological Society of London - Anthropological review: Vol.V (1867)
"when I look upon the delineations of the crania, the photographs and the figures given by M. Nicolucci himself, it appears to me that the difference between Ligurians and Umbrians, is about equal to the differences between Allemands and Germans.

The same scenario happened in the Swiss Lake Dwellings - Indo-Europeans mixed with a Brachycephalic (pos. Ligures) Pre-Indo-European people.

George Bradshaw - Bradshaw's illustrated hand-book to Switzerland and the Tyrol (1899)
Swiss Lake-dwellings - In his careful investigations of pile dwellings, Dr. Studer met with two extreme types of skulls, the brachycephalic and the dolikoccphalic; the former, at Schaffis and Lüschery (Lake of Bienne), belonging to the pure Stone period, and the latter, at Vinolz and Sutz, to the Bronze period. The facts point to an invasion by the Bronze men, involving a complete transformation of the group of domestic animals; the horse appears for the first time, and new races of sheep and dogs replace the older forms of the Stone period. The occurrence of mesocephalic, and even considerably shortened skulls, in the Bronze period, shows that there was no extinction of the brachycephalic race, but that the two races mixed.

I will post more about the Ligures in History & Civilisations > Who were the Sabines?


Personally, i think the last Indo-Europeans arriving in Italy were
the Illyrians in the South-East [Messapii / Iapyges]

A SAY HERE THAT ONE MORE TIME THE SURVEYS MIXED DIVERSE POPULATIONS / I DO NOT THINK COASTAL MODERN LIGURIANS (they are not the most Ligurians, Ligurians were more in highlands) ARE VERY CLOSE TO PIEMONTESES, YET SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM RURAL "LOMBARDS" - the Y-E1b seems very stronger among modern so called "Ligurians" than among Lombards or Emilians or NE Toscans - but the problem is the coast of this sort of survey and the samples sufficient to do it
Have a good time this evening

I disagree about your Y-DNA Hg E analysis.
Area I = Liguria + Lombardy + Piedmont and is only high on E-V13 [9.3%]
1.8% other E-M78 sub-clades and 0.6% E-M123; thats all;
- so i wouldnt consider Liguria isolated to be any stronger;

I agree with your view about the present-Ligurians in contrast to the ancient-Ligurians;
but there is an historic region Lunigiana that was/is still very remote and has a grand ancient-Ligurian (Archaeological) Legacy.
One sample-set of Tuscany (in Boattini et al 2013) is from that region. Tuscany being 37% R1b-U152

 

[Nobody1]

I am maternal H, with no further mutations. I think celts brought that into Italy

I doubt it was the Indo-European Kelts,

Both Maciamo and zanipolo posted studies about the spread of mtDNA Hg H being West to East and having a grand occurrence during the Bell Beaker Culture [non-Indo-European].

the Study (Boattini et al 2013) also concludes:

Significantly different ages were estimated for mtDNA and Y-chromosome systems. mtDNA variability dates back to Paleolithic and supports the existence of an Italian human Refugium during the last glacial maximum whereas Y-chromosome points to the importance that the demographic events happened during the Neolithic and the Metal Ages had in the male Italian patterns of diversity and distribution.

something that also the second link from zanipolo post #1- indicates
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/italan-complex-ancestry.html#comment-form

It grouped the percentages (of Boattini et al 2013) together and gave it a time-line.

acc. to Boattini et al 2013, mtDNA HG H is very consistant across Italy - North is 34% & 26%, Center is 31% and South is 27%.

It is also very high in Sicily 38% and peaks in Sardinia 41%; this further manifest/indicates a non-Indo-European spread;

Maybe it spread from Iberia to Sardinia and from Sardinia to - Italy & Sicily. my guess;

---

From all what i have read about mtDNA Hg H, it seems very old (Paleolithic) and pos. originated in the ?Near East?:

Torroni et al 1998 -
(maybe outdated? but i dont think so!)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9545392

 

[Luan]

I doubt it was the Indo-European Kelts,

Both Maciamo and zanipolo posted studies about the spread of mtDNA Hg H being West to East and having a grand occurrence during the Bell Beaker Culture [non-Indo-European].

the Study (Boattini et al 2013) also concludes:

Significantly different ages were estimated for mtDNA and Y-chromosome systems. mtDNA variability dates back to Paleolithic and supports the existence of an Italian human Refugium during the last glacial maximum whereas Y-chromosome points to the importance that the demographic events happened during the Neolithic and the Metal Ages had in the male Italian patterns of diversity and distribution.

something that also the second link from zanipolo post #1- indicates
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/italan-complex-ancestry.html#comment-form

It grouped the percentages (of Boattini et al 2013) together and gave it a time-line.

acc. to Boattini et al 2013, mtDNA HG H is very consistant across Italy - North is 34% & 26%, Center is 31% and South is 27%.

It is also very high in Sicily 38% and peaks in Sardinia 41%; this further manifest/indicates a non-Indo-European spread;

Maybe it spread from Iberia to Sardinia and from Sardinia to - Italy & Sicily. my guess;

---

From all what i have read about mtDNA Hg H, it seems very old (Paleolithic) and pos. originated in the ?Near East?:

Torroni et al 1998 -
(maybe outdated? but i dont think so!)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9545392

How you think MtDNA H got to the balkans?

 

[Nobody1]

How you think MtDNA H got to the balkans?

I think that all depends on how 'up to date' - Torroni et al 1998 still is;
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.

If it originated in the Near East; maybe via Anatolia or maybe (like north & central Eur.) after the Younger Dryas;

Here are 2 other studies about mtDNA H

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/

 

[Yetos]

@ nobody so is it possible umbrians to spoke a sicilian language? a non IE language? in case we accept that IE came from North?

can we admit the same in case IE came from minor Asia?

 

[zanipolo]

@ nobody so is it possible umbrians to spoke a sicilian language? a non IE language? in case we accept that IE came from North?

can we admit the same in case IE came from minor Asia?

I don't think the umbrians spoke sicilian. Italian records follow ancient greek history which states .
italy is only from the Po river to the toe of Italy, these are italian lands, they comprise of 2 main families the oscars in the south and the umbrians in the north.
greeks also stated that beyond the PO where barbarians........and no mention of sicilians, or sardinians and corsica was colonised by Greeks.

The greeks named Italy
The greeks also stated the etruscans invaded Italy and corsica

well thats the ancient historians

 

[Yetos]

I don't think the umbrians spoke sicilian. Italian records follow ancient greek history which states .
italy is only from the Po river to the toe of Italy, these are italian lands, they comprise of 2 main families the oscars in the south and the umbrians in the north.
greeks also stated that beyond the PO where barbarians........and no mention of sicilians, or sardinians and corsica was colonised by Greeks.

The greeks named Italy
The greeks also stated the etruscans invaded Italy and corsica

well thats the ancient historians

so sicilian languages where limited only in Sicily?

since Herodotus mentions them as pre-cataclysm people, do you believe they spoke IE?

 

[Maciamo]

I doubt it was the Indo-European Kelts,

Both Maciamo and zanipolo posted studies about the spread of mtDNA Hg H being West to East and having a grand occurrence during the Bell Beaker Culture [non-Indo-European].

the Study (Boattini et al 2013) also concludes:

Significantly different ages were estimated for mtDNA and Y-chromosome systems. mtDNA variability dates back to Paleolithic and supports the existence of an Italian human Refugium during the last glacial maximum whereas Y-chromosome points to the importance that the demographic events happened during the Neolithic and the Metal Ages had in the male Italian patterns of diversity and distribution.

something that also the second link from zanipolo post #1- indicates
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/italan-complex-ancestry.html#comment-form

It grouped the percentages (of Boattini et al 2013) together and gave it a time-line.

acc. to Boattini et al 2013, mtDNA HG H is very consistant across Italy - North is 34% & 26%, Center is 31% and South is 27%.

It is also very high in Sicily 38% and peaks in Sardinia 41%; this further manifest/indicates a non-Indo-European spread;

Maybe it spread from Iberia to Sardinia and from Sardinia to - Italy & Sicily. my guess;

---

From all what i have read about mtDNA Hg H, it seems very old (Paleolithic) and pos. originated in the ?Near East?:

Torroni et al 1998 -
(maybe outdated? but i dont think so!)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9545392

I think it's a mistake to lump all H lineages together. H subclades can represent ancestry as different as Y-DNA haplogroups of their own. It is undeniable that Mesolithic Europeans, Neolithic farmers and the Indo-Europeans all carried their own subclades of H, because ancient DNA tests have found H among all these people.

Regarding the Indo-Europeans, it may be hard to clearly distinguish Indo-European H subclades from Neolithic ones, as both originated in the Middle East. Their frequency in each group and the deep subclades are probably both different though. Because Indo-Europeans mixed with neolithic and Mesolithic inhabitants of Europe, we can't know for sure which is which based on results from Bronze Age cultures within Europe. I think that the most representative H samples to determine which one travelled with the original Indo-Europeans of the Maykop + Yamna culture are those from the Bronze Age and Iron Age Eurasian steppes and the Andronovo culture of Central Asia. So far the H subclade identified among the many H samples from that time and age were H2a1, H5 and H6. H5, and H5a in particular, also frequently pops up in Indo-European settlements in Eastern and Central Europe. H7 is another likely IE candidate. However keep in mind that all of them could also be Neolithic. There is no IE exclusivity.

In the present study, H5 peaks in Central Italy and is completely absent from Sardinia. H6 peaks in Tuscany and Bologna and is also absent from Sardinia (and Sicily). Both therefore look good IE candidates in Italy too.

In any case trying to make sense of all these mtDNA subclades is madness at this point. Only some subclades like U2, U4, U5 and U6 are reasonably clear-cut from the rest to represent meaningful ancestry. Even well studied haplogroups like H1, H3 and V still have very controversial origins. They could be Paleo-, Meso- or Neolithic. Or more likely the were Paleolithic in one part of Europe (e.g. Iberia) but spread to the rest of Europe during the Neolithic.

U2, U3 and U4, which I have all associated with the Indo-Europeans, are all absent from Sardinia.

U8 and K obviously date from the Neolithic and Bronze Age. I don't know why they are labelled as 'Paleo'.

 

[Nobody1]

@ nobody so is it possible umbrians to spoke a sicilian language? a non IE language? in case we accept that IE came from North?

can we admit the same in case IE came from minor Asia?

No,
that is not possible -and i dont understand the connection;

Ancient Sicily =
Iberian Sicani - Ligurian Siculi - Trojan Elymians (Thucydides) - plus
Phoenician Colonies and Greek Colonies

---

The Umbrians were Indo-Europeans, akin to the Indo-European Kelts

Cambrian Institute - The Cambrian Journal (1862)
from Caius Sempronius (De Divis. Ital.);
"The portion of the Apennines from the sources of the Tiber to the Nar, the Umbri inhabit, the oldest stock of the Old Gael, (Veteres Galli), as Augustus writes."
[Apenninum colunt Ligures, portionem vero Apennini inhabitant Umbri, prima veterum Gallorum proies, ut Augustus scribit]

James C. Prichard - Ethnography of Europe: Vol.III (1841)
Solinus informs us that Bocchus, a writer who has been several times cited by Pliny, reported the Umbri to have been descended from the ancient Gauls;
[Bocchus (affranchi lettre de Sylla) absolvit Gallorum veterum propaginem Umbros esse]
[Umbri, Italiae gens est, sed Gallorum veterum propago]

Luke Owen Pike - The English and their Origin (1866)
If now we consult the Umbrian language with a view of discovering whether it approaches more nearly the Gaelic or the Cymric type, we find, scanty though the evidence may be, that Umbrian differs from Latin in precisely the same manner in which Cymric and Greek differ from Latin. The Latin qu becomes, in Umbrian, as in Welsh and Greek, p: e.g. Latin quatuor, Umbrian petur, Welsh pedwar. The Welsh uch, uchel, appears as the Umbrian ucar, the Greek aixpog; the Welsh hwra as the Umbrian hri, the Greek aipsco;


Archaeologically - attested by the Bronze Age Terremare culture (akin to Swiss Lake Dwellings) and the subsequent cultures of the Indo-European Urnfield Culture Complex [Villanovan - Golasecca]


The Umbrian language [ITALIC Branch] is attested by its dozens of inscriptions and texts -
http://www.ancientscripts.com/umbrian.html

Umbrian Alphabet (derived from the Etruscan runic system of the Cumaean Greek Alphabet)

 

[Nobody1]

I think it's a mistake to lump all H lineages together. H subclades can represent ancestry as different as Y-DNA haplogroups of their own. It is undeniable that Mesolithic Europeans, Neolithic farmers and the Indo-Europeans all carried their own subclades of H, because ancient DNA tests have found H among all these people.

Regarding the Indo-Europeans, it may be hard to clearly distinguish Indo-European H subclades from Neolithic ones, as both originated in the Middle East. Their frequency in each group and the deep subclades are probably both different though. Because Indo-Europeans mixed with neolithic and Mesolithic inhabitants of Europe, we can't know for sure which is which based on results from Bronze Age cultures within Europe. I think that the most representative H samples to determine which one travelled with the original Indo-Europeans of the Maykop + Yamna culture are those from the Bronze Age and Iron Age Eurasian steppes and the Andronovo culture of Central Asia. So far the H subclade identified among the many H samples from that time and age were H2a1, H5 and H6. H5, and H5a in particular, also frequently pops up in Indo-European settlements in Eastern and Central Europe. H7 is another likely IE candidate. However keep in mind that all of them could also be Neolithic. There is no IE exclusivity.

In the present study, H5 peaks in Central Italy and is completely absent from Sardinia. H6 peaks in Tuscany and Bologna and is also absent from Sardinia (and Sicily). Both therefore look good IE candidates in Italy too............U2, U3 and U4, which I have all associated with the Indo-Europeans, are all absent from Sardinia.

Thats a good point, i didnt think of that.

In any case trying to make sense of all these mtDNA subclades is madness at this point. Only some subclades like U2, U4, U5 and U6 are reasonably clear-cut from the rest to represent meaningful ancestry. Even well studied haplogroups like H1, H3 and V still have very controversial origins. They could be Paleo-, Meso- or Neolithic. Or more likely the were Paleolithic in one part of Europe (e.g. Iberia) but spread to the rest of Europe during the Neolithic.

Thats the way i understand it as well,
the routes of mtDNA Hg sub-clades are far less structured than those of Y-DNA;

But fortunately many mtDNA Hg's [H, V, U, J, T] are as a whole, -structured and determined.
But thats still not very precise.

 

[Taranis]

I have moved the offtopic discussion about current events to here. You are welcome to continue to discuss it there, but it does not belong into this thread.