PDA

View Full Version : Two major new papers on Early Neolithic to Early Bronze Age mtDNA in Central Europe



Maciamo
11-10-13, 17:41
Brandt et al. (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6155/257.abstract) analysed 364 ancient mtDNA samples from the Early Neolithic (Linear Pottery culture) to the Early Bronze Age (Unetice culture), mostly around Germany, Bohemia and Poland. I believe that this is the largest study on ancient mtDNA to date. Although the article is behind a paywall, there is a 87-page PDF file (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/10/10/342.6155.257.DC1/Brandt.SM.pdf) and 17 Excel tables in the supplementary materials, which can be accessed for free. For once the data is clearly organised in a visual manner, which is lucky considering the number of pages.

Table S9 contains a summary of the mt-haplogroup frequencies from all the cultures tested to date, while table S10 provide an invaluable list of modern mtDNA frequencies for 73 populations in Eurasia and North Africa, most of which have several hundreds samples and some over 2000. The total number of samples is 50,688 !

The study confirms that Neolithic farmers (N1a, HV, H, V, J, T2, K, W, X) replaced the lineages of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (U, U4, U5, U8) during the Early Neolithic (LBK, Rössen and related cultures), but that the Mesolithic lineages made a come back in Germany with the Late Neolithic, apparently through a southward expansion of the Funnelbeaker culture from Scandinavia. New lineages (I, R, T1, U2) arrived from Eastern Europe with Corded Ware culture in the Chalcolithic and the Unetice culture in the Early Bronze Age.

6041 6042

The second paper, by Bollongino et al. (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/10/09/science.1245049) tested more ancient mtDNA from Central Europe and found a suprising number of Mesolithic U5b lineages in other sites than those that turned up Near Eastern lineages. The authors proposes the hypothesis that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers did not disappear after the arrival of Near Eastern farmers, but lived in other areas specialising freshwater fishing throughout the Neolithic.

LeBrok
12-10-13, 04:29
Great job Maciamo!

I can see phenomenon percentile drop of H-Gs population versus farmers. It means some replacement but mainly insertion (fast growth) of farmers population into Europe. Obviously H-Gs were moved to non-attractive for farming places, and population had to shrunk obviously. From first table it is so obvious how more productive farming is over hunting and gathering, from 5 to 10 fold bigger advantage in population size, even when compared to early farmers. This is a commending divide and H-Gs didn't stand a chance with so numerous population of farmers. I'm stressing this because now and then some guys dream otherwise, and I hope Zanipolo takes a note.


Interesting is how steadily (the others) rose from 0 to 50 percent of female population. What advantage they had? Especially success of H.

Also interesting are the peaks and troughs on the lines, but I think that the drastic changes are caused by still low resolution of samples over temporal scale.

Sile
12-10-13, 05:08
Great job Maciamo!

I can see phenomenon percentile drop of H-Gs population versus farmers. It means some replacement but mainly insertion (fast growth) of farmers population into Europe. Obviously H-Gs were moved to non-attractive for farming places, and population had to shrunk obviously. From first table it is so obvious how more productive farming is over hunting and gathering, from 5 to 10 fold bigger advantage in population size, even when compared to early farmers. This is a commending divide and H-Gs didn't stand a chance with so numerous population of farmers. I'm stressing this because now and then some guys dream otherwise, and I hope Zanipolo takes a note.


Interesting is how steadily (the others) rose from 0 to 50 percent of female population. What advantage they had? Especially success of H.

Also interesting are the peaks and troughs on the lines, but I think that the drastic changes are caused by still low resolution of samples over temporal scale.


not really, I always thought G was hunter gather. is this what you are referring to?

I like to bring up the bell-beaker map from the site.............why is BB void in basques lands, north adriatic area and finland and estonia?

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9937/g9sn.png

BTW, I like your new Talon avatar, gives you more "bite"
(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9937/g9sn.png)

Sile
12-10-13, 06:33
Sile I think people need to get over their love for the Basque. There just another group of Europeans not that special they shouldn't show any special connection with Bell Beaker culture.

I read that there is a void in basque, north adriatic , Finland and estonia because they did not need BB, they already had their own

adamo
12-10-13, 06:54
Speaking of the bell beaker culture of Atlantic west europe along with parts of France and Germany, MTDNA H has been linked to it

adamo
12-10-13, 06:56
So it's clear; there was a culture that occupied Ireland, England, parts of Spain, Portugal, France and Germany called the bell beaker culture; it's seems that at one point or another BB even extended to Tuscany in Italy...they were either R1b or I men I honestly believe, no matter which subclades they may have been.

adamo
12-10-13, 06:57
Either R1b or I ; could be I1 or I2 but I doubt the latter and suspect the former, these Celtic or pre-Nordic men were accompanied by a predominance of mtdna H females with possible U presence/minority and maybe even a hg V minority but I really doubt that.

nordicwarrior
12-10-13, 09:34
...The authors proposes the hypothesis that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers did not disappear after the arrival of Near Eastern farmers, but lived in other areas specialising freshwater fishing throughout the Neolithic. Anyone remember hearing me talk about this? This is what I postulated not too long ago (and no I didn't hear about this paper when I developed this theory). Not too shabby I must say...

Templar
12-10-13, 16:24
Anyone remember hearing me talk about this? This is what I postulated not too long ago (and no I didn't hear about this paper when I developed this theory). Not too shabby I must say...

I remember ;)

MOESAN
12-10-13, 17:07
it was evident all the Mesolithic people did not disappear at Neolithic - what is interesting is the river-fishing-economy of some Hunters-Gatherers because it was what was found in Scandinavia when first agricultors arrived, just before Calcholithic (Copper beginnings): the artic culture rennants kept on occupying rivers banks when "peasants" took other lands, close to them, when megalithers kept on colonising shores,without elimination nor mixing between the three, at first...

MOESAN
12-10-13, 17:32
the statute of mt H (I need some learning for mt) is interesting I think: it seems absent at Mesolithic and if "agricultor", an independant HG among other mt HG (but we lack big samples maybe, all that could change dramatically later!) - and it took off about the 3400/3100 BC and at BB times 2800 BC (but BB "fertilization of egg" began about the 3000 BC maybe before, where!!!) - and the same arrived more recently... (natural selection? I red somewhere mt DNA was not out of selection pressure) - this "independant" aspect IF CONFIRMED is intriguing; a late mesolithical wave is suspected just before neolithical innovations, as fleeing before it, from eastern Mediterranea to West - a Preneolithic one, flourishing in Iberia? - and I believe some early mt H were discovered in S-Finnland and N-Russia long time before neolithization reached these lands? confusing for the moment-
genuine first BB males were maybe not Y-R1b - what is almost sure is that it was at first a constellation of moderately sized groups of prospectors and that progressively they acculturated autochtones and moved or attracted these ones to move with their wives, by the launching due to technical-commercial improvement, taking themselves some foreign wives among these autochtones: it is my prefered interpretation, for now - it could explain the discrepancy between anthropological analysis of different BB places...

all bets as used! I 'll try to know more about subclades of mt DNA I kept aside too long time

Sile
12-10-13, 19:18
Anyone remember hearing me talk about this? This is what I postulated not too long ago (and no I didn't hear about this paper when I developed this theory). Not too shabby I must say...

no
but will be happy if you repost it

Angela
12-10-13, 23:37
The study confirms that Neolithic farmers (N1a, HV, H, V, J, T2, K, W, X) replaced the lineages of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (U, U4, U5, U8) during the Early Neolithic (LBK, Rössen and related cultures), but that the Mesolithic lineages made a come back in Germany with the Late Neolithic, apparently through a southward expansion of the Funnelbeaker culture from Scandinavia. New lineages (I, R, T1, U2) arrived from Eastern Europe with Corded Ware culture in the Chalcolithic and the Unetice culture in the Early Bronze Age.

6041 6042

The second paper, by Bollongino et al. (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/10/09/science.1245049) tested more ancient mtDNA from Central Europe and found a suprising number of Mesolithic U5b lineages in other sites than those that turned up Near Eastern lineages. The authors proposes the hypothesis that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers did not disappear after the arrival of Near Eastern farmers, but lived in other areas specialising freshwater fishing throughout the Neolithic.

Part of this I don't understand...Gok 4 was from the Funnelbeaker culture. The mt dna of the samples from that grave sitewere found to belong to haplogroups H, J, and T, at 33% each. (See (Helena Malmstrom et al, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/publications/articles/2009/Malmstrom_CB09_PWC_Mod_Scan.pdf)

So, wouldn't Funnelbeaker have brought more Neolithic lineages south?

Btw, the 19 PVC samples "from three different sites on the Baltic island of Gotland dated to 4,800–4,000 years BP" were found to belong to haplogroups J, T, V (one each), "Other" (two), U5a and U5b (three each), and U4/H1b (eight samples).

If the J, T and V are Neolithic, there was some inter-marriage between these two groups, at least in Sweden.

The Bollongino study is very interesting as well. I remember some discussion in The Early Mediterranean Village: Agency, Material Culture, and Social Change in Neolithic Italy (Cambridge Studies in Archaeology) by John Robb where the author discusses the fact that the remains from the southern Italian Neolithic sites never contained evidence of the consumption of fish. If I remember correctly, he speculated it may have been ritually taboo for some reason. Maybe that wasn't the reason at all.

MOESAN
13-10-13, 16:16
I know a little bit more now about mt H; looking at a map of mt-H1 distribution, I constated this sub-HG (SNP?) had a completely Atlantic distibution, from NW Africa to N-Scandinavia and N-Russia, with some presence among berberic tribes of Sahel (Sahara) - I suppose if I red well the twi surveys we discuss here that there was found NO ANCIENT mt H before Neolithic - but this distribution of H1 at least seems checking an old presence in W-Europe; I tried to link it to known pre-/proto-/ or -historical events, as the first Megalithic cultures or subsequent ones ('Long-Barrows'), B.B.s, Atlantic Bronze but I failed to find something explaining these very broad distribution -
a post LGM propagation seems far more evident to me - the latest events (plus Atlantic Celts maybe already launchers of Atlantic Bronze) could just have helped to strengthen the density in some places -

Angela
13-10-13, 18:46
I know a little bit more now about mt H; looking at a map of mt-H1 distribution, I constated this sub-HG (SNP?) had a completely Atlantic distibution, from NW Africa to N-Scandinavia and N-Russia, with some presence among berberic tribes of Sahel (Sahara) - I suppose if I red well the twi surveys we discuss here that there was found NO ANCIENT mt H before Neolithic - but this distribution of H1 at least seems checking an old presence in W-Europe; I tried to link it to known pre-/proto-/ or -historical events, as the first Megalithic cultures or subsequent ones ('Long-Barrows'), B.B.s, Atlantic Bronze but I failed to find something explaining these very broad distribution -
a post LGM propagation seems far more evident to me - the latest events (plus Atlantic Celts maybe already launchers of Atlantic Bronze) could just have helped to strengthen the density in some places -

Part of the issue is with the eternal problem of dating. Are you relying on any particular study for the dating of, if not the origin, the expansion of mt dna H? For instance, what do you think of the Behar et al study on it?
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297%2812%2900146-2
In table S5 of the supplement he gives the following dates for these H subclades, if I'm reading it correctly:
H1 9,888
H2 11,905
H3 8919

Those look like Neolithic dates to me.

For a long time, the conventional wisdom seemed to be that H had a starburst pattern and the diversity showed a source in the Middle East. That could have been followed by a movement along both coasts of the Mediterranean, with H1 and H3 moving from North Africa into Iberia? Or does the phylogeny indicate that it moved in the other direction?

If this movement began in the late Mesolithic, it could explain the stray H found in Mesolithic eastern Europe, picked up from a woman brought from the Caucasus, for example. The "Mesolithic" H in Iberia is another issue. Some experts in mt dna claim that the tests used too few sequences and they could just as well be "U". I suppose the only way we'll know is to get better samples, tested more rigorously, from southern Europe.

One things is pretty clear to me anyway, and that is that H was not "the" mt dna marker for Central and Eastern Europe during the Mesolithic.

Maciamo
13-10-13, 19:04
I know a little bit more now about mt H; looking at a map of mt-H1 distribution, I constated this sub-HG (SNP?) had a completely Atlantic distibution, from NW Africa to N-Scandinavia and N-Russia, with some presence among berberic tribes of Sahel (Sahara) - I suppose if I red well the twi surveys we discuss here that there was found NO ANCIENT mt H before Neolithic - but this distribution of H1 at least seems checking an old presence in W-Europe; I tried to link it to known pre-/proto-/ or -historical events, as the first Megalithic cultures or subsequent ones ('Long-Barrows'), B.B.s, Atlantic Bronze but I failed to find something explaining these very broad distribution -
a post LGM propagation seems far more evident to me - the latest events (plus Atlantic Celts maybe already launchers of Atlantic Bronze) could just have helped to strengthen the density in some places -

Actually haplogroup H has been found in Europe in Palaeolithic Spain and Mesolithic Portugal. It has only been conspicuously absent from Central Europe. I also think that H1 and H3, and probably some other subclades too, were in Europe before the Neolithic.

Angela
13-10-13, 23:59
I read that there is a void in basque, north adriatic , Finland and estonia because they did not need BB, they already had their own

Sorry, I just saw this...

I had read some speculation on the web that the "blank" areas corresponded to the areas inhabited by non-Indo European speaking peoples, i.e. the Basque speakers (and their origin area in Aquitaine), the Iberian speakers, and the Etruscan speakers (with the trail going up into the Raeti area. That's confusing, especially if you see the Etruscans as a "new" element entering Italy in the first millennium B.C. or not much earlier, and long after Beaker.

What you're reporting is interesting...do you have more details on the archaeological cultures involved?

sparkey
14-10-13, 17:35
Actually haplogroup H has been found in Europe in Palaeolithic Spain and Mesolithic Portugal.

FWIW Jean Manco disputes these results (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml). In general, none of the supposed H reported from that period have been tested at high enough resolution to say that they were H for sure. Those two studies between them had maybe 3 samples that could have been H and were reported as H (but also could have been something else), along with 3 that were probably incorrectly reported as H.

Angela
14-10-13, 19:40
FWIW Jean Manco disputes these results (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml). In general, none of the supposed H reported from that period have been tested at high enough resolution to say that they were H for sure. Those two studies between them had maybe 3 samples that could have been H and were reported as H (but also could have been something else), along with 3 that were probably incorrectly reported as H.


That's also Gail T's position. Sorting it out is above my paygrade, but I think it has to do with the fact that older studies, besides being more subject to contamination, assumed that the CRS sequence was always H, whereas it can sometimes be U or HV.

In terms of the Brandt paper itself, I'm still struggling a bit with the picture they are drawing of this complete separation of the two groups of people, a separation which actually wasn't so complete if we go by the total mtDNA results for Pitted Ware. I also think there's a danger that the results are being extrapolated to all of Europe, precisely what the authors themselves argue against.

One of the main arguments of the Brandt paper is that there was no mixing between hunter-gatherers and farmers in Central Europe for thousands of years. The explanation seems to partly be the retreat of many hunter gatherers to the far north east. Those who remained (isn't there evidence only for a period of a couple of hundred years?) supposedly retreated to fishing areas. I don't doubt the ability of different groups to remain largely separate from one another for a long time, especially if they are using different subsistence strategies. There are ample examples even in modern history. However, the farmers would have been seeking sources of water as well as suitable land, so I don't quite see why they would have ceded lands adjacent to rivers to the hunter gatherers. This was a landscape that was heavily wooded, yes? It's not as if they had endless flat fields to farm. Unless the Hunter Gatherers were limited to very swampy territory, which would have been extremely unhealthy. I'm thinking of places like the Po Valley for example, where the poor drainage meant that in summer it was a malaria infested, uninhabitable, swamp really until the historical era. (The climate stinks to this day, in my opinion, :)) Unless the amount of loess soil near soures of water was really limited? I need to look at some maps of that. I suppose one could see the farmers inhabiting loess fields slightly upland of the rivers, especially since we're talking about early Neolithic societies that hadn't yet mastered irrigation systems and drainage, and the HG's were on the riversides. In that case, though, we're talking about extremely close quarters for such an apartheit to exist.

Regardless, the situation, if this paper is correct, was very different in the Balkans. (If anyone has read, or does read it, I'd appreciate any insight into any flaws in it.)
See, Strontium isotypes document greater human mobility at the start of the Balkan Neolithic.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.full

According to the authors, the hunter gatherers were absorbed within two hundred years. And, interestingly, the exchange was heavily *female*, not male mediated, with a disproportionately higher number of Neolithic females going to Hunter Gatherer groups.

The question for me is, why the difference in central Europe? Was there less suitable land for these Near Eastern crops, and were crops less abundant even in those specific areas, and so their way of life seemed less successful? Was there more territory suitable to the retention of the HG way of life? Or were these people just less adaptable to a new way of life? After all, in a deeply profound and professional comment, Dr. Wolfgang Haak stated for a Washington Post article that “Farmers are probably loud, noisy and stinky at the same time. They come with domestic farm animals and just take over the place.” Maybe they even had mandolins? :)

I also think his analysis isn't complete. Where are the southeastern French, Northwestern Italian, or indeed Balkan examples? The early Neolithic in central Europe may have had a strictly agrarian diet, (as did the southern Italian Neolithic) but that wasn't true in other parts of Europe. In northern Italy, for example, it was more of a mixed mode subsistence lifestyle , with hunting and fishing and gathering supplementing the farming. From memory, that was also true in France and Spain. So, would that indicate more admixture in those areas? More adaptability on both sides?

And he has left out of his theory the "other" category, which is the "H" lineages which today constitute the majority of European mtDNA lineages, and which, according to his paper and to Brotherton et al, seem to have arrived from the West. It seems to me that is the major change in the picture, far more so than the few more obscure lineages like (I, T, R, and my own U2e) that he seems to believe arrived with the more eastern, perhaps "Indo-European" groups. After all, his own chart shows the mtDNA lineages in order of current frequency as H, then the Early and Middle Neolitic lineages, then the U "Mesolithic" lineages and then the eastern ones. The Mesolithic U4 and U5, going just by memory, so I may be wrong, reach a high of only 20% and that's in northeastern Europe. In France they barely reach 10%. Even if "H" was mesolithic in arrival in, say, Iberia, it wasn't a player in central Europe until the mid-Neolithic. Then, there are those who claim it moved east/west, not the other way around.

Floyo
14-10-13, 20:47
Isn't HV Mesolithic?

Tone
15-10-13, 19:26
The question for me is, why the difference in central Europe? Was there less suitable land for these Near Eastern crops, and were crops less abundant even in those specific areas, and so their way of life seemed less successful? Was there more territory suitable to the retention of the HG way of life? Or were these people just less adaptable to a new way of life? After all, in a deeply profound and professional comment, Dr. Wolfgang Haak stated for a Washington Post article that “Farmers are probably loud, noisy and stinky at the same time. They come with domestic farm animals and just take over the place.” Maybe they even had mandolins? :)

The land around Central Europe is in the same climate zone as the Pacific North West in North America. When "discovered" by Europeans about 200 years ago, the Native Americans living in this zone practiced little to no agriculture, yet achieved a fairly high population density because the area was rich in available food resources, including fish.

The situation in Central Europe was probably the same thousands of years ago. The Central European LBK farmers were stopped because it's quite possible the natives were too strong in number in the territories North, East and West of the agricultural lands. And the natives had no incentive to adopt agriculture since they were already living in one of the best food spots the planet Earth has to offer.

Just an idea...

Maciamo
15-10-13, 20:31
Isn't HV Mesolithic?

All top level mt-haplogroups are Paleolithic.

Maciamo
15-10-13, 20:33
FWIW Jean Manco disputes these results (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml). In general, none of the supposed H reported from that period have been tested at high enough resolution to say that they were H for sure. Those two studies between them had maybe 3 samples that could have been H and were reported as H (but also could have been something else), along with 3 that were probably incorrectly reported as H.

If they weren't H, they were HV or R0, but in any case not U4 or U5. HV and R0 are typically Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian haplogroups, so if that it the case, it could mean that haplogroup such as E1b1b, T or J were present in Iberia during the late Paleolithic or Mesolithic.

LeBrok
15-10-13, 23:59
http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Angela http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=417900#post417900)
The question for me is, why the difference in central Europe? Was there less suitable land for these Near Eastern crops, and were crops less abundant even in those specific areas, and so their way of life seemed less successful? Was there more territory suitable to the retention of the HG way of life? Or were these people just less adaptable to a new way of life? After all, in a deeply profound and professional comment, Dr. Wolfgang Haak stated for a Washington Post article that “Farmers are probably loud, noisy and stinky at the same time. They come with domestic farm animals and just take over the place.” Maybe they even had mandolins? :


The situation in Central Europe was probably the same thousands of years ago. The Central European LBK farmers were stopped because it's quite possible the natives were too strong in number in the territories North, East and West of the agricultural lands. And the natives had no incentive to adopt agriculture since they were already living in one of the best food spots the planet Earth has to offer.

Just an idea...

Central and North East Europe was very wooded with thick forests way back. It was hard to clear forests with copper tools, therefore first thriving big scale cultures showed up with Corded Ware bronze age people. With bronze axes it became feasible to cut thick forest for crop fields.

Secondly, I suspect that early crops varieties were of Middle Eastern and South European kinds. It took time to modify them and bread new varieties for Central and Northern European climate.

Thirdly, first farmers who got to Europe were of darker skin colour than today Europeans. They needed time to mix with locals and develop lighter skin colour, more suitable for low UV radiation and more efficient in vitamin D production.

These 3 major obstacles were in the way of South European farmers moving North in big numbers. It might also explain why first big farming communities/cultures happened when R1a and I people of Central and Northern Europe learned how to farm. They've already had lighter skin and other predispositions to colder weather. But still they didn't go big till invention of a bronze axe.

Tabaccus Maximus
16-10-13, 05:53
FWIW Jean Manco disputes these results (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml). In general, none of the supposed H reported from that period have been tested at high enough resolution to say that they were H for sure. Those two studies between them had maybe 3 samples that could have been H and were reported as H (but also could have been something else), along with 3 that were probably incorrectly reported as H.


My antennas are also alerted to the Spanish results. Several things just don't jive and I meant to make the case in a seperate post but I'll put here.

1. We've learned from the last of the two papers that Hunter-Gatherer populations were alive and well during the Neolithic, un-neolithicized and continuing to follow traditional sustainment strategies. This poses an immediate problem for dating sites in Spain. If I positively extract haplogroup H from a presumably Paleolithic cultural site, then I must rely exclusively on carbon dates to put into a timeline. (Paleolithic age technolgies persist even in 2013)

2. If H survived in the Franco-Cantabrian refuge, why did U* re-colonize Europe but H did not. Doesn't that seem a little strange given highly procreative nature of H and the likelyhood that through the Ice Age, the Franco-Cantabrian refuge sustained a relatively small, homogenous, hunter-gatherer population built on similar way of life?

3. The dates don't jive. H can only be so old. That means H1 & H3 have only so long to trek into Spain before getting snowed-in for a few thousand years. Even moderate ages for H1 & H3 don't work.

Tabaccus Maximus
16-10-13, 06:39
More thoughts...

I would expect low amounts of H* to leak into Europe with Linear Band Culture and the later Rossen or Funnel Beaker Culture. Both move westward and show signs of cultural diffusion.

With enough time H eventually reaches Treilles, France (3000 B.C.) which is also believable given the context of other haplogroups and culture through which it is associated.

Graphically, dates and sites for H in Spain 'appear' out of place...

Which brings us to the most holy of all sacred cows...dating archealogy sites in Northern Spain based on associated technologies and carbon dates.

UH-OH!

adamo
16-10-13, 09:29
Wait, what? Why did U re-colonize Europe and H did not?? Mtdna H is found in 40-60% of the females in virtually every European country. It reaches highest frequency in 63% of Irish females and originated in the Cantabrian refuge. From there it spread heavily to nearby countries and all across Europe, with a marked west to east percentage gradient. (Highest frequencies are in west and Central Europe and the frequencies decrease as we hit he western Russian planes and towards Asia. Mtdna H was by all odds the most successful European mtdna haplogroup. V also spread from the Cantabrian refuge but today is only found at high frequencies (40% or more) in extreme northern Scandinavia parts of norther Sweden Norway and Finland. U was the oldest mtdna group to enter Europe though, exiting the Middle East and heading towards northwestern Russia/ the Baltic states region. From here, where the highest frequencies are experienced, some of these females would have leaked into parts of the Balkans or more towards west/Central Europe at lower frequencies. Finland,France,Belgium,Latvia,lithuania Croatia; all these countries have European HiGhS of U at 20-25% of their females. Average is about 15% of the females in all European countries are U; it's a rarer northeastern European haplogroup (not Scandinavia as V is centred in north Scandinavia), but near the Baltic states region is where U peaks.

Floyo
16-10-13, 10:36
All top level mt-haplogroups are Paleolithic.


NVM, i understand it now.

Tabaccus Maximus
17-10-13, 09:51
Wait, what? Why did U re-colonize Europe and H did not??

That is what I am saying.
http://dienekes.blogspot.jp/2013/04/mtdna-haplogroup-h-and-origin-of.html

It is one thing to say that Haplogroup H is virtually absent in the Mesolithic, its another to graphically illustrate the various ages and distributions which I will try to find and post.
What I am saying, is that for whatever reason, Paleolithic H samples in Spain are a clear outlier. They do not conform to any reasonably expected pattern. The many issues with persisting hunter-gather technologies, dating and the general trash that is taken for archeogenetics and interpretation in Spain might be an explanation.


Mtdna H is found in 40-60% of the females in virtually every European country.

That it is true, Sir.


It reaches highest frequency in 63% of Irish females and originated in the Cantabrian refuge.

It does have a pattern of extreme excelleration in the archeological record begining in the late Neolithic. H1 and H3 may have travelled from Spain, maybe not, but they are not old enough by any liberal measure to be Franco-Cantabrian refugees. Simply not old enough at all, ever, by anyone's numbers.


From there it spread heavily to nearby countries and all across Europe, with a marked west to east percentage gradient.

That may be true for H1 and H3. That may also be partly true for some clades of R1b. If Beakers began expanding from Spain, and if Beakers were some kind or many kinds of R1b, then that may be why they are often yoked together.

MOESAN
17-10-13, 18:17
Part of the issue is with the eternal problem of dating. Are you relying on any particular study for the dating of, if not the origin, the expansion of mt dna H? For instance, what do you think of the Behar et al study on it?
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297%2812%2900146-2
In table S5 of the supplement he gives the following dates for these H subclades, if I'm reading it correctly:
H1 9,888
H2 11,905
H3 8919

Those look like Neolithic dates to me.

For a long time, the conventional wisdom seemed to be that H had a starburst pattern and the diversity showed a source in the Middle East. That could have been followed by a movement along both coasts of the Mediterranean, with H1 and H3 moving from North Africa into Iberia? Or does the phylogeny indicate that it moved in the other direction?

If this movement began in the late Mesolithic, it could explain the stray H found in Mesolithic eastern Europe, picked up from a woman brought from the Caucasus, for example. The "Mesolithic" H in Iberia is another issue. Some experts in mt dna claim that the tests used too few sequences and they could just as well be "U". I suppose the only way we'll know is to get better samples, tested more rigorously, from southern Europe.

One things is pretty clear to me anyway, and that is that H was not "the" mt dna marker for Central and Eastern Europe during the Mesolithic.

thanks for your link (but it's an abstract,the hell!) and for your thoughts -
I agree mt H doesn't seem the typical mt HGr of central and eastern Europe during mesolithic -
all the way all our '-lithic' names are confusing because they refer to culture evolution and we give them a date of birth linked to the source of culture in a place, when the date of apparition in other places in very different - (I think in so called 'neolithical sites' in France were in fact some populations were at the mesolithical stage) - 8000/9000 BC neolithical? in Near-East maybe, but elsewhere? if in Iberia: Mesolithical!?!
what would account is the dates of presence in western Europe...
I agree for a possible path through one or the two sides of Mediterranea sea concerning mt H, who knows (what Y-DNA HG?) - bearers of the archaic type of 'cromagnoid-mediterranean' of Charles (1060's)? an heavy element among autosomals 'mediterranean component' (basque side)???

Angela
18-10-13, 16:45
thanks for your link (but it's an abstract,the hell!) and for your thoughts -
I agree mt H doesn't seem the typical mt HGr of central and eastern Europe during mesolithic -
all the way all our '-lithic' names are confusing because they refer to culture evolution and we give them a date of birth linked to the source of culture in a place, when the date of apparition in other places in very different - (I think in so called 'neolithical sites' in France were in fact some populations were at the mesolithical stage) - 8000/9000 BC neolithical? in Near-East maybe, but elsewhere? if in Iberia: Mesolithical!?!
what would account is the dates of presence in western Europe...
I agree for a possible path through one or the two sides of Mediterranea sea concerning mt H, who knows (what Y-DNA HG?) - bearers of the archaic type of 'cromagnoid-mediterranean' of Charles (1060's)? an heavy element among autosomals 'mediterranean component' (basque side)???



The link to the pdf was in the upper right hand corner. Here is a direct link to the paper. You need to follow the links to the Supplemental Data. The dates are in Table S5.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929712001462

I would indeed agree that of course it's important for our purposes when a lineage got to Europe.

However, the estimated age of a lineage is a floor or ceiling, whichever you choose. :)

If Behar's dates are correct, mtDNA "H" is only 12,846 years old, or 10, 800 B.C. So, is it plausible it was already in the Franco Cantabrian refugia and ready to expand in 11,500 with the beginning of the Holocene, especially if the starburst pattern and variance mean that "H" originated in the Middle East? And if it is plausible, why don't we see the same pattern of spread as for U5?

Hervella et al 2012 did label two finds from Upper Paleolithic/Magdalenian sites in Cantabria as H and H6. However, first of all, they don't provide actual dates for these two samples, which isn't helpful. Secondly, Behar's date for H6 is 10,945, which is a problem. Also, the classification for both these samples is in dispute, as apparently the H6 one could just as well be U, and the H one is more likely to be RO or HV.
Hervella et al...http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0034417

This is why I asked what people thought of the Behar dates. :)

HV is kind of old (21,905 years ago) and the Paglicci 25 cave sample, which might be HV or RO is dated to 24,000 BP. HV is just possible, given SD differences, and RO is definitely possible, as it's dated to 39,960.

I'm taking some of this sample information from Jean Manco's online collection of ancient dna...I don't think it's up to date, but it gives a pretty good idea.
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

And then, at the end of the day, how do we know that if there were some early stray HV or H migrants into Europe, that they even survived, and the majority didn't arrive until the Neolithic, for which period the trail is very clear.

Btw, MtDna "V", according to Behar, has an age 9,739