PDA

View Full Version : New map of mtDNA haplogroup U5



Maciamo
15-10-13, 17:46
Haplogroup U5 was the most common maternal lineage among European hunter-gatherers, not just during the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, but until much later in North and Northeast Europe, notably with the Sami people. U5 is absent from Southwest Asia and very low in most of the Middle East, where its presence could be attributed to foreign invasions and settlements from the Bronze Age onwards (Hittites, Indo-Iranians, Phrygians, Armenians, Greeks, etc.).

U5 correlates mostly with Y-DNA haplogroups I, N1c1 and R1a.

Oddly enough southern Italians (data from Boattini et al. 2013 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0065441)) have even less U5 than the Greeks, Albanians and Maghrebians. This would tend to confirm my theory (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml#ice_age) that E-V13 arrived in Europe in the Palaeolithic from North Africa, then crossed over to Albania and Greece.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-U5-map.png


UPDATE: a detailed page about the origins, history, distribution and subclades of haplogroup U5 is now available here (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U5_mtDNA.shtml).

Angela
15-10-13, 19:14
Haplogroup U5 was the most common maternal lineage among European hunter-gatherers, not just during the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, but until much later in North and Northeast Europe, notably with the Sami people. U5 is absent from Southwest Asia and very low in most of the Middle East, where its presence could be attributed to foreign invasions and settlements from the Bronze Age onwards (Hittites, Indo-Iranians, Phrygians, Armenians, Greeks, etc.).

Oddly enough southern Italians (data from Boattini et al. 2013 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0065441)) have even less U5 than the Greeks, Albanians and Maghrebians. This would tend to confirm my theory (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml#ice_age) that E-V13 arrived in Europe in the Palaeolithic from North Africa, then crossed over to Albania and Greece.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-U5-map.png

Thank-you for all these maps. They're extremely helpful.

As to the U5 in Italy, I know that Brisighelli et al found total U in the south at up to 20%, and up to 28% total U in the southeast. Were you able to use their data and break it out? Did other studies perhaps have far lower levels?

It generally seems to me as if the U5 was pushed north and north east by the farmers, with perhaps some back migration from Slavic areas into the Balkans perhaps? That might explain some of the numbers in Greece as well, although as I said, Brisighelli gave the impression that U was much stronger in southern Italy.

Some of the refugia areas seem to make sense...Brittany as sort of a finisterre...one near the Caucasus...Sardinia.
I don't quite understand the slice around Perpignan(?)... Narbonne)?)... unless that's a bleed over from the Pyrennees.

Speaking of Sardinia, I don't know if the models that see it as totally Neolithic are correct...there are some signs of Paleolithic presence there. These levels of mtDNA U5, and the y dna I2a1(?) if that is indeed Mesolithic, would seem to indicate otherwise. That's certainly the view of Francalacci.

albanopolis
15-10-13, 19:18
Had E-V13 arrived in the Ballkans through Anatolia, J1 in Ballkans should have been in line with Turkey. Instead its insignificant in Albania. The 1-2% that is actually present can be atributed to Italian or Ottoman conquest of Albania. So I think it makes sense that E-V13 arrived by boat to Sicily and from there spread all over Europe by land or boat. I don,t know if there is any argument that J1 was not present in middle east or Turkey when E-V13 crossed the region.

Jackson
15-10-13, 19:52
Haplogroup U5 was the most common maternal lineage among European hunter-gatherers, not just during the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, but until much later in North and Northeast Europe, notably with the Sami people. U5 is absent from Southwest Asia and very low in most of the Middle East, where its presence could be attributed to foreign invasions and settlements from the Bronze Age onwards (Hittites, Indo-Iranians, Phrygians, Armenians, Greeks, etc.).

U5 correlates mostly with Y-DNA haplogroups I, N1c1 and R1a.

Oddly enough southern Italians (data from Boattini et al. 2013 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0065441)) have even less U5 than the Greeks, Albanians and Maghrebians. This would tend to confirm my theory (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml#ice_age) that E-V13 arrived in Europe in the Palaeolithic from North Africa, then crossed over to Albania and Greece.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-U5-map.png

Great map, thanks! What sort of area is roughly represented by elevated levels of U5a1? I had heard it was more eastern European but i don't know.

Maciamo
15-10-13, 20:14
As to the U5 in Italy, I know that Brisighelli et al found total U in the south at up to 20%, and up to 28% total U in the southeast. Were you able to use their data and break it out? Did other studies perhaps have far lower levels?

The total for U is not very useful for the U5 map. Some of the highest frequencies of U observed outside Lapland is actually in the Middle East (Iraq, Iran), but that is U1, U3, U7 and U9.

According to Boattini et al. South Italy has 11.7% of U. The highest frequencies are for U1 (2.4%) and U3 (2.4%), both linked to Y-haplogroup J. Sicily has 9.8% of U (mostly U1, U2 and U5).



It generally seems to me as if the U5 was pushed north and north east by the farmers, with perhaps some back migration from Slavic areas into the Balkans perhaps?

That's also how I see it.


I don't quite understand the slice around Perpignan(?)... Narbonne)?)... unless that's a bleed over from the Pyrennees.

The data for France and northern Spain comes from Garcia et al. 2011 (http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v106/n1/abs/hdy201047a.html) (supplementary table S3). All western France from Loire-Atlantique to Pyrénées-Atlantique was very low, but the Mediterranean coast of France (Hérault, Var) was higher than the Western European average.


Speaking of Sardinia, I don't know if the models that see it as totally Neolithic are correct...there are some signs of Paleolithic presence there. These levels of mtDNA U5, and the y dna I2a1(?) if that is indeed Mesolithic, would seem to indicate otherwise. That's certainly the view of Francalacci.

Sardinia is not purely Neolithic but about 40% Mesolithic too. This is expressed in the high percentage of I2a1a and mtDNA U5, H1 and H3. I am not sure whether I2a1a people mixed with Near Eastern newcomers already during the Neolithic period or if they lived side by side like in Central Europe. But it would have been easier for the two populations to mix in Sardinia than in Central Europe, mostly because Cardium Pottery people were at first essentially goat and sheep herders who also hunted too to complement their diet (as still did Ötzi much later). Nomadic herders therefore had a more compatible lifestyle with nomadic hunter-gatherers than with cereal farmers settled in villages. That may be why in Southwest Europe Near Eastern lineages are typically found alongside I2a1 lineages, and that was already the case at the Cardium Pottery site in Treilles, in Languedoc-Rouissillon.

PaschalisB
15-10-13, 20:41
Thanks a lot for this map! I was surprised to discover I belong to this mtdna haplogroup. My maternal grandmother's grandmother belonged to the Sarakatsani population, a group said to be one of the most ancient in Greece. Maybe they have more U5 than the rest of the greek populations?

Angela
15-10-13, 20:54
Great map, thanks! What sort of area is roughly represented by elevated levels of U5a1? I had heard it was more eastern European but i don't know.

It looks like the highest concentration is in the Saami areas in the far north of Scandinavia, but those would be low population density areas. After that, Finland, far northern Scandinavia, and then the Baltics, with some bleed down into Poland. That darker swathe into Russia might be the Udmurt type areas? Someone with more expertise in that area of Europe would know more about it. Croatia seems to have pooled a bit of it.

I'm surprised by how low the levels are in most of Europe. There couldn't have been all that many Mesolithic fishermen inhabiting the landscape with the Neolithic farmers, unless the ancient y dna tells a very different story when we get it.

Well, there's also U4 to consider...although isn't most of that later?

I'm still chewing over all the pages in the Brandt et all supplement, so I might have to edit this at some point. :)

ElHorsto
15-10-13, 22:04
Enlightening maps as usual, thanks!
Looks like a very good match with the north_east euro autosomal component from K12.
I don't expect perfect local matches because haplogroups have much more volatile distributions than autosomals, yet mtDNA is perhaps still less volatile than Y-DNA.
Regarding Sardinia I still think they almost lost their autosomal legacy from the north-euro-like hunter-gatherers, despite U5 and I2 frequencies, because in all autosomal distance measures I've seen Sardinians appear most distant from north-east europeans.
Although admittedly the increased U5 in Sardinia raises some questions.

Wilhelm
16-10-13, 01:17
The map seems wrong to me. According to the study of García et. al 2011, the north of Spain (the Vasco-Cantabrian area) should have one of the highest levels in Europe (besides Finns and Lapps) :

Cantabria : 17.3%
Pasiegos : 19.5%
Gipuzkoa Basque : 17.7%

Jackson
16-10-13, 03:24
It looks like the highest concentration is in the Saami areas in the far north of Scandinavia, but those would be low population density areas. After that, Finland, far northern Scandinavia, and then the Baltics, with some bleed down into Poland. That darker swathe into Russia might be the Udmurt type areas? Someone with more expertise in that area of Europe would know more about it. Croatia seems to have pooled a bit of it.

I'm surprised by how low the levels are in most of Europe. There couldn't have been all that many Mesolithic fishermen inhabiting the landscape with the Neolithic farmers, unless the ancient y dna tells a very different story when we get it.

Well, there's also U4 to consider...although isn't most of that later?

I'm still chewing over all the pages in the Brandt et all supplement, so I might have to edit this at some point. :)

Well if i remember correctly from a recent lecture, in many parts of Europe hunter gatherers and farmers were contemporary for many hundreds of years or more.

Thanks for the information on U5a1, i remember an earlier study (and shown on 23&me) found in most common in Norway and northern Germany, but thought there would be more information about it's general distribution by now.

Maciamo
16-10-13, 08:14
The map seems wrong to me. According to the study of García et. al 2011, the north of Spain (the Vasco-Cantabrian area) should have one of the highest levels in Europe (besides Finns and Lapps) :

Cantabria : 17.3%
Pasiegos : 19.5%
Gipuzkoa Basque : 17.7%

I have averaged the data for Cantabria to 10.7% (n=242) and the Basque country to 11.7% (n=618). However I just ran into new data about North Navarre (n=318) that gives 17% for U5b1f only, so certainly over 17.5% for all U5.

bicicleur
16-10-13, 09:18
during the last ice age, E1b1 was in Ethiopia, there was nobody in the Sahara, only few A1a in the Atlas mountains and Iberia, E1b1b must have come 6-8000 years ago, when the Sahara turned into a desert again

bicicleur
16-10-13, 09:19
Had E-V13 arrived in the Ballkans through Anatolia, J1 in Ballkans should have been in line with Turkey. Instead its insignificant in Albania. The 1-2% that is actually present can be atributed to Italian or Ottoman conquest of Albania. So I think it makes sense that E-V13 arrived by boat to Sicily and from there spread all over Europe by land or boat. I don,t know if there is any argument that J1 was not present in middle east or Turkey when E-V13 crossed the region.

in answer to above

Maciamo
16-10-13, 09:26
I have added a higher frequency shade for northern Navarre, Bipuzkoa and the Pas-Miera region.

Maciamo
16-10-13, 09:28
during the last ice age, E1b1 was in Ethiopia, there was nobody in the Sahara, only few A1a in the Atlas mountains and Iberia, E1b1b must have come 6-8000 years ago, when the Sahara turned into a desert again

Except that the Sahara was green and luxuriant during a good part of the last Ice Age and it might have had one of the highest human population density on earth.

bicicleur
16-10-13, 14:22
Except that the Sahara was green and luxuriant during a good part of the last Ice Age and it might have had one of the highest human population density on earth.

The Sahara was dead and empty 18-20.000 years ago.
That's when I think some A1a fled to Europe via Iberia, and E1b1 retreated to the Ethiopian heights.
The Sahara may have been green 13-16.000 year ago, and it certainly was 10-6.000 years ago.
But I see no reason why E1b1 would flee to Europe, that was allready well populated at that time.
I believe some E1b1b fled to Europe at the end of that period, e.g. like Almagro culture 7.500 years ago, Andalucia.

LeBrok
16-10-13, 17:29
The Sahara was dead and empty 18-20.000 years ago.
.
It goes like this. The warmer the Earth is the more water evaporates from oceans, therefore more rain falls and greener our globe is.. It means that during cold Ice Ages there is less evaporation and precipitation. Sahara will be the dryest and biggest during Ice Ages. I think Sahara was the greenest in Neolithic, in holocene maximum, when it was warmer than today.
Having said that the end of Ice Age could be wetter too. When moisture builds up in the air and it is drastically cooled when close to edge of Ice Sheets. Also Ice would keep moist air, and gulfstream more south, making South Europe and even Sahara wetter.

Maciamo
16-10-13, 18:28
It goes like this. The warmer the Earth is the more water evaporates from oceans, therefore more rain falls and greener our globe is.. It means that during cold Ice Ages there is less evaporation and precipitation. Sahara will be the dryest and biggest during Ice Ages. I think Sahara was the greenest in Neolithic, in holocene maximum, when it was warmer than today.
Having said that the end of Ice Age could be wetter too. When moisture builds up in the air and it is drastically cooled when close to edge of Ice Sheets. Also Ice would keep moist air, and gulfstream more south, making South Europe and even Sahara wetter.

Actually it has to do with the air and sea currents that vary with climate change. The Sahara was green until the Last Galcial Maximum (24,500 to 17,000 BCE), when it turned into a desert again. Rain came back around 12,500 BCE and the Sahara was green again for three millennia. The desertification re-started around 9500 BCE (at the same time as the start of the Neolithic in the Levant). Then there was a renewed humid period from 7500 to 3000 BCE, after which time the desertification started again and lasted to this day.

The Sahara therefore alternated from dry to wet for hundred of thousands of years and each period lasted several millennia. Humans have lived in the Middle East for over 60,000 years and could have inhabited the Sahara for a much longer period, as attested by the presence of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, our oldest presumed ancestor since the split with the Chimpanzees, who lived between 7 and 6 million years ago in the Sahara (which was obviously not desert at the time).

I do not think it is a coincidence that the Neolithic started in the Levant just as the Sahara started drying up. I believe it could have started earlier in eastern Libya (which would have been criss-crossed by rivers) and Egypt. This would also explain why haplogroup E1b1b had spread all over northern Africa and to the Levant before 9500 BCE.

Wilhelm
16-10-13, 18:38
I have added a higher frequency shade for northern Navarre, Bipuzkoa and the Pas-Miera region.
Ok where can I see the updated map ?

Maciamo
16-10-13, 19:48
Ok where can I see the updated map ?

Did you refresh the page ?

bicicleur
16-10-13, 20:00
I do not think it is a coincidence that the Neolithic started in the Levant just as the Sahara started drying up. I believe it could have started earlier in eastern Libya (which would have been criss-crossed by rivers) and Egypt. This would also explain why haplogroup E1b1b had spread all over northern Africa and to the Levant before 9500 BCE.

There was a theory that agriculture was brought into the Levant from Africa.
Since then it has been discovered that people around lake Tiberias (or lake of Galilee) allready consumed wild grains 20.000 years ago.
Other technologies which were supposed to have been imported from Africa now appear to have existed in the Levant long time before.
I believe that agriculture started in the Levant and southern Anatolia 11.500 years ago by the same people that settled in the Levant allready 44.000 years ago (Ahmarian culture - haplo J2), and I think that it was the other way around : agriculture was brought into Africa from the Levant. Of course it spread very rapidly in the Sahara because of the favourable climate at that time. Indeed most people in the Sahara must have been E1b1, but don't forget, some T and even a branch of R1b also came into Africa, maybe around that time.

Degredado
16-10-13, 22:04
Maciamo, what is your understanding of U5b1? Would it have first pooled in NE Europe during the Paleolithic/Mesolithic and then spread to Western/SW Europe, or the other way around?

LeBrok
17-10-13, 07:22
Actually it has to do with the air and sea currents that vary with climate change. The Sahara was green until the Last Galcial Maximum (24,500 to 17,000 BCE), when it turned into a desert again.
I'm unable to find information showing that Sahara was greener during Ice Age. All my searches say it was very dry during cool periods.

During the last glacial period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period), the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#cite_note-17) The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps because of low pressure areas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_pressure_area) over the collapsing ice sheets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet) to the north.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#cite_note-18)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara



The Sahara therefore alternated from dry to wet for hundred of thousands of years and each period lasted several millennia. Humans have lived in the Middle East for over 60,000 years and could have inhabited the Sahara for a much longer period, as attested by the presence of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, our oldest presumed ancestor since the split with the Chimpanzees, who lived between 7 and 6 million years ago in the Sahara (which was obviously not desert at the time).
Yes, it was warmer, wetter and greener on Earth up to 2.5 million years ago when climate really cooled.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png/400px-Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

Ice Ages are last 2 million year fenomenon. Quite recent in geological terms. This might mean that Sahara was Savana like with many lakes till 2 million years ago.

bicicleur
17-10-13, 08:38
last 8 ice ages came in cycles of +/- 100.000 years
last ice age was 20.000 years ago, the one before 128.000 years ago
between 130.000 - 55.000 years ago there seem to have been several (4) wet periods in the Sahara and Arabia
then it became gradualy dryer, and 20.000 years ago it became extremely dry
maybe it was wet 13-16.000 years ago, and it was wet again 6-10.000 years ago
12,7 - 11,6 years ago there was a cold spike (the 'youngest dryas') resulting in the tundra coming back all over Europe and a dry period in the Sahara and Arabia
after that agriculture started in the Levant and southeast Anatolia
wet periods in the Sahara seem to be coming with shifting monsoon winds

Angela
17-10-13, 16:16
Enlightening maps as usual, thanks!
Looks like a very good match with the north_east euro autosomal component from K12.
I don't expect perfect local matches because haplogroups have much more volatile distributions than autosomals, yet mtDNA is perhaps still less volatile than Y-DNA.
Regarding Sardinia I still think they almost lost their autosomal legacy from the north-euro-like hunter-gatherers, despite U5 and I2 frequencies, because in all autosomal distance measures I've seen Sardinians appear most distant from north-east europeans.
Although admittedly the increased U5 in Sardinia raises some questions.

Sorry, I'm playing a little catch up here...I don't recall and can't seem to find any thread where Dienekes deconstructed the North East European component of K-12 in order to show it's relationship to other clusters, but, with the caveat that we're not talking about the same exact cluster, I think it still might be informative to consider what he says about the K=12b North European component.
See:

The North European in that analysis is about 2/3 Atlantic Med, a little less than 1/3 Gedrosia, and a slice of Siberian. Atlantic-Med itself is 90% Caucasus (which we know has a big "Southern" component along with North Euro), with about another 10% North Euro.

If I had to guess, the North East Euro would have less Atlantic Med, less Gedrosia, and more Siberian.

Just for comparison, these are the scores for Germans and Poles in the two analyses:
North Euro/North East Euro
Germans: 48/25.3
Poles: 63%/44.9
Lithuanians: 77/59

This is my round about way of saying that I don't think that North East Euro equates to northern European mesolithics either. :)

That component is mixed as well, just like the Northern European one. There is no remaining North Eurasian Mesolithic population...that's why they keep saying it's outside the range of modern variation. That's also why, I think, Skoglund said that the Northern Europeans are slightly more related to these people than are southern Europeans. We're all picking apart what is essentially not that much variation in Europe any longer, however stark the differences may have been in the early Mesolithic.

As to Sardinians, I posted a study on another thread about the fact that in the Balkans the authors saw assimilation between the foragers and the farmers within a few hundred years. I don't know if that study will stand up in the face of the new results that hopefully will be coming from the Balkans soon. If they are correct, however, and even if I2a1 is "mesolithic", all the wives that the paper indicates they seem to have taken from the newcomers might indeed have changed the autosomal picture for them before some of them set out to colonize the western Mediterranean. On the other hand, should mtDNA "H" turn out to have a Mesolithic presence in Mediterranean Europe, then the calculus would be more in line with what Maciamo has suggested. Of course, if people then wanted, for whatever reason, to differentiate between Northern or North Eastern Mesolithic, and Southern European Mesolithic that could be done as well.

LeBrok
17-10-13, 17:17
last 8 ice ages came in cycles of +/- 100.000 years
last ice age was 20.000 years ago, the one before 128.000 years ago
between 130.000 - 55.000 years ago there seem to have been several (4) wet periods in the Sahara and Arabia
then it became gradualy dryer, and 20.000 years ago it became extremely dry
maybe it was wet 13-16.000 years ago, and it was wet again 6-10.000 years ago
12,7 - 11,6 years ago there was a cold spike (the 'youngest dryas') resulting in the tundra coming back all over Europe and a dry period in the Sahara and Arabia
after that agriculture started in the Levant and southeast Anatolia
wet periods in the Sahara seem to be coming with shifting monsoon winds

Some of wet cycles affect only South Sahara region, with monsoons that you mentioned coming from south-west.

ElHorsto
17-10-13, 18:02
Sorry, I'm playing a little catch up here...I don't recall and can't seem to find any thread where Dienekes deconstructed the North East European component of K-12 in order to show it's relationship to other clusters, but, with the caveat that we're not talking about the same exact cluster, I think it still might be informative to consider what he says about the K=12b North European component.
See:

The North European in that analysis is about 2/3 Atlantic Med, a little less than 1/3 Gedrosia, and a slice of Siberian. Atlantic-Med itself is 90% Caucasus (which we know has a big "Southern" component along with North Euro), with about another 10% North Euro.

If I had to guess, the North East Euro would have less Atlantic Med, less Gedrosia, and more Siberian.

Just for comparison, these are the scores for Germans and Poles in the two analyses:
North Euro/North East Euro
Germans: 48/25.3
Poles: 63%/44.9
Lithuanians: 77/59

This is my round about way of saying that I don't think that North East Euro equates to northern European mesolithics either. :)

That component is mixed as well, just like the Northern European one. There is no remaining North Eurasian Mesolithic population...that's why they keep saying it's outside the range of modern variation. That's also why, I think, Skoglund said that the Northern Europeans are slightly more related to these people than are southern Europeans. We're all picking apart what is essentially not that much variation in Europe any longer, however stark the differences may have been in the early Mesolithic.

As to Sardinians, I posted a study on another thread about the fact that in the Balkans the authors saw assimilation between the foragers and the farmers within a few hundred years. I don't know if that study will stand up in the face of the new results that hopefully will be coming from the Balkans soon. If they are correct, however, and even if I2a1 is "mesolithic", all the wives that the paper indicates they seem to have taken from the newcomers might indeed have changed the autosomal picture for them before some of them set out to colonize the western Mediterranean. On the other hand, should mtDNA "H" turn out to have a Mesolithic presence in Mediterranean Europe, then the calculus would be more in line with what Maciamo has suggested. Of course, if people then wanted, for whatever reason, to differentiate between Northern or North Eastern Mesolithic, and Southern European Mesolithic that could be done as well.

Apologies for not having enough time to anwer more comprehensively. Just briefly: By "Northeastern" I actually meant "Northern" from K12b and "Eastern" from K12 at the same time, since both overlap strongly. Sorry for not being more clear.

The samples found in Gotland and La Brana showed closest autosomal resemblance with Saami, Finns and to a wider extent also with Scandinavians, north Slavs and Balts - the last two admittedly more related to mtDNA U4 . That's why I'm sure the most paleolithic remnants can be found in the forests and tundras of northeastern europe.

Regarding Atlantic_Med component, I believe that it is much older than Caucasus component. Dienekes thinks Caucasus is the source of nations, but he himself once provided analysis of clusters against each other where Atlantic_med turned out to be second oldest, while Caucasus was second newest. There is an older discussion about this buried somewhere in this forum. I think Atlantic_med was already in east-mediterranean during the paleolithic and partially spread to Iberia (some strong hints were already present in the La Brana hunter-gatherer), before later admixtures changed it in the near-east. But I'm not sure.

adamo
17-10-13, 18:03
I'm beginning to believe the very first Europeans were y-DNA I and mtdna U predominantly; followed after by R1b and mtdna H/V.

adamo
17-10-13, 18:05
R1a though came MUCH later towards Central Europe; even J2,E3b,T (Neolithic) lineages have been in Europe longer than R1a has fen in the Czech Republic, for example. As the Paleolithic transitioned towards the Neolithic we can imagine a slew of new incoming lineages to Europe.

GloomyGonzales
17-10-13, 19:05
R1a though came MUCH later towards Central Europe; even J2,E3b,T (Neolithic) lineages have been in Europe longer than R1a has fen in the Czech Republic, for example. As the Paleolithic transitioned towards the Neolithic we can imagine a slew of new incoming lineages to Europe.

Really? We have 8500 y.o. R1a clades in CE. while I have never heard about so old J2,E3b,T clades in CE.

adamo
04-12-13, 17:04
The most recent common ancestor for all U5 women broke off from the rest of the group and headed north into Scandinavia. Even though U5 is descended from an ancestor in haplogroup U, it is also an ancient lineage, estimated to be around 50,000 years old. U5 is quite restricted in variation to Scandinavia, particularly to Finland. This is likely the result of the significant geographical, linguistic, and cultural isolation of the Finnish populations, which would have limited the geographical distribution of this subgroup and kept it fairly isolated. The Saami, reindeer hunters who follow the herds from Siberia to Scandinavia each season, have the U5 lineage at a very high frequency (50%) indicating that it may have been introduced during their movements into these northern territories. The U5 lineage is also found outside of Scandinavia, though at much lower frequencies and with much lower genetic diversity. Interestingly, the same exact U5 found in the Saami has also been found at very low frequencies in some north-African Berber populations of Morocco, Senegal and Algeria. Finding similar genetic lineages in populations living thousands of miles apart is certainly unexpected, and is likely the result of movements that occurred 15,000 years ago when the last ice age came to an end. In addition to being present in some parts of North Africa, U5 individuals are also found sporadically across the Middle East at 2% trace frequencies in people's such as Armenians!Kurds,Turks; none is present on the Arabian peninsula. Because these rare individuals have lineages that first evolved in Europe, their presence in the near east is due to back-migration of people who left Northern Europe and headed south, as though retracing the migratory paths of their own ancestors. About 5-10% of European women belong to mtdna U5.

Jackson
04-12-13, 23:05
The most recent common ancestor for all U5 women broke off from the rest of the group and headed north into Scandinavia. Even though U5 is descended from an ancestor in haplogroup U, it is also an ancient lineage, estimated to be around 50,000 years old. U5 is quite restricted in variation to Scandinavia, particularly to Finland. This is likely the result of the significant geographical, linguistic, and cultural isolation of the Finnish populations, which would have limited the geographical distribution of this subgroup and kept it fairly isolated. The Saami, reindeer hunters who follow the herds from Siberia to Scandinavia each season, have the U5 lineage at a very high frequency (50%) indicating that it may have been introduced during their movements into these northern territories. The U5 lineage is also found outside of Scandinavia, though at much lower frequencies and with much lower genetic diversity. Interestingly, the same exact U5 found in the Saami has also been found at very low frequencies in some north-African Berber populations of Morocco, Senegal and Algeria. Finding similar genetic lineages in populations living thousands of miles apart is certainly unexpected, and is likely the result of movements that occurred 15,000 years ago when the last ice age came to an end. In addition to being present in some parts of North Africa, U5 individuals are also found sporadically across the Middle East at 2% trace frequencies in people's such as Armenians!Kurds,Turks; none is present on the Arabian peninsula. Because these rare individuals have lineages that first evolved in Europe, their presence in the near east is due to back-migration of people who left Northern Europe and headed south, as though retracing the migratory paths of their own ancestors. About 5-10% of European women belong to mtdna U5.

There was a study on Danish mtDNA quite recently which was interesting. Small amounts of Saami U5 were found, but the majority (around 3/4) was U5a (mostly U5a1a1 and U5a1b), while in Iberia it is the other way around, with around 3/4 of the U5 being U5b as opposed to U5a. Quite interesting, but don't know what it means ultimately.

adamo
04-12-13, 23:20
Over all, Greeks,Italians,spaniards and Portuguese men only have about 5% mtdna U5 in total; it is quite scarce in these regions and pretty much everywhere in Europe other than Scandinavia. The French, Irish, Scottish and welsh have more like 10%; same for Bulgarians, Romanians, Bosnians, Slovenians and Macedonians, Hungarians, Austrians, Germans, poles, Czechs and Slovaks. The swedes, Norwegians, Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians and Finns (on a national level) have 15%. I don't have statistics on the Danes.

adamo
04-12-13, 23:27
It seems that the further you move north and east across Europe, the higher the U5 frequencies become. I believe the basque and certain regions of France have slightly inflated frequencies though, particularly the first group I mentioned.

Jackson
05-12-13, 00:28
It seems that the further you move north and east across Europe, the higher the U5 frequencies become. I believe the basque and certain regions of France have slightly inflated frequencies though, particularly the first group I mentioned.

Here's a post from another forum about it (By GailT on Anthrogenica, her specialization seems to be U5):


I'll use this thread for updates on new U5 sequences, starting with the results from the new Li et al study on diabetes in Denmark. The study has 2000 full mtDNA sequences, including 160 in haplogroup U5, or 8%. The sequencing is of uneven quality with some samples having large numbers of no calls, but I was able to place all but 1 in subclades of U5, listed below.

It is interesting that Denmark is nearly 73% U5a and 27% U5b. The U5b samples are heavily concentrated in U5b2. In constrast, the recent 13 U5 samples from northwest Spain (Zamorra Province) were 31% U5a and 69% U5b.

Some notable finds were new U5a1*, U5b1* and U5b3* samples.

For two of the subclades found often in Finland, U5b1b1a and U5b1b2, there were no U5b1b1a samples, and there were 3 U5b1b2 samples. I've speculated that U5b1b1a arrived in Finland via an eastern European route, and U5b1b2 via a western European route, and these results seem consistent with that theory.


U5a1 = 51%
N = 84
U5a1* = 1
U5a1a1 = 31
U5a1a2 = 5
U5a1b = 22
U5a1c2a = 9
U5a1d = 3
U5a1e = 1
U5a1f = 4
U5a1g = 4
U5a1h = 4
U5a1*i1 = 1

U5a2 = 21%
N = 34
U5a2a = 13
U5a2b = 10
U5a2c = 5
U5a2d = 3
U5a2e = 1
U5a2*g =1


U5b1 = 7.6%
N = 12
U5b1* = 1
U5b1b2 = 3
U5b1c2 = 1
U5b1c2b = 3
U5b1d2 = 2
U5b1e = 2


U5b2 = 17%
N = 27
U5b2a1a1 = 3
U5b2a1a1*C = 2
U5b2a1a1*C2 = 2
U5b2a2a1 = 4
U5b2a2b = 1
U5b2a2b1 = 3
U5b2a2c = 1
U5b2a4a = 1
U5b2a5 = 1

U5b2b* = 1
U5b2b1a = 1
U5b2b4 = 3
U5b2b4*B = 2
U5b2b4*B1 = 1

U5b2c2b = 1


U5b3 = 1.3%
N = 2
U5b3* = 1
U5b3e = 1

adamo
05-12-13, 02:45
So most Danish U5 seems to be of the U5a variety; very interesting, but what are the overall frequencies of U5 in Denmark?; I doubt they exceed 5-15% so U5 isn't particularly frequent in Denmark either way.

adamo
05-12-13, 02:49
But according to its subclade distribution, 70% are U5a whereas 30% are U5b...does anyone have any information on were U5a is most frequent and were it's highest diversity is and same for U5b; thanks in advance. : )

Jackson
05-12-13, 04:12
So most Danish U5 seems to be of the U5a variety; very interesting, but what are the overall frequencies of U5 in Denmark?; I doubt they exceed 5-15% so U5 isn't particularly frequent in Denmark either way.

8% According to this study, but of course it will vary by sample, so 5-15% seems a reasonable enough estimate. :)

epoch
27-01-14, 00:27
There is no remaining North Eurasian Mesolithic population...that's why they keep saying it's outside the range of modern variation.

Yes. There must be. We all are the remaining North Eurasian Mesolithic population. It must be because of the following logic.

We know for sure that the most abundant mtDNA haplogroup of mesolthic hunter-gatherers is U5/U4/U. We also know that there is ample archeological evidence that hunter-gatherers lived alongside the new farmers for thousands of years, even if separated from them. We have DNA from a number of those cultures which lived alongside farmers and they are mtDNA U5/U4/U.

If these people managed to remain alive and remain their own culture for several thousand years, they must have been relatively immune to the diseases that exterminated all other HG's on other continents that came into first contact with farmers. They were decimated, whereas European HGs were not. And lo and behold, guess what was found in La Brana 1: La Brana 1 has derived alleles at loci associated with pathogen resistance.

We know the core of Europe has about one third WHG admixture. We found that after LBK the number of U mtDNA in farmers goes up.

There is no other possibility than that we all in Europe are the remaining HG's. Partly, that is.

Original European
30-03-14, 07:38
I'm beginning to believe the very first Europeans were y-DNA I and mtdna U predominantly; followed after by R1b and mtdna H/V.
I belong to both haplogroups and I have always been curious about their origins and age ever since I discovered that my Father belongs to haplogroup I and my Mother to haplogroup U. It seems that it is the oldest purely European haplogroup line, and, apparently, rare in the present-day.

WendyKeys
02-01-18, 11:53
Hello everyone. I have just registered with this site having received my mtDNA results from Family Tree DNA. I am just beginning my journey and hope to learn lots about my haplogroup - U5b1c2b.

Nerd
08-01-18, 04:51
U5b (or U5b1) is specific to Saami (not U5a), correct? And that is also how they are connected to Berbers. I am having a mess with my DNA testing because I am only Scandinavian ancestry, with northern Swedes (who looked Saami), and I'm coming up with anything from bits of North Africa to Lithuania, Ukraine, and Komi Russia all over my admixtures. No. Uff. U5a is more common elsewhere in Scandinavia, like this map. This is U5a?

Alyan
14-05-18, 01:13
U5 was found in a First Intermediate Egypt mummy.

Explorer
20-06-18, 04:33
Good Day, Maciamo. I've been reading many of your brilliant posts and I'm really impressed with your knowledge. I'm in mtDNA Haplogroup U5. Thank you for all the work you put into sharing so much interesting information here.

Explorer
20-06-18, 05:48
U5b (or U5b1) is specific to Saami (not U5a), correct? And that is also how they are connected to Berbers. I am having a mess with my DNA testing because I am only Scandinavian ancestry, with northern Swedes (who looked Saami), and I'm coming up with anything from bits of North Africa to Lithuania, Ukraine, and Komi Russia all over my admixtures. No. Uff. U5a is more common elsewhere in Scandinavia, like this map. This is U5a?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello "Nerd". How are you? That is an interesting question. Some of the places you mention would correspond to other areas where such U5b1b1 mtDNA is now found likely due to migrations, marriages, etc. Additionally, I believe there are some Saami with U5a, as well as other people, (including some of those from Sweden), but that the U5b1b1 subclade is more specifically or more exclusive to the Saami? However, U5b1b1 subclade was also found to have made it to the Berbers and the Yakuts. I found something that can shed more light on what you are asking about in regards to these other places you mentioned, (besides Northern Sweden), which is the fascinating article called: "Haplogroup U5 mtDNA", by Maciamo Hay (2017), at:
eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U5_mtDNA.shtml

There are also some U5a examples of Saami mtDNA from Saami Project: myDNA public results (though without personal names), these are results of Saami mtDNA Haplogroups and subclades, and some of them (on pages 4-5 ), do have U5a, so it is not unheard of. familytreedna.com/public/Saami?iframe=mtresults

Were you wondering if you have some Saami ancestry, although you are U5a? It is certainly still possible. Is your family aware of your family tree, and if so is there any mention of this? -- Or is your interest purely academic? Either way, I hope these links will help you in your research.

Kind Regards, Explorer

Arthur82
06-10-18, 18:19
U5 As in the case of the hapl. U2, we again see strange contradictions. Judging by the map in Daghestan, only Avars have this hapl. U5 and also those Avars who live in Northern Azerbaijan. No Dargins as owners of allegedly hapl. U2, contrary to the author’s opinion, are not indicated on this map. It's all territory of Avars.And why, when they write about Darghins, they always appear on the Avar territory? Do they have their own land?

Joey37
06-10-18, 21:05
My stepfather belongs to U5a mtdna, he is Italian in maternal descent, most likely from southern Italy, as most of his Italian ancestors came from that part of the country and it is likely his matriline is from that part of the country. In comparison I (and my mother) are Irish origin J1c

LiBo
20-08-20, 13:25
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are also some U5a examples of Saami mtDNA from Saami Project: myDNA public results (though without personal names), these are results of Saami mtDNA Haplogroups and subclades, and some of them (on pages 4-5 ), do have U5a, so it is not unheard of. familytreedna.com/public/Saami?iframe=mtresults

Were you wondering if you have some Saami ancestry, although you are U5a? It is certainly still possible. Is your family aware of your family tree, and if so is there any mention of this? -- Or is your interest purely academic? Either way, I hope these links will help you in your research.



Hello,

I recently got my mtDNA results. I primarily did the test because I was curious to find out if I have any Saami ancestry on my mother's side - she is from north-eastern Finland and all of us women in the family have something of a Saami look. I'm not aware of any family history that says anything like it, and I only know of my ancestry as far back as my great-great grandmother, thus 19th century.

While the test gives my haplogroup as U5b1b2a, the common Finnish one, and while I don't have the Saami motif, when I looked at the list in Explorer's link of the public Saami test results, there are some with U5b1b2a, out of which a few are almost identical to mine in terms of the HRV1 and HRV2 mutations, except I have one mutation missing in the HRV1 category. What does that mean in terms of shared ancestry?

Thanks!