Strong Evidence mtDNA H did not spread in Neolithic and was already popular in Europe

What is your opinion on arguments mtDNA H did not spread in Europe in the Neolithic

  • 100% agree with The main mtDNA H subclades in Europe are rarely found in the Middle East

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • partly agree with The main mtDNA H subclades in Europe are rarely found in the Middle East

    Votes: 2 40.0%
  • Undecided on the main mtDNA H subclades in Europe are rarely found in the Middle East

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dont agree with the main mtDNA H subclades in Europe are rarely found in the Middle East

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 100% agree with not enough research on Pre historic European DNA, only ones with few H are mentioned

    Votes: 3 60.0%
  • partly agree to not enough research on Pre historic European DNA only ones with few H are mentioned

    Votes: 2 40.0%
  • Undecided on not enough research on Pre historic European DNA only ones with few H are mentioned

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dont agree with not enough research on Pre historic European DNA only ones with few H are mentioned

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 100% agree with It is impossible for Bell Beaker to have spread mtDNA H

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • partly agree with It is impossible for Bell Beaker to have spread mtDNA H

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Undecided on It is impossible for Bell Beaker to have spread mtDNA H

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • Dont agree with It is impossible for Bell Beaker to have spread mtDNA H

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 100% agree with Europeans have different mtDNA H subclades from each other

    Votes: 2 40.0%
  • partly agree with Europeans have different mtDNA H subclades from each other

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • Undecided on Europeans have different mtDNA H subclades from each other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dont agree with Europeans have different mtDNA H subclades from each other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    5
Again, there's still no definite proof that North European is the "only" European cluster, since both were maybe living side by side and we don't know it yet. On the other hand, I see a bunch of contradictions, but let's start:

It think you unwillingly deviated from the original question into some strawman argument. No one here denies that Saami/Fennobaltic North_european component is clearly dominant in La Brana and Gotland hunter-gatherers and no one claims that they are mediterranean. The main question was why has La Brana so much more mediterranean in some calculators (45% in K12b) than the two hunter-gatherers from Gotland (<15%)? There must be a reason for this difference.

I'm just describing with words here again what the numbers of the calculators say, actually the numbers speak for themselves.
ElHorsto got the point, if I were you I would take good note.

so what those utah americans are from either england or somewhere in teh uk germany or norway they are still north europeans
They carry A LOT of Mediterranean alleles, so the shift towards them is definetely telling us something. For instance, ¿do you know why Basques don't cluster people from the UK? it's not because they don't have as much "Atlantic-Baltic" in some calculators, but simply because they lack the West Asian admixture. Just for you to see...

europeans are all from one big family europeans where isolated and devloped unque traitss minly their own hair colors light skin in europeans and blue and green eyes
Europeans as whole are ALL quite homogenous, both Southern and Northern Europeans. And we are not dealing with traits, don't know why do you mention this now. Anyways, I'm afraid you would be surprised seeing how light Med people can be.

mid easterns have no unque group they share their groups with many diffenrt people and they have inter married but europeans where isolated like native americans all none european mtdna, y dn haplogroups, and non north euro austomnal dna cme to europe in probably the last 10,00 years
Don't know why do you talk about Middle Easterns, since it's pretty clear that if the Med component has something in common with them, it's because THEY carry the Med admixture diluted with something else (SW Asian), not the other way around as I already explained above.

Concerning the allele sharing and isolation arguments, in short, both are plain false:

- I posted figures showing that North European is indeed present deep in Asia at non trivial amounts (and according to you even in North Africa LOL), so the component looks widely shared in my book.

- If there's an isolated component in West Eurasia, that is NOT North European, but Mediterranean. I think it's more or less the 4th time we're dealing with this. Check the Fst distances and the PCA plot, and you'll see that North European has more non-European affinities than the Med admixture. So it didn't remain unaltered as you think, no way.
 
so what those utah americans are from either england or somewhere in teh uk germany or norway they are still north europeans

They are as much "north european" as CEU. That's why the La Brana sample clusters more with them and less with Saami and Finns. Even the authors of the La Brana paper claim La Brana to be similar to Britons. That's not because of north-europeanness, else La Brana would be closest to Finns and Saami. La Brana is obviously closer to contemporary average europeans than the Ajv52 and Ajv70 samples from Gotland are.

la bran eriod was by far mainly north european in austomnal dna he most likley got his austomnal dna med from incoming farmers it still defends my point that he did not have alot of med alot less than any modern europeans and that in mesloithic and paloithic europe north euro was probably the only austomnal group and med came longer but i still thin there is a chance med was there but most modern med was not

That's possible. And I agree that most farmers were autosomally mostly atlantic_med, but by this it is not clear yet where the origin of the Atlantic_med component was.
Regarding paleolithic: I personally don't believe that european and near-eastern hunter-gatheres were completely isolated from each other all the time, because there is evidence of exchange between european and siberian hunter-gatherers (amerindian component, globe13). I see no reason why near-eastern hunter-gatherers should be an exception. Europe is adjacent to both, Asia and the Mediterranean.
 
Again, there's still no definite proof that North European is the "only" European cluster, since both were maybe living side by side and we don't know it yet. On the other hand, I see a bunch of contradictions, but let's start:


ElHorsto got the point, if I were you I would take good note.

i think there is tons of proof mesloithic hunter gather who lived with farmers in Spain was dominated by north euro more than almost all europeans same with hunter gather in swedan from 5,000ybp and farmer austomnal dna was dominated by med even one that lived near swedish hunter gather and at same time this means med almost defintley came with farming to europe at least most of it and the some med in la brana and Swedish hunter gathers came from farmer inter marrage and the fact sami and finnish have been shown to be extremly relted to them and that they have almost no med and their ancestors where seperated from the rest of europe in neloithic and wherehunter gathers till at earliest 4,000ybp they are like the last mesloithic europeans in austomnal dna but same with far eastern europeans like volga russians so i think all med is non european inter marraige all europeans trace most of their ancetry to onne group that created north euro


They carry A LOT of Mediterranean alleles, so the shift towards them is definetely telling us something. For instance, ¿do you know why Basques don't cluster people from the UK? it's not because they don't have as much "Atlantic-Baltic" in some calculators, but simply because they lack the West Asian admixture. Just for you to see...
in those calculators atlantic baltic includes some med like what u said before and basque have alot of neloithic anestry that is why they have 60% med in globe13 like early european farmers that is why they are differnt from british


Europeans as whole are ALL quite homogenous, both Southern and Northern Europeans. And we are not dealing with traits, don't know why do you mention this now. Anyways, I'm afraid you would be surprised seeing how light Med people can be.
we are dealing with traits all Europeans are dominated by genes that create pale skin all Caucasians except Indians also have these genes but they are more popular in european people ad most caucasins are brownish skinned while white is a small minority but with europeans white skin is the only skin color sone europeas including many members of my family have brownish skin but that is from noneuropean inter marriage and about 40% of western and eastern europeans have blue or green eyes blue ad green eyes orignated in the mid east about 50,000ybp but they became extremly popular in europeans blonde hair is very popular in europeas it exsits at aleast 30% in almost all of europe blonde hair originated in europe and is a european trait red hair is extremly rare and only found i western europe and parts of volga russia and in some indo europeans in asia but europeansare defintley connected by traits that is why they are know as white people and i dont think ever said med people are not pale they are darker than the rest of europe in hair and eye color but they are much paler than non europeans


Don't know why do you talk about Middle Easterns, since it's pretty clear that if the Med component has something in common with them, it's because THEY carry the Med admixture diluted with something else (SW Asian), not the other way around as I already explained above.
yes med is in the mid east at about 20-30% i globe13 austomnal dna but u cant say it is diluted by SW asian because that group originated i SW asia so if anything med dilutes SW asian and since europeans where orignalley one family withone austomnal group and native americans where two that means they are all one family but mid easterns and indians have many groups and many y dna and mtdna haplogroups they are a mix of many differnt families there is no such thing as the mid eastern race they are a results of mixing also it is hard to say where med orignated[/QUOTE]

Concerning the allele sharing and isolation arguments, in short, both are plain false:

- I posted figures showing that North European is indeed present deep in Asia at non trivial amounts (and according to you even in North Africa LOL), so the component looks widely shared in my book.
yes north euro isin asia but it is mainly in areas know is history for european inter marraige in iraq, turkey, and syria the ancien indo european indo iranien cimmerians conquered most of that area 2,800-2,600ybphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians remains of early indo irnians show they where mainly north euro in austomnal dna and about 70% light eyes ad 60% blonde with some red hair http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-remains-Y-DNA-mtDNA-hair-color-and-eye-color moder kurds are really cimmerians they have about 20% easter European I2a1b ad 20% indo European R1b M73, R1a1a1b2 and light hair and eyes pop up commonly and even red hair they also still speak a indo iranien language and have spread north euro in the mid east

also indo Iranians also migrated acroos most of the mid east and south asia that is why most in india iran area speak a indo Iranian language they spread north europe in those areas also near caucus they inter married with ethnic groups in russia who in russia who have over 70% north euro in globe13 and greeks inter married with turks and in central asia there is a long history of europeans in central asia the sythiens and other indo iraniens dominated that area from 5,000-2,000ybp then where conquered by east asian and other non european people also we have remains of european mtdna u5 and east asian mtdna c in central asia from over 7,000ybp so u can defintley explain north euro in most of asia easily just like u can explain west asin in almost allof europe

- If there's an isolated component in West Eurasia, that is NOT North European, but Mediterranean. I think it's more or less the 4th time we're dealing with this. Check the Fast distances and the PCA plot, and you'll see that North European has more non-European affinities than the Med admixture. So it didn't remain unaltered as you think, no way.[/QUOTE]
 
Your ability to twist things really amazes me:

- First, those tons of proofs don't exist. You can keep ignoring the fact La Braña shows quite a lot of Med, and that the individual was actually closer to CEU than any other population.

- The calculators you mention basically hide Med because the Ks are low, but when Med appears it also shows up at very high levels among people from the UK (not only the Basques). So the main difference is their West Asian admixture, the lack of it is what mostly isolates Basques from standard Europeans. It is safe to say that if they wouldn't cluster perfectly, they would do it extremely close. So the argument works.

This random West Eurasian map shows they are not that distant, and we see some Kent samples pulling towards Basques: http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5977/weunov011.png

Sardinians on the other hand are more distant because their North European is much lower in that case, but Basques still have enough to be close.

- We don't know which hair colour was present first in Europe. Your blond hair theory is just that, a theory, not to mention your idea concerning eye colour. Still no data my friend, and I don't see any particular reason to not find dark hair or eyes during the Paleolithic. Maybe you possess information labeled top secret lol.

- The SW Asian component, as I explained three times, is a blend of MED + something else. The program reads the alleles as Med or SW depending on the samples used and the distances employed. On the other hand, Med is the most remote component, so it does not come from the SW Asian one, rather the opposite.

- Search the populations I posted having North European outside of Europe, because some of them are no way geographically close to Turks and the others you mention.
 
Your ability to twist things really amazes me:

- First, those tons of proofs don't exist. You can keep ignoring the fact La Braña shows quite a lot of Med, and that the individual was actually closer to CEU than any other population.
i am not ignoring that fact what i am saying is he is extremly related to finnish and sami who have almost no med and their ancestors where isolated from the neloithic age and are the last true Mesolithic europeans in austomnal dna also i am not ignoring that there where already farmers all over spain and france and germany 7,000ybp who where full of med in austomnal dna we have 3 y dna g2a samples in spain from 7,000ybp just like otzie who had 55% globe13 med so that is almost defintley where he got his med all europeans technicalley should be from hunter gathers but we have alot of med so our ancestors inter married with farmers like otzie so did a brana it had to happen at somepoint basque and iberians are a results of l brana and otzie people breding together why dont basque have tons of north european because their ancestors inter married with farmers and la brana still had very little med compared to most europeans even in the test where he had 45% the only europeans in that test with that little atlantcic med are fr northern europeans like norwiegan and british so he alines with far northern europeans in all tests the same thing happened with the some med in the two hunte rgathers in swedan from 5,000ybp they lived right next to a farmer in that area who had 64% mmed u know they are going to inter marry at somepoint so that is another easy explination and the fact that finnish only have 9.8% med while most of europe has over 30% and that their ancestors where pretty much isolted from teh Neolithic age but not completely it is obvious just about all med austomnal dna in europe is from neloithic it is so obvisous to me there is a very small chance any existed in europe before Neolithic and the fact europeans have unque traits and all europeans come from one big family that family was unque and would have had one austomnal group which is north euro i have very good evidence north euro was orignalley the only European austomnal group and from what i have heard all experts agree

- The calculators you mention basically hide Med because the Ks are low, but when Med appears it also shows up at very high levels among people from the UK (not only the Basques). So the main difference is their West Asian admixture, the lack of it is what mostly isolates Basques from standard Europeans. It is safe to say that if they wouldn't cluster perfectly, they would do it extremely close. So the argument works.

the fact is that basque have about highest med in europe okay maybe ur right more med would show if the hide the k's even though i dont know what that is then the k's are hiding med that is in basque to either ay basque have tons of med like those early farmers and not like british and the fact the basuqe have less than 20% blonde hair while british have over 35% at least and british have 10-15% red hair while basque only have 1-3% and it came from gaulic inter marraige all that shows basque are a diffenrt people from british their only similarity is their european the R1b thing means nothing basque also get R1b from gauls

med was almost defintley not in pre Neolithic europe orignalley at some point all europeans had north euro or the ancestral type of north euro u keep trying to say med is more popular in Europe tody than tests show and that it was in Mesolithic and Paleolithic europe when there really is not alot of evidence and i think austomnal tests dont tell exact percentages and are complicated it seems u know more about how it works than me but i know those percentages are off because according to them europeans are less than 50% european we all know this is not true

This random West Eurasian map shows they are not that distant, and we see some Kent samples pulling towards Basques: http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5977/weunov011.png

Sardinians on the other hand are more distant because their North European is much lower in that case, but Basques still have enough to be close.

i dont really trust that basque are close to british they have very differnt hair color percentages and basque do have alot more med than British the hair color eye color differnce convinces me they are two diffenrt groups because if they where so close they would have sme hair and eye color percentages british are mainly from R1b indo europeans they probably are mainly decended of indo europeans who came from around the are of russia and ukriane and migrted to western europe about 5,000ybp basque are probably mainly decended of farmers like otzie who are a mix of probably mainly la barna people but also alot of incoming farmers from somewhere that is not europe but they also had white skin like europens because we can see otzie skin color in his dna so i dont know they had some european blood to it is so confusing where they came from

- We don't know which hair colour was present first in Europe. Your blond hair theory is just that, a theory, not to mention your idea concerning eye colour. Still no data my friend, and I don't see any particular reason to not find dark hair or eyes during the Paleolithic. Maybe you possess information labeled top secret lol.
blonde hair is totally european it only exsits in european people at average it is about 30-40% in europe it would hve been higher 6,000-10,000ybp because greeks who are in teh same family as polish and ukraines would have had mainly y dna i2a1b and theyw ould not have 24% west asian and 18% swouthwest asian in globe13 they would also have about 30-40% blonde hair yugoslvaiens who have 40% i1a1b still have 15% west asian and over 10% southwest asian in austomnal dna but most prts have pver 20% blonde hair orignalley they would have had 30-40% scandnaviens and baltic people their main non Indo European, uralic y dna is i1 and they hve over 60% blonde hair blonde hair is very european and was probably been there since paloithic defintley over 20,000ybp there is some blonde hair in urdish people in mid east because tehy partly decend from european indo iranien speaking cimmerians and some other indo iranien speakers like kalsah in asia have blonde hair from what we know only europeans have blonde hair it is totalley a european trit same with red hair and blue eyes which are almost as popular as brown eyes in europe and would have been more popular 10,000ybp than today most likly orignated in teh mid east with the common ancestor family of Europeans, north Africans, west Asians, and iraniens and pakistania about 60,000ybp http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/herc2-haplotypes-phylogeny-and.html
because mid easterns and pakistni people have the blue eye genes but they have the ancestral type at a higher percentage than any Europeans an mid eastern groups that have inter married with Europeans like kalash people have they have more of the non ancestral alle like Europeans so it is constant this means mid easterns who actulley have lot of the blue eye genes could not have gotten it from European inter marriage because they have different alle percentages also it has been proven all the genes identified to create pale skin in Europeans exist at almost the same rate in the mid east, north Africa, and pakistan area http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...OW_xPJQ2wHUYfsSk1soFW5Q&bvm=bv.48572450,d.dmg
- The SW Asian component, as I explained three times, is a blend of MED + something else. The program reads the alleles as Med or SW depending on the samples used and the distances employed. On the other hand, Med is the most remote component, so it does not come from the SW Asian one, rather the opposite.
i never said med came from SW asian and since med and SW asian are most related to each other and that from what u say SW asian is mix of med and something else then that probably meansmed orignated in southwest asian and north african people in globe13 and other tests have almost no west asian they are almost all southwest asian and med i think this also shows north africans are most relted to arabs, jews, all sw asians and they would have migrated there 30,000-50,000ybp and southwest asia is the place to look for the origin of the med austomnal dna

- Search the populations I posted having North European outside of Europe, because some of them are no way geographically close to Turks and the others you mention.

i dont know about that since north euro is so centered in europe and from what i know only exists in areas with known european contact and seems to have been the only group in europe before neloithic makes me think and ll the experts there is no doubt north euro originated in europe and any one who is not European and has it got it from european inter marraige i would like to see these populations u are talking about and where did u post it and not everything is recorded mainly in anceint history so there may have been europen inter marraige in places like 10,000ybp but from what i know north euro that is not in europe only exsist in mid east, north africa, south asia, and central asia and some areas of china because tocherians and other indo iraniens who came there like sythiens from 4,500-1,500ybp there are still some white people that pop up in china
 
My last post, some things become really boring after many clarifications.

- Of course you ignore the facts, I'll show you again and maybe (I highly doubt it) you realise what I'm saying: La Braña, for the third or fourth time, is NOT extremely related to Finns, but to CEU or Northwestern Europeans, who carry A LOT of Med alleles. Deal with it. La Braña is a valuable piece of evidence that Southern Europe and Northern Europe could have been substantially different during the Mesolithic or even the Paleolithic. My point since the begining was that maybe Med was more restricted, and the finding (the only one from Southern Europe, don't forget) supports the point. If this one shows quite a lot of Med, ¿how do you know others would not be the same or even more? You simply don't know it, but you still keep saying it's obvious when you're not even able to see how obvious is that MtDNA H was responsible of the Med admixture in North Africa. The more one analyses the available data, the clearer it is.

- Then you continue twisting things basing your argument on pigmentation observations, completely ignoring that, first of all, pigmentation SNPs represent a very small fraction of our full genome heritage. No one talked about who is lighter or darker, the issue were genetic similarities (overall), and I basically said the main difference between the UK and the Basques is the West Asian component. Imagine what would happen in the map I posted if we remove the West Asian element from the Kent samples: they would be placed down very close to the Basques.

- We lack ancient pigmentation data, so you can speculate what's "most European" all night and day if you feel like. Nothing will change, at the moment there's no particular reason to assume dark traits are not enough old in Europe to be considered native as well. However, it's true that blond hair and blue eyes are found mostly in Europe, the question is when those traits became significant.

- You didn't understand anything regarding Med and SW asian: I said Med people mated in the Near East with someone else creating the SW Asian element. By no means this points that the Med admixture originated there, but only expanded. If Med was better preserved in Southern Europe than elsewhere, that is what really speaks for itself if you want to look for its origins. That simple.

- North Euro is so centered according to you. The numbers say it's quite present in Asia as well, and I don't think all North European there is the result of relatively recent conquests. Don't forget North European is Asian shifted compared to the Med admixture (did you check the Fst distances? ¬¬) so that is showing us some kind of connection, likely Siberian or Amerindian-like as some experiments already showed.
 
Last edited:
I basically said the main difference between the UK and the Basques is the West Asian component. Imagine what would happen in the map I posted if we remove the West Asian element from the Kent samples: they would be placed down very close to the Basques.

The West Asian admixture in Britain still seems very low to me. The main difference between Britons and Basques is actually the Med/North ratio, which can be seen also in your map where the UK is half-way distant between Finns and Basque - part Northern part Mediterranean. West-asian admixture would cause a shift more to the right towards the Caucasus peoples. Not?
Else I agree.
 
Well, I don't pretend to be right about everything I say. Maybe my point is more an impression than a fact, and it's quite uncertain how the Kent samples would behave without West Asian. I tend to think they would be placed closer to Basques than the French or even some Iberians do, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyways, it made no sense to mention traits.
 
Last edited:
- Of course you ignore the facts, I'll show you again and maybe (I highly doubt it) you realise what I'm saying: La Braña, for the third or fourth time, is NOT extremely related to Finns, but to CEU or Northwestern Europeans, who carry A LOT of Med alleles. Deal with it. La Braña is a valuable piece of evidence that Southern Europe and Northern Europe could have been substantially different during the Mesolithic or even the Paleolithic. My point since the begining was that maybe Med was more restricted, and the finding (the only one from Southern Europe, don't forget) supports the point. If this one shows quite a lot of Med, ¿how do you know others would not be the same or even more? You simply don't know it, but you still keep saying it's obvious when you're not even able to see how obvious is that MtDNA H was responsible of the Med admixture in North Africa. The more one analyses the available data, the clearer it is.

yes la brana had 24% med well most of europe today has at leatst 30% ma rana has lower med than almost all europeans he probably got his med from farmer inte rmarraige he is kind off evidence there may have been med in mesloithic and paloithic but not really obvisouly he had way less than modern iberians and less than modern europeans period this means that med in modern europeans comes from those farmers who had 59% and 64% and since la brana lived near these farmers he most likley got the med from inter marraige and at somepoint hunter gather farmer inte rmarraige happened and i dont see teh connection with med and mtdna h lets just say some how la brana did not get his med fro farmers and his people where th H1 and H3 that spread to north africa he only had 24% he would need like 80% to give so much to north africans he had mainly north euro north africans have more than 4 times more med than north euro so i dont think it is possible they got that med from another source and if they had so much european blood they would be white u do see some ones with red hair and other strictley european features and those ones live in the atlas mountains and have the highest amount of H1, H3, V, and U5b1 in north africa but who knows if they got it from that migration

- Then you continue twisting things basing your argument on pigmentation observations, completely ignoring that, first of all, pigmentation SNPs represent a very small fraction of our full genome heritage. No one talked about who is lighter or darker, the issue were genetic similarities (overall), and I basically said the main difference between the UK and the Basques is the West Asian component. Imagine what would happen in the map I posted if we remove the West Asian element from the Kent samples: they would be placed down very close to the Basques.
pigmentation is very important it is one of the best ways to identfy differnt ethnic groups and it is true basque have majority brown eyes british have majority light eyes basque have vast majority brown hair british have vast majority light hair basque have at most 1-3% red hair but it is from Gauls and british have 10-15% that is very important it shows they are two differnt people groups sure pigmentation is is small in our genome but there is a reason why europeans are white it is in their dna it is a huge part of genetics the pigmentation of a people group is in their dna if british and basque where so related they wpuld have teh same pigmentation which they dont and it is not just teh west asian compont that makes them differnt it seems u ignore the extremly high amount of meditreaen in basque people
british glob13 are 58.2% north euro, 34.8% med, and 6% west asian
french globe13 basque are 39% north euro, 59.5% med, 0.2% west asian
in my opionon it is the med that is teh biggest differncve for sure the west asian is important but the biggest is for sure the med basque have the highest tied with sardine in all of teh world they have just as much as those farmers otzie and the one in swedan they defintley did not get this from la brana they got the north euro from his people

- We lack ancient pigmentation data, so you can speculate what's "most European" all night and day if you feel like. Nothing will change, at the moment there's no particular reason to assume dark traits are not enough old in Europe to be considered native as well. However, it's true that blond hair and blue eyes are found mostly in Europe, the question is when those traits became significant.
we so far have pigmentation from peopel who where apart of some of teh earliest indo european cultures bout 6,000 years ago in teh north pontic steppe(central Russia) they said they havd teh same phenotype as modern europeans whatever that means and they had the same pale pigmentation genes as modern europeans and they had by far mainly brown eyes just like the people in that area today and this could mean that p[eople in that area today come from some of the earliest indo europeans so pigmentation is important and that they where definable a European population not a surprise since they lived in europe
we also have pigmentation from adronovo culture in south siberia from 3,800ybp they where also indo europeans they where Indo Iraniens they spread the language in asia they also had the same pale skin genes as modern europeans and had mainly blonde hair and light eyes we also have a ton of pigmentation genes from later Indo Iraniens in russia and central Asia over all about 60% had blonde hair and 70% had light eyes these high amounts are only found in modern scandviens which tells something about indo iranien ancestry maybe they have a northwest russian ancestry since people in that area also have that high amount of light hair and eyes and later ones in tagar russia from 3,400-3,00ybp have been proven to be very unrelated to the brown eyed people who where apart of teh ancestral culture and teh fact the 6,000 year old ones had brown eyes and the 3,800 year old ones had blue eyes i would have guessed they where diffenrt people groups anyways that shows again how pigmentation is important i got all this onfo athttp://dienekes.blogspot.no/2013/06/ancient-steppe-populations-hints-of.html, and http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml i almost forgit otzie teh oceman 5,300 year old meditreaen farmer in alps italy also had the white skin genes modern europeans do so we actulley have alot of pigmentation from anceint remains and there are many new dna projects that claim they will have pigmentation not just for skin color but also hair and eye color from mesloithic europeans like from 7,000ybp ain scandvai and from 100-150 scandviens and central europeans in early bronze age from 4,000-5,000ybp in the next 5 years we will know how pale cro magnon man was 30,000ybp

i think it is common sense that europeans are white skinned and that is apart of who they are and it is the european pigmentation i me u would have to be crazy to think that is not true i have no idea what evidence u have probably none and those few people in far southern europe like greece who have tannish skin that is from mid eastern and north African inter marraige the white skin genes that dominte europeans also exsist in mid easterns and north africans but are not as popular but eurpopeans ancestors at somepoint probably at least 25,000ybp became dominated by those genes also peopel in the caucus mountains like geogians even though we assume they are eastern europeans according to austomnal dna they have almost no european blood they have the highest amount of west asian in all austomnal test west asian is the closet realtives to north european which really represents all europeans this could mean the common ancestors of north european and west asian had white skin i noticed that west asian is centered in caucus mountains, turkey, northern iraq, and western iran these are the areas where amny experts belive european Y DNA I originated and these areas have just about as pale skin as europeans i dont know but i think there is a connection and since in the graph they made for globe13 north european and west asian where tuching each pother almost as if theyw here teh same group they where closer than any other austomnal group this makes me think they split very early and since europe would have been dominated by y dna I from at least 20,000-10,000ybp and west asians where dominated by i brother J and both trace to a common ancestor around the Caucus Iran area about 40,000ybp europeans split from these people not that long ago and that Europeans are from a late migration that came just 30,000ybp from the caucus mountains i dont know that is just a guess i am not even going to argue about the pigmentation thing we europeans are white fact u cant argue that

- You didn't understand anything regarding Med and SW asian: I said Med people mated in the Near East with someone else creating the SW Asian element. By no means this points that the Med admixture originated there, but only expanded. If Med was better preserved in Southern Europe than elsewhere, that is what really speaks for itself if you want to look for its origins. That simple.
i defntley dont think it started in southern europe because of la brana he had only 24% in globe13 scandviens have 28% he has less than almost all modern europeans but teh incoming invading farmers who conquered europe had 59% and 64% i mean come on it is obvious it was the farmers with Y DNA G2a and who probably came from antolia who brought med the native european hunter gathers where full of north euro and i know u keep arguing well la brana still had some med but he deifntley got that from inter marraige with farmers we have G2a farmer samlples in spain from 7,000ybp they already dominted spain when la brana was around modern europeans are a results of farmer hunter gather inter marriage so at some point it happened and la brana was at the early stage so that is a very good explination for why he had some med but it is still very little and the fact that all europeans come from ne big familt one biog family cant have two austomnal dna groups and there is defintley no way med orignated in southern europe one bug family creates one austomnal group at somepoint all austomnal groups where created by one family whp had 100% of that group and the one group for europeans is north euro and why do u think med is more popular in soutrh europe it is non european inter marraige why would it be in south europe but north europeans who come from the same family only have north european

- North Euro is so centered according to you. The numbers say it's quite present in Asia as well, and I don't think all North European there is the result of relatively recent conquests. Don't forget North European is Asian shifted compared to the Med admixture (did you check the Fst distances? ¬¬) so that is showing us some kind of connection, likely Siberian or Amerindian-like as some experiments already showed.[/QUOTE]
north euro originated in europe at teh most it reachs 5-10% in asia that is nothing u cant just say it is quite present in asia u need to put numbers words can give many differnt ideas it is not that popular out of europe and u can explian it through european inter marraige ost of it is in history but other parts could have been in pre history but all of it is defintley european inter marraige now u are trying to say north euro is not European but med is i dont understand that it is the other way around and from what i know all experts agree and when u say north euro is asian shifted do u mean west asian and i dont understand what you mean by the siberian connection are u saying there is a mix of siberian in north euro and that austomnal groups are really just mixes of a bunch of groups
 
yes la brana had 24% med well most of europe today has at leatst 30% ma rana has lower med than almost all europeans

One tiny remark only:

Almost all europeans is a bit exaggerated since there are today many european peoples with less Mediterranean than La Brana (24%):

- Finns: 10%
- Mordovians: 13%
- Balts: ca. 13%
- Slavs (non-Balkan): ca. 17%

It is about half of Europe (ca. 150-200 million people).
 
Finnsih and sami people are really the last mesloithic europeans left their ancestors where not really affected by the neloithic age like western europe was that is why they have almost all north european austomnal dna so in my opinon finns dont count

i was only looking at western europe in non balken eastern europe med is around 20% so your right this probably means eastern europeans kept more hunter gather ancestry at least the ones north of bulgairia like polish, russian, ukrainean in Y DNA if u take away all Indo European R1b M73, R1b L23 decendants, R1a1a1b anf if u take away all recent mi8d eastern Y DNA in eastern europe like J1,J2, E1b1b V13 eastern europeans would have almost only mesloithic european Y DNA I2a1b i made a thread where i showed all of the non Indo European and non recent mid eastern Y DNA In europe eastern europeans and scandnaviens where teh only ones that had almost only European y DNA I western Europe was mainly G2a http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-pre-Indo-European-Europe?p=411136#post411136

so that makes sense to me that eastern Europeans have alot less Mediterranean which came from G2a and other Neloithic people who where more popular in western Europe but still La Brana is good evidence europe orignalley was only north european in austomnal DNA modern iberians have about 50-60% med in globe13 La Brana had only 24% and for somereason the G2a farmers like Otzie had 59% and 64% meditreaen i mean come on where do u think the med in europe comes from it is not from the hunter gathers

It seems u people forget that La Brana lived in teh Neloithic age he was one of teh last hunter gathers in western EUrope most of spain was already conquered by Mediterranean G2a farmers we have 3 Y DNA G2a samples from farmers in southern Spain from 7,000ybp when La Brana was alive La Brana's people where conquered in probably teh next few 100 years he would have already had some farmer blood that is why he had some meditreaen

and from 21 Y DNA samples in trellis southern France (near northern Spain where La Brana came from) from 5,000ybp that is 2,000 years after La Brana 19 had Mediterranean farmer Y DNA G2a only two had Y DNA from La brana people which is I2a1a1 they had the special subclade only found in modern Iberians and sardinens it seems very simple to me the native hunter gathers in Spain, France, and Italy who had Y DNA I2a1a and almost only north European austomnal DNA where conquered by Y DNA G2a farmers who had mainly Mediterranean austomnal DNA from 10,000-6,000ybp it was not a peaceful exchange of idea to me it seem the hunter gathers and farmers saw each other as two differnt people groups and the farmers killed many of the hunter gathers off otzie a framer from alps italy 5,300ybp in globe13 had 59.5% med a farmer in south swedan from 5,000ybp had 64% med to me it seems it doesnt matter where they traveled they kept to themselves and did not inter marry because they knew they where different because they where farmers

and in modern iberians u can see they have mainly meditreaen at about 50-60% which means they probably have mainly farmer ancestry which means they farmers nearlly killed of the hunter gathers also in sardine meditreaen is just as popular in sitaly it is only 40% because tehy have 20-24% west asian and 15-18% southwest asian they inter married with mid easterns in greco roman age but like 4,000ybp they had 50-60% like iberians

the reason why french, germans, british do not have 50-60% med is because after teh farmers conquered teh Y DNA I2a1a people in france the I2a2 people in Germany, Britian, and ireland teh Indo Europeans came from russia and ukriane and killed off alot of the farmers about 5,000-4,000ybp we have some DNA froms ome of teh earliest Indo Europeans in north pontic steppe(central Russia) from 6,000ybp they had pale skin genes like modern europeans not a suprise but the important [art os they had by far mainly brown eyes way more than most modern europeans teh reason why this is important is because peopel in that area today have 80-90% brown eyes most of Europe has 70% or less and these ethnic groups in that area today like Udmurts and Bashkirs are not slavic russian we dont know really where they come from just they have lived there for thousands of years this means they almost defintley come straight from some of the earliest Indo Europeans their austomnal DNA is almost completely north european at about 70-80% in globe13 that means the Idno Europeans where mainly north European in austomnal DNA so they conquered the farmers in Germany, France, Britain, and Ireland that is why north European is more popular in those pales than Iberia

also there is a huge connection with red hair and proto Italo Celtic, proto Germanic Y DNA R1b L11 which takes up 50% of western European Y DNA the only area in Europe red hair exists is in the terriotory of these languages and of R1b L11 except for Udmurts in central Russia the more R1b the more red hair in Europe this link kind of explains it http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml so what i am thinking is the Indo European brought red hair to western Europe and more north European austomanl DNA and i think the Udmurts who have the highest amount f red hair in the world at 15-20% and they live in the proto Indo European heartland are good evidence that is where red hair period might come from also teh Indo Iranien Indo Europeans who went to asia rom central Russia about 5,000-4,000ybp we have remains of redheads from them that are over 3,000 years old and many indo iraniens in central asia where known for red hair like sythiens and still today u find red hair in indo iranien speaking Kurds in Iraq, syria, turkey in Indo Iranien Kalash in Pakistan so that is more evidence R1b Indo Europeans that went to western Europe had alot of red hair

so modern Iberians are a mix between La Brana's people( from before 10,000ybp) and incoming farmers from Otzie's people(10,000-6,000ybp) but they come mainly from Otzie's people, modern Italiens are a mix between La Brana peopel or who ever the hunter gasome of later mid eastern ancestry from greco roman age (3,500-1,500ybp) modern French, Germans, British, and Irish come from a mix between La Brana people(from before 10,000ybp) and invading farmers from otzie people (10,000-6,000ybo) but mainly from Otzie's people then they also have a pretty big sized chunk of ancestry from invading Indo Europeans who came from central Russia(5,000-4,000ybp)

modern Scandinavians are also from a mix of LA Brana people(from before 10,000ybp) and invading farmers from otzie people(10,000-6,000ybp) but they come mainly from native hunter gathers then they also have a big sized chunk of inavading Germanic speakers (4,000ybp) modern non Balken eastern Europeans come from a mix between native hunter gathers(before 10,000ybp) and invading farmers (10,000-6,000ybp) but mainlyf rom teh natuve hunter gathers then they also have some invading Baltoc Slavic Indo European ancestry(6,000-5,000ybp) but it is hard to measure how much Yugoslaviens come from a mix of native hunter gather (before 10,000ybp) invading farmer (6,000-10,000ybp) butmore from hunter gathers then tehy also have some from mid easterns in grecop roman age (3,500-1,500ybp) Greeks and Bulgairens come from a mix of native hunter gathers(before10,000ybp) and ivading farmer(6,000-10,000ybp) but more from hunter gather then tehy have a pretty big and signifcant chunk from mid easterns in greco roman age (3,500-1,500ybp)

so u can simplify almost all europeans ancestry into hunter gather, farmer, indo european, and mid eastern in greco roman age what surprised me is i heard the estimate age for blonde hair is one person who lived 11,000ybp i think that is way to young of a date because non balken eastern Europeans have uslley 40% or more blonde hair but are unrelated to Scandinavians who have over 60% and it has been proven Scandinavians settled Scandinavia over 10,000ybp they are from the first settlers Finnish speak a language that is unrelated to German and came from siberia 8,000ybp so i mean from what we know non balken eastern Europeans are very unrelated to Scandinavians maybe they had common ancestry like 12,000-20,000ybp but both have almost half blonde hair then Germans, french, British, and Irish get their blonde hair which ranges from 30-50% from hunter gathers that had lived there for over 10,000 years and from what we know teh only europpeans over 10,000ybo that may have had no blond ehair are la branas people in spain and italy and again from what we know are very unrelated to eastern Europeans and Scandinavians so dates they give i think for DNA haplogroups are also way to young
 
I don't deny that the majority of Atlantic_med spread in the neolithic, although it is not clear from where. There was already slight admixture before, possibly in the epipaleolithic or mesolithic, as can be seen in 6%-10% in Gotland hunter gatherers and today Saami and Finns. That means that paleolithic north-europeans had more contact to peoples of the Mediterranean component rather than others. It is possible as you say that Mediterranean component came 100% only by neolithic farmers, but I don't think it was 100% but rather 70%-80% because Mediterranean component is very very widespread in Europe. I think this is a hint for a very old age. I think there were already med. like hunter-gatherers in Cyprus, Greece or even Italy or Tunisia at least during epipaleolithic.
 
i dont think tha fact that hunter gathers in gotland had about 10% med in globe13 is good evidence it was in Europe before the nelooithic age because they lived right next to that farmer who had 64% med they defintley could have inter married and aventulley the hunter gathers and farmers did inter marry that is why modern Scandinavians have 20-30% med both LA Brana nd the hunter gathers in swedan lived right next to meditreaen farmers so it is easy to explian why they had some med and same with finnish and sami because they live right next to other scandnaviens who have 20-30% med

and yes the reason med is so spread out in Europe is because it is old it goes all the way back to the begging of the Neolithic age 10,000ybp i think the Neolithic age is far enough back for med to spread in Europe because it spread with farming which we know eventually all of Europe became farmers if not al med in europe comes from neloithic maybe some does but very very little i doubt if any the only thing that will prove that it was already in europe is 15,000 year old remains that have med also something that stunned me sardne people have 70% med in globe13 and very little west asian compared to other italiens and they have about 7% southwest asian like farmer in swedan from 5,000ybp theiur austomnal dna is like identical to Otzie and the farmer from swedan and they have 40% Y DNA I2a1a and 15% G2a both of these Y DNA haplogroups have been found in Neolithic Europe also Sardine did not become Indo European till Rome conquered them and they have almost no modern Italian ancestry they are like the last completely true Neolithic western Europeans they have been isolated in the sardine island that is why they are otzie and the farmer from Sweden's closet modern relative and Finnish and Sami are the last Mesolithic or Paloithic Europeans left

it seems there was a major north european migration into western europe after the neloithic age after 5,000ybpi think it is the Indo Europeans the timming is exactley when teh Indo European began and like i said about 6,000 year old indo europeans had mainly brown eyes like teh people who live there today which coudl mean teh modern people in that area decend froms ome of teh earliest inod euopeans and the modern people in that area have over 70% north european so teh Indo Europeans would have had over 70% north europeans nd that the Indo Europeans that went to asia even though they where a different ethnic group than the ones in russia 6,000ybp they where still by far mainly north european and the ones that went to western europe brought red hair which is not exactly Mediterranean but maybe it was not the indo europeans
 
i dont think tha fact that hunter gathers in gotland had about 10% med in globe13 is good evidence it was in Europe before the nelooithic age because they lived right next to that farmer who had 64% med they defintley could have inter married and aventulley the hunter gathers and farmers did inter marry that is why modern Scandinavians have 20-30% med both LA Brana nd the hunter gathers in swedan lived right next to meditreaen farmers so it is easy to explian why they had some med and same with finnish and sami because they live right next to other scandnaviens who have 20-30% med

Ok, let's wait for more evidence to come.

it seems there was a major north european migration into western europe after the neloithic age after 5,000ybpi think it is the Indo Europeans the timming is exactley when teh Indo European began and like i said about 6,000 year old indo europeans had mainly brown eyes like teh people who live there today which coudl mean teh modern people in that area decend froms ome of teh earliest inod euopeans and the modern people in that area have over 70% north european so teh Indo Europeans would have had over 70% north europeans nd that the Indo Europeans that went to asia even though they where a different ethnic group than the ones in russia 6,000ybp they where still by far mainly north european and the ones that went to western europe brought red hair which is not exactly Mediterranean but maybe it was not the indo europeans

Yes, many IE tribes were probably mostly North-european and paleolithic themselves, but they were not all equal. The reported brown-eyed ones are likely not the only IEans. There is also evidence of part-mongoloid IEans in some other places and I'd not be surprised to find also some IEans to be very similar to Balts or Scandos in the steppes or even southern like Italians or Anatolians. We should not rely too much on one single burial site only.
 
i know i said teh 4,000 and 3,800 year old early Indo Iranien Indo Europeans in south siberia had mainly light hair and eyes and some had red hair also they have many indo iraniens like sythiens in asia from 3,000-2,000ybp they ad about 60% light hair and 70% light eyes tehy tested early sythiens from tagar russia who had light eyes to the dar eyed indo europeans in central russia from 6,000ybp and they said teh two groups where very unrelated so the tagar russians reprsent all indo iraniens but the indo iraniens came from teh same source as those 6,000 year old indo europeans this means that the early indo Europeans 6,000ybp who took up almost all of Ukriane and central Russia where many differnt ethnic groups who where united by culture, religion, and Y DNA R1b M73, R1b L23, and R1a1a1b and since the Indo Iraneins liek Sythiens where known for red hair u still see red hair in indo iranien speaking ethnic groups in areas like pakistan, syria, and tukey some of the earliest indo irnien remains had red hair it seems red hair was popular for Indo Iraniens and since R1b L11 and its subclades in Europe are teh only areas red hair exist and they seem connected it would make sense teh IdnoE uropeans that went to western europe also had red hair and since the Uralic non Indo European Udmurt people have 15-20% red hair and they live near where indo Europeans orignated that means there is even a better chance the indo europeans that went to western europe had red hair so that also means tehy where from a relted ethnic group to indo Iranians and who knows what ethnic group went to eastern europe and spread Balto Slavic languages or who went to Yugoslavia and spread Iyllian languages or who went to greece to sprea Greek language or who went to Bulgaria to spread Thracian and Dacien languages the Indo Europeans 6,000ybp where not one ethnic group but i still think that those mysterious non slavic non indo european tribes like bashkirs and udmurts come straight from some of those proto Indo Europeans just they where conqyered by Uralics and Turks in the last 6,000 years
 
Firehaired could you please post the reference for the 26000 old H result from wales?
Thanks very much.
 
In recent Mathiesen et al paper, one of the iron gates HG sample wich is R1b has an mt haplogroup H13, wich is the same than the georgian Kotias Klde HG J2a with H13c. Both are dated from the same period of 7000 BC. Wathever the origin of H and more precisely her subclades, after the LGM, a lot of gene flow and exchange with populations had to be appened. I'm definitely less and less focus on y-dna haplogroups for trying to prove any admixture correlations.
 
I strongly disagree with the initial poster that all H wintered over in Iberia. 23andme has a map showing H moving directly north into Finland and Scandinavia from the ME. I've completed a full sequence and all my EXACT matches are in those countries. Not even a genetic difference of 1or 2 in Britain
 

This thread has been viewed 39479 times.

Back
Top