PDA

View Full Version : Y-DNA correspondence for mtDNA haplogroups



Maciamo
14-12-09, 19:45
I have been trying to find enough mtDNA data to compare the distribution of mitochondrial haplogroups with Y-DNA haplogroups. Here is what I have deducted so far (not certain, but likely).

Mesolithic Europe

Following the end of the last Ice Age, European hunter-gatherers recolonised the continent from the Ice Age refugia in southern Europe. Most Mesolithic Europeans would have belonged to Y-haplogroup I. This included I*, pre-I1, I1, I2*, I2a*, I2a2, but the most widespread appears to have been I2a1, which was found in most parts of Europe. Northeast Europeans would have belonged mostly to haplogroup R1a. Other minor male lineages were certainly also present in parts of Europe, notably haplogroup A1a, C-V20, F-P96 and possibly even Q1a and R1b1* (P25).

The maternal lineages of Mesolithic Europeans appears to have been predominantly U4 and U5, but also included several H subclades (H1, H3, H17), T, U2 and V. The presence of mt-haplogroups I and W is likely but hasn't been confirmed yet.

Based on the modern distribution, haplogroups H6, H10 and H11 might well have Mesolithic/Palaeolithic European origins.

There seem to have been several Palaeolithic and/or Mesolithic migrations from Northwest Africa to Iberia. The oldest might have brought West African haplogroup A1a and A1a1a to Western and Northern Europe during the Palaeolithic. A1a has been found in modern populations as far north as Ireland, Scotland, Scandinavia and Finland. E-M81 probably crossed the Gibraltar Straits some time during the Mesolithic and settled around most of Iberia, probably expanding into the rest of Western Europe during the Neolithic period (Megalithic and Bell Beaker cultures). The presence of African maternal lineages (L2, L3 and possibly L1b1) has been attested in Neolithic Iberia. Northwest Africans would also have brought U6 and possibly HV0/V lineages to Europe.

A small percentage of sub-Saharan African admixture has been identified (http://dienekes.blogspot.be/2012/04/first-look-at-dna-of-neolithic.html) in Late Mesolithic Swedes from the Pitted Ware culture (2800-2000 BCE), which would imply that A1a was already present in northern Europe at the time. Another Mesolithic sample from Loschbour in Luxembourg had dark hair and considerably darker skin than modern Europeans.


Neolithic Europe

Agriculture first developed in the Levant, then spread to Anatolia, Greece, the Balkans, Italy, Central and Eastern Europe. These Neolithic farmers were confirmed to have belonged to Y-DNA haplogroups E1b1b and G2a, but probably also included a minority of J1, J2 and T lineages.

Hundreds of Neolithic samples from all over Europe (but especially Central Europe and Iberia) have been tested. The new lineages brought by these Near Eastern immigrants included haplogroups HV, J1, J2, K1, K2, N*, N1, T1a, T2b, T2c, T2e, T2f, U3, W, X1, X2, and many subclades of H (including H2, H5, H7, H13 and H20). H4, H8 and H9 seem to have originated in the Near East as well, although no Neolithic sample has been identified in Europe yet.

However, due to the proximity of the Caucasus from the Indo-European homeland, many of these haplogroups were almost certainly also transported by the Indo-Europeans themselves, notably H5, K1a, T2b, U3, W and X2.


The Indo-Europeans

The origin of the Indo-Europeans lies in the Pontic-Caspian steppe with (R1a) tribes to the north (forest-steppe and tundra) and (R1b) tribes to the south (open steppe) during the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age. Their migration both westward to Europe and south-eastward to Central and South Asia makes it easy to guess which mtDNA haplogroups they carried (=> see also Identifying the original Indo-European mtDNA from isolated settlements (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25613-Identifying-the-original-Indo-European-mtDNA-from-isolated-settlements)). The best matches for R1a are H6, I, U2, U4, U5, and W.

The R1b branch would have originated in eastern Anatolia and/or northern Mesopotamia/Syria during the Early Neolithic period, where they probably domesticated cattle and became primarily cattle herders. Then would have crossed the Caucasus to the Pontic Steppe in search for pasture for their cattle, where they mixed to some extent with southern R1a tribes. The maternal lineages of these Near Eastern R1b people would have included haplogroups H5a, I, K1a4, T2b, U3 and X2.

H4 has not been found in Europe before the Late Chalcolithic (Corded Ware) and Bronze Age (Unetice) and might have been brought by the Indo-Europeans.

Haplogroup V has never been found in prehistoric sites in Northeast Europe, nor in any Indo-European burial in the Eurasian steppe or Central Asia. It is nevertheless present in every part of Europe nowadays. Its frequency is higher than the European average in north-western Russia (> 5%), and peaks among the Sami (> 30%). Haplogroup V has also been found in most Uralic and Altaic populations across North Asia, and at trace frequencies as far as Korea and Japan. Therefore it is likely that the presence haplogroup V in Eastern Europe is related to the diffusion of Ural-Altaic populations and of Y-haplogroup N, rather than to the Indo-Europeans.

Twilight
02-02-13, 04:32
Wow this is amazing info :)

foryouandme
04-08-13, 15:39
I thought MtDNA haplogroups I, N1, U, W and X were in Europe since the Old Stone Age and that J (Jasmine) and T (Tara) came to Europe in the Neolithic, introducing farming? I'm guessing that H, V and K arrived in Europe in between those times?

Maciamo
28-12-13, 18:02
I have just updated the original thread, which was over 4 years old.

Tabaccus Maximus
28-12-13, 19:01
The European link to maternal haplogroup A/L and sub-Saharan Africa is interesting. I wonder if African genes were brought by people like Grimaldi man in the Late Paleolithic.
I believe it was Coon who suggested gracialization of Europeans or Mediterraneans was brought about by African admixture. Two of three of Dienekes experiments with La Brana (Mesolithic Euro) showed a 10% African shift. In modern Southern Europeans it is roughly a 1-3% African admixture.

Tabaccus Maximus
28-12-13, 20:16
-It seems clear from this week that Haplogroup I2a1 (Y) was probably connected with U5 and U2 (mtdna). In the last two weeks this has held true in throughout three distinct latitudinal regions in different periods of the Mesolithic, as far west as Spain and as far east as Sweden.

On the other hand, the subclades H1 and H3 are still regarded by many as Mesolithic lineages. I think bad data, or at least untrustworthy data, is causing confusion. This will be cleared up with more testing.
-I see no correlation that can be made between Mesolithic I2a1 and H1. H1 appears on two continents outside of Europe and far out of the realm of I2a1. It is completely absent in Saami. Unless you believe H1* women invaded North Africa and Iran (where I* is mostly absent), there would have to be a male population associated with it to make this kind of impact. This would probably require a post-Beaker expansion (a large population movement) into Africa, Eastern Europe and Southwest Asia by an H1* heavy population, not through simple gene flow. Total H* appears in Neolithic Europe at half of its current frequency and is non-existent outside Spain in the West Europe Mesolithic. So beyond the Neolithic, what movement of people could explain it's current distribution? It should also be noted that all of the Neolithic movement was North or West in Europe (NWE), not the other way around.

-Speaking of Mesolithic Spain, the non-HVR only studies, and the ones that haven't already been refuted, include only four studies showing H* that happen to be in the Basque area of Spain where the supposed seed of a post-LGM expansion from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge.
This map illustrates why this is ridiculous. http://www.genebase.com/doc/mtdnaHaplogroup_H_Subclade_Distribution_Map.pdf

-H* (mtdna) developed in the same geographical zone as J* (ydna) or possibly G*. It seems a correlation between H* and J* is a more likely scenario and it was these people who were the figures of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic. It is these people who originally expanded across North Africa and in to Spain taking Megalithic traditions and high levels of J and H1/H3 in the founder population of Northern Spain. They probably also took other haplogroups along the way. These Middle Eastern people also affected the islands of Sardinia and became the racial basis of the Guanches in the Canaries.

The subclade mix of the Neolithic Farmer founding populations is probably slightly different by region.

Alfonso Ceña
02-06-14, 11:25
My results (Genographic Project, National Geographic) are: DNA mit-Haplogrup T (16126C, 16172C, 16183C, 16189C, 16294T, 16519C) and ADN chromosome Y-Haplogrupo R1b, M343 (Subgrup R1b1b2, M269).

I´m brachycephalic with (cephalix index 87.6). And I´m from Soria (north-central Spain).


May anyone tell me some information about my origins ?


Many Thanks

arvistro
21-08-14, 11:15
Mesolithic Europe

Following the end of the last Ice Age, European hunter-gatherers recolonised the continent from the Ice Age refugia in southern Europe. Most Mesolithic Europeans would have belonged to Y-haplogroup I. This included I*, pre-I1, I1, I2*, I2a*, I2a2, but the most widespread appears to have been I2a1, which was found in most parts of Europe. Northeast Europeans would have belonged mostly to haplogroup R1a.

About "Northeast Europeans would have belonged mostly to haplogroup R1a" in Mesolithic. From what I read R1A people arrived into N1C settled lands in North East Europe. And N1C1 in your N article is seen as "It is associated with the Kunda culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunda_culture) (8000-5000 BCE) and the subsequent Comb Ceramic culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_Ceramic_culture) (4200-2000 BCE), which evolved into Finnic and pre-Baltic people.".
Does it mean that you assume originally NE European lands were inhabited by R1A, then came N1C and took over, and then same or other R1A returned and took this territory back?

Aberdeen
21-08-14, 22:28
About "Northeast Europeans would have belonged mostly to haplogroup R1a" in Mesolithic. From what I read R1A people arrived into N1C settled lands in North East Europe. And N1C1 in your N article is seen as "It is associated with the Kunda culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunda_culture) (8000-5000 BCE) and the subsequent Comb Ceramic culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_Ceramic_culture) (4200-2000 BCE), which evolved into Finnic and pre-Baltic people.".
Does it mean that you assume originally NE European lands were inhabited by R1A, then came N1C and took over, and then same or other R1A returned and took this territory back?

I'm having trouble understanding what you're getting at. Maciamo said that most Mesolithic Europeans would have belonged to Y-haplogroup I, not R1a. And his statement is confirmed by Y haplotype finds from Mesolithic Europe. R1a types probably lived for a long time to the south of the Uralic N haplotype people and perhaps entered Europe for the first time as the Corded Ware folk.

arvistro
21-08-14, 22:35
I understand and I agree with you. Maybe bolded part below was just mistake. Or we understand North East Europeans differently. Or maybe because of extremely small I % in Baltics he somehow came up with R1A being there originally in mesolithic. Which is what I tried to understand.

From Maciamo (I bolded that part for you):
Mesolithic Europe

Following the end of the last Ice Age, European hunter-gatherers recolonised the continent from the Ice Age refugia in southern Europe. Most Mesolithic Europeans would have belonged to Y-haplogroup I. This included I*, pre-I1, I1, I2*, I2a*, I2a2, but the most widespread appears to have been I2a1, which was found in most parts of Europe. Northeast Europeans would have belonged mostly to haplogroup R1a. Other minor male lineages were certainly also present in parts of Europe, notably haplogroup A1a, C-V20, F-P96 and possibly even Q1a and R1b1* (P25).

sparkey
22-08-14, 01:38
Right now, the Y-DNA composition of Mesolithic Eastern Europe is pretty speculative. I don't know of any haplogroups that have particularly high diversity there.

Aberdeen
22-08-14, 02:54
I understand and I agree with you. Maybe bolded part below was just mistake. Or we understand North East Europeans differently. Or maybe because of extremely small I % in Baltics he somehow came up with R1A being there originally in mesolithic. Which is what I tried to understand.

From Maciamo (I bolded that part for you):
Mesolithic Europe

Following the end of the last Ice Age, European hunter-gatherers recolonised the continent from the Ice Age refugia in southern Europe. Most Mesolithic Europeans would have belonged to Y-haplogroup I. This included I*, pre-I1, I1, I2*, I2a*, I2a2, but the most widespread appears to have been I2a1, which was found in most parts of Europe. Northeast Europeans would have belonged mostly to haplogroup R1a. Other minor male lineages were certainly also present in parts of Europe, notably haplogroup A1a, C-V20, F-P96 and possibly even Q1a and R1b1* (P25).

Okay, I didn't see that reference to R1a and I don't know what he was thinking about there. I'd be surprised to find R1a in Northeastern Europeans in the Mesolithic, but if it's the Baltic you're thinking of, we don't really have results. However, Dienekes published a reference to a paper about Finland, where the researcher concluded, apparently for linguistic reasons, that Y haplotype N actually reached Finland after R1a, which he thought got there during the Bronze Age. The researcher stated:

"My dissertation shows that Proto-Germanic, Proto-Scandinavian, Proto-Finnic and Proto-Sami all date to different periods of the Iron Age. I argue that the present study along with my earlier published research also proves that a (West-)Uralic language – the pre-form of the Finnic and Samic languages – was spoken in the region of the present-day Finland in the Bronze Age, but not earlier than that. In the centuries before the Common Era, Proto-Sami was spoken in the whole region of what is now called Finland, excluding Lapland. At the beginning of the Common Era, Proto-Sami was spoken in the whole region of Finland, including Southern Finland, from where the Sami idiom first began to recede. An archaic (Northwest-)Indo-European language and a subsequently extinct Paleo-European language were likely spoken in what is now called Finland and Estonia, when the linguistic ancestors of the Finns and the Sami arrived in the eastern and northern Baltic Sea region from the Volga-Kama region probably at the beginning of the Bronze Age. "

Here's the link.

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00%2B02:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00%2B02:00&max-results=50

My own assumption is that Y haplotype N and Uralic languages dominated the northern half of Russia before the IE expansion, which resulted in IE speaking R1a people who had been living further south eventually dominating Russia, but I'm not sure about the sequence that resulted in Uralic languages being spoken in Estonia and Finland and among the Sami. I think it's pretty clear that the Y haplotype I folk would have been there first, with N and R1a showing up later. But if R1a conquered Uralic folk in Russia, does it really make sense to argue that N came after R1a in Estonia, Finland and the Sami country? If that was your question, I agree, and I'll be surprised if R1a from the Mesolithic is found in that part of the world. Time will tell, I guess.

motzart
23-08-14, 02:54
I read a lot about H1 as its my group and it is not present in Mesolithic Europe only during the Neolithic after the Arrival of the first farmers. Take a look at this map of H1 from 23andme, you can see a hotspot in Siberia where we find no Y DNA I , or G, but we do find R1 Y DNA.

6534

bicicleur
23-08-14, 11:13
Okay, I didn't see that reference to R1a and I don't know what he was thinking about there. I'd be surprised to find R1a in Northeastern Europeans in the Mesolithic, but if it's the Baltic you're thinking of, we don't really have results. However, Dienekes published a reference to a paper about Finland, where the researcher concluded, apparently for linguistic reasons, that Y haplotype N actually reached Finland after R1a, which he thought got there during the Bronze Age. The researcher stated:

"My dissertation shows that Proto-Germanic, Proto-Scandinavian, Proto-Finnic and Proto-Sami all date to different periods of the Iron Age. I argue that the present study along with my earlier published research also proves that a (West-)Uralic language – the pre-form of the Finnic and Samic languages – was spoken in the region of the present-day Finland in the Bronze Age, but not earlier than that. In the centuries before the Common Era, Proto-Sami was spoken in the whole region of what is now called Finland, excluding Lapland. At the beginning of the Common Era, Proto-Sami was spoken in the whole region of Finland, including Southern Finland, from where the Sami idiom first began to recede. An archaic (Northwest-)Indo-European language and a subsequently extinct Paleo-European language were likely spoken in what is now called Finland and Estonia, when the linguistic ancestors of the Finns and the Sami arrived in the eastern and northern Baltic Sea region from the Volga-Kama region probably at the beginning of the Bronze Age. "

Here's the link.

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00%2B02:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00%2B02:00&max-results=50

My own assumption is that Y haplotype N and Uralic languages dominated the northern half of Russia before the IE expansion, which resulted in IE speaking R1a people who had been living further south eventually dominating Russia, but I'm not sure about the sequence that resulted in Uralic languages being spoken in Estonia and Finland and among the Sami. I think it's pretty clear that the Y haplotype I folk would have been there first, with N and R1a showing up later. But if R1a conquered Uralic folk in Russia, does it really make sense to argue that N came after R1a in Estonia, Finland and the Sami country? If that was your question, I agree, and I'll be surprised if R1a from the Mesolithic is found in that part of the world. Time will tell, I guess.

ok, we don't know for sure who was in NE Europe first , Uralic N or IE R1a , but it was after the mesolithic
I don't think we should look for the oldest clades in NE Europe, my own feeling is there are no survivors from mesolithic NE Europe

arvistro
23-08-14, 14:34
Can you provide more info as to what time period here is meant by Mesolithic and what Neolithic? If we go back far enough we enter state when NE Europe was under ice.

JS Bach
23-08-14, 21:28
Can you provide more info as to what time period here is meant by Mesolithic and what Neolithic?

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a great site, but one thing I found inconvenient in the past when reading some articles on this site, was having to look up which time periods were being referred to when it said Mesolithic and Neolithic. :wink:

Aberdeen
23-08-14, 21:47
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a great site, but one thing I found inconvenient in the past when reading some articles on this site, was having to look up which time periods were being referred to when it said Mesolithic and Neolithic. :wink:

The Mesolithic and Neolithic reached different parts of Europe at different times. For example, the Greek Neolithic seems to be generally regarded as lasting from 6800 to 3200 BC, while the Irish Neolithic seems to be generally regarded as lasting from 4000 to 2500 BC. The situation in Finland is apparently less certain because less evidence is available. I've seen a variety of dates given by different experts as to when the Neolithic started in Finland, although they all seem to agree that it ended when the Bronze Age began there in 1500 BC, which suggests that Finland didn't have a real Copper Age. Perhaps future discoveries will clarify things. But early population movements seem to be tied to particular cultures, which arrived in different places at different times.