U5a1b1 in Spanish Bell Beaker

[MarkoZ]

It is not F* (not F without additional SNPs), but F > IJ*.

F includes IJ* (since HIJK and G are descended from F).

Ca. 3/4 of male humans belong to Y-DNA haplogroup F.

================

Vestonice43 is F > HIJK > IJK > IJ*. Terminal SNP is IJ*:

I know as much. I've just skimmed Fu et al. -- turns out the authors did not actually define Vestonice 43's Y-DNA further than F. I suppose this has to do with the coverage of this particular sample.

One word: boats.

Well this is just speculation. There are several reasons why a martime dispersal from the Levant into Europe makes no sense.

Check the map of the spread of farming posted above.

The earliest evidence of farming in Europe is not from East Thrace (next to Anatolia), but from Southern Peloponnesus.

And the beginning of farming in Peloponnesus predates the beginning of farming in Western and Central Anatolia.

None of the Aegean cultures adopted agriculture earlier than the central-western Anatolian foragers at Boncuklu, who made the transition to sedentism and agriculture roughly 8,000 BC.

Villabruna was not Gravettian, he was Epigravettian.

Gravettians had mostly haplogroups C1a2 and I*.

See my table ("k. grawecka" = Gravettian culture):

The Southern European Epigravettian is an almost complete continuation of the earlier Gravettian technological complex. Whether the Villabruna cluster is distinct from the Central European Gravettian due to either additional admixture, lack of admixture or drift remains to be seen.

 

[MarkoZ]

I agree. And this means that the main Gravettian haplogroup - C1 - came from a Near Eastern source.

Gravettians were mostly C1 (especially C1a2). There was some I* as well, but less numerous. Gravettian C1 most certainly came from the Neart East via Anatolia, but IJ* and I* could come from the Caucasus via Ukraine, as I suggested before.

Fu gives a C1a for the Aurignacian Goyet116 in Belgium. Interesting you'd think that it comes from the Near East, as I've always considered C to have taken the northern route across Siberia, initially skipping the Middle East.

 

[Tomenable]

Interesting you'd think that it comes from the Near East, as I've always considered C to have taken the northern route across Siberia, initially skipping the Middle East.

So why did some of Early Anatolian Farmers have C1 ???

And why was Kostenki14 (with C1b) tropically adapted ?

the authors did not actually define Vestonice 43's Y-DNA further than F.

Genetiker did. You seem to trust him when it comes to R1b.

 

[MarkoZ]

So why did some of Early Anatolian Farmers have C1 ???

And why was Kostenki14 (with C1b) tropically adapted ?

C expanded 30,000 years before agriculture came about.

Because K14's distant ancestors lived in south-east Asia. The Middle East isn't in the tropical zone anyway.

Genetiker did. You seem to trust him when it comes to R1b.

I really don't.

 

[Tomenable]

I've always considered C to have taken the northern route across Siberia

Why? Because around 10% of Native Americans have C (90% have Q)? The Solutrean Hypothesis makes sense if we assume that Solutreans were mostly C. So maybe Native American C came from Europe with Solutreans (perhaps together with mtDNA X). Meanwhile Q came with migrants from Beringia.

 

[MarkoZ]

Why? Because around 10% of Native Americans have C (90% have Q)? The Solutrean Hypothesis makes sense if we assume that Solutreans were mostly C. So maybe Native American C came from Europe with Solutreans (perhaps together with mtDNA X). Meanwhile Q came with migrants from Beringia.

I meant something like this (the publication is a few years old, but sums up my feelings pretty well):

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v55/n7/abs/jhg201040a.html

 

[MOESAN]

if Y-C Gravettian for you? Or only Y-C1?
To me it's not proved Gravettian people replaced completely older Aurignacian people in Europe. Osteology seems saying the opposite. My today scenario would be Y-C1 already present among Aurignacians and Y-I coming with Gravettians or rather evolved among easten Gravettians from a Y-F stage, from somewhere South or North the Caucasus. Wait for more vey ancient data. Magdaleanians are not all of them newcomers, rather recolonising people. But I confess I've not too much knowledge about these periods.

 

[berun]

Another case of U5a1, found in a Middle Neolithic grave in Normandy (page 202 of the PhD). In this case could be allowed that this mtDNA came from the east with the Starcevo / LBK wave, but it's an option.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Another case of U5a1, found in a Middle Neolithic grave in Normandy (page 202 of the PhD). In this case could be allowed that this mtDNA came from the east with the Starcevo / LBK wave, but it's an option.

I don't have the time to read studies who claim to have found high amounts of H in Mesolithic or Neolithic Iberia. But I have read them before. The high frequency of H wasn't the only strange thing about the results they got. A a high frequency of the mtDNAs which weren't H were U(xK), a strangely high frequency. Plus most of the Us weren't U5 or U4 or U2 or U3 or U7 like 95% of modern U(xK)s. These studies rarelly found mutations in the HVR1 region of mtDNA. The majority of people having no mutations there is strange for human populations. Most H people don't have mutations there which is the primary why most samples in those studies were labeled as H.

 

[Fire Haired14]

I've been dissecting a 2016 study which sampled about 4,000 mtDNAs from Spain lately. Btw, U5a's frequency is about 2-3% throughout Spain and U5b's is 5-7%. I have similarly large sample sets from Scandinavia, Britain, Netherlands, and Eastern Europe. In Britain and Netherlands U5a is 5-6%, in Scandinavia U5a is about 6-7%, in Russia and Poland and Ukraine about 7-8%, in Lithuania/East Baltic about 10%. U5b is about 5% in all of Northern Europe except Russia and East Baltic where it is 2-3%.

Keep in mind Yamnaya+Catacomb had 20% U5a, Andronovo and its relatives had 15% U5a, and both had about 1% U5b. Assuming basically all European U5a is from Steppe peoples that would mean Spain has 10-15% Steppe mtDNA, Britain has 20-30% Steppe mtDNA, Scandinavia has 25-35% Steppe mtDNA, Eastern Europe has 40-50% Steppe mtDNA, and the East Baltic has 50-60% Steppe mtDNA.

Modern U5a frequencies correlate with Steppe ancestry, as do U4 frequencies. Eastern European WHGs had a significant amount U5a and U4, which can explain inflated U5a and U4 in modern Eastern Europeans. Modern U5b frequencies correlate with Western European WHG ancestry. This is why Spain has as much or more U5b as Northern Europeans. A lot of Eastern Europeans' WHG ancestry is expressed via U5a and U4, which is why they have less U5b than Iberians.

U5a is so rare it's hard to notice the significant variation of U5a frequencies in modern Europe. The differences are real nonetheless. U5a isn't a generic European haplogroup that all ancient Europeans had a big chunk of. U5a today is almost entirely the maternal legacy of Mesolithic Eastern Europeans. The prescence of U5a in Spanish Bell Beaker is a great piece of evidence they had Steppe ancestry.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I've been dissecting a 2016 study which sampled about 4,000 mtDNAs from Spain lately. Btw, U5a's frequency is about 2-3% throughout Spain and U5b's is 5-7%. I have similarly large sample sets from Scandinavia, Britain, Netherlands, and Eastern Europe. In Britain and Netherlands U5a is 5-6%, in Scandinavia U5a is about 6-7%, in Russia and Poland and Ukraine about 7-8%, in Lithuania/East Baltic about 10%. U5b is about 5% in all of Northern Europe except Russia and East Baltic where it is 2-3%.

Keep in mind Yamnaya+Catacomb had 20% U5a, Andronovo and its relatives had 15% U5a, and both had about 1% U5b. Assuming basically all European U5a is from Steppe peoples that would mean Spain has 10-15% Steppe mtDNA, Britain has 20-30% Steppe mtDNA, Scandinavia has 25-35% Steppe mtDNA, Eastern Europe has 40-50% Steppe mtDNA, and the East Baltic has 50-60% Steppe mtDNA.

Modern U5a frequencies correlate with Steppe ancestry, as do U4 frequencies. Eastern European WHGs had a significant amount U5a and U4, which can explain inflated U5a and U4 in modern Eastern Europeans. Modern U5b frequencies correlate with Western European WHG ancestry. This is why Spain has as much or more U5b as Northern Europeans. A lot of Eastern Europeans' WHG ancestry is expressed via U5a and U4, which is why they have less U5b than Iberians.

U5a is so rare it's hard to notice the significant variation of U5a frequencies in modern Europe. The differences are real nonetheless. U5a isn't a generic European haplogroup that all ancient Europeans had a big chunk of. U5a today is almost entirely the maternal legacy of Mesolithic Eastern Europeans. The prescence of U5a in Spanish Bell Beaker is a great piece of evidence they had Steppe ancestry.

IMO U5a was born in the European paleolithic, more specific the Gravettian. U5a got into both western and eastern Europe that way.
EHG arrived in Eastern Europe some 12 ka and spread from the Volga area upto Karelia and all over eastern Europe. EHG erased the male DNA I and IJ, but kept the female DNA U5a.
That does not exclude that some subclades of U5a came back to western Europe with steppe ancestry, but I guess there are also some U5a subclades that stayed in western Europe since the paleolithic.

As for paleolithic Iberia, U5a was not found there, but that could be due to the scarce paleolithic data.
The only paleolithic mtDNA which is specific Iberian and not European is R0/HV and that could be due to the Ibero-Maurusian.