European mtDNA Signature Established in the Mid Neolithic

You don't seem to be very bright, but please try re-reading the paper. Nowhere in it is there any evidence given of a major turnover of mtDNA 6000 years ago, mostly because that didn't happen.

I never claimed there was a major turnover of mtDNA 6,000 years ago. You did and the evidence is in the posts above.

Regardless of what the authors of the paper said in terms of generalities, when they do get around to discussing specifics, they admit that H was present in small part fairly early on but the first major uptick of mtDNA H seems to have happened with Bell Beaker and another wave of increased H happened during the Bronze Age, as I previously discussed.

No, the authors very obviously state that the major portion of European mtDNA H diversity and distribution was established by the middle Neolithic, around 6,000 years ago. This is stated several times in the posts above, including your own.

And no, there was no "other wave" of mtDNA H into Central Europe during the Bronze Age. The phylogeography of the full mtDNA sequences studied in the paper show that Neolithic farmers and Bell Beakers from the Atlantic facade can explain almost all of the mtDNA H in Europe (the rest can be explained by Corded Ware and other expansions from the east which carried Eastern European-specific mtDNA H subclades).

So what most likely happened was that the Neolithic and Bell Beaker-derived populations, sitting in Western and Central Europe, where population densities were relatively high and could get much higher than in Eastern Europe, experienced large population growth during the metal ages, thereby pushing up the frequencies of mtDNA H and the Atlantic-derived subclades of mtDNA H even further.

Do you see any evidence there that mtDNA H became dominant 6000 years ago?

Yes, it's stated in the paper including in the abstract. Here's that quote again.

Our results reveal that the current diversity and distribution of haplogroup H were largely established by the Mid Neolithic (~4000 BC), but with substantial genetic contributions from subsequent pan-European cultures such as the Bell Beakers expanding out of Iberia in the Late Neolithic (~2800 BC).
 
No, the authors very obviously state that the major portion of European mtDNA H diversity and distribution was established by the middle Neolithic, around 6,000 years ago. This is stated several times in the posts above, including your own.

And no, there was no "other wave" of mtDNA H into Central Europe during the Bronze Age. The phylogeography of the full mtDNA sequences studied in the paper show that Neolithic farmers and Bell Beakers from the Atlantic facade can explain almost all of the mtDNA H in Europe (the rest can be explained by Corded Ware and other expansions from the east which carried Eastern European-specific mtDNA H subclades).

So what most likely happened was that the Neolithic and Bell Beaker-derived populations, sitting in Western and Central Europe, where population densities were relatively high and could get much higher than in Eastern Europe, experienced large population growth during the metal ages, thereby pushing up the frequencies of mtDNA H and the Atlantic-derived subclades of mtDNA H even further.

Although I agree that most major mtDNA H subclades were already present in Europe during the mid Neolithic, I can't agree with this paper that the modern distribution of H subclades was already established back then. As you said, the Corded Ware (+ the Unetice and all subsequent IE cultures) redistributed eastern H subclades across most of Europe, and by doing so changing substantially the mtDNA landscape and the frequencies of H subclades.

I also disagree with the authors' view that mtDNA H was virtually absent from Mesolithic Europeans. Most of the Mesolithic samples are from the northern half of Europe, where indeed hg H was rare (though not completely absent). But southern samples (e.g. Iberia) show a considerable present of hg H at least since the Mesolithic. I wouldn't be surprised if Mesolithic Italians and Southeast Europeans were the true source of most Neolithic H subclades. Only a few subclades appear to be truly Near Eastern in origins, like H2, H5, H7, H13 and H20.

So, in my opinion, in the late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic haplogroup H was already distributed around most of the Mediterranean basin. Early Neolithic farmers only redistributed Near Eastern and Balkanic lineages across Europe. Late Neolithic Bell Beakers redistributed Iberian lineages to central and north-west Europe. Then the Indo-Europeans redistributed eastern European and Caucasian lineages to most of Europe.
 
Although I agree that most major mtDNA H subclades were already present in Europe during the mid Neolithic, I can't agree with this paper that the modern distribution of H subclades was already established back then. As you said, the Corded Ware (+ the Unetice and all subsequent IE cultures) redistributed eastern H subclades across most of Europe, and by doing so changing substantially the mtDNA landscape and the frequencies of H subclades.

I also disagree with the authors' view that mtDNA H was virtually absent from Mesolithic Europeans. Most of the Mesolithic samples are from the northern half of Europe, where indeed hg H was rare (though not completely absent). But southern samples (e.g. Iberia) show a considerable present of hg H at least since the Mesolithic. I wouldn't be surprised if Mesolithic Italians and Southeast Europeans were the true source of most Neolithic H subclades. Only a few subclades appear to be truly Near Eastern in origins, like H2, H5, H7, H13 and H20.

So, in my opinion, in the late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic haplogroup H was already distributed around most of the Mediterranean basin. Early Neolithic farmers only redistributed Near Eastern and Balkanic lineages across Europe. Late Neolithic Bell Beakers redistributed Iberian lineages to central and north-west Europe. Then the Indo-Europeans redistributed eastern European and Caucasian lineages to most of Europe.

All we can say about the "H" from Mesolithic Portugal and Magdalenian Spain is that they without almost any doubt had R0 because all of them except the reported H6 had G73A. The testing was so primitive there is no way to know for sure what type of R0 they had(there are many possibilities). There is also for sure 24,000 year old R0 from Gravettian Italy because it had both R0's mutations.

I don't understand how La brana-1 could be 100% the same thing as northwest European hunter gatherers if hunter gatherers from his area had ancestry(maternal lineage R0) the northwest European hunter gatherers lacked. If south European hunter gatherers during the LGM had a high amount of R0 and their descendants resettled northern Europe, then why did northern hunter gatherers completely lack R0? R0 in Italy 24,000 years ago is explainable but R0 in Portugal during the end of the Mesolithic is not. It is an interesting idea and possible but unlikely.

The European hunter gatherer R0 samples could somehow be false, maybe the dates(Neolithic not Mesolithic) are off, who knows. They don't make any sense(especially in Mesolithic Portugal) and at the time of their discovery the mainstream theory was that the first Europeans were full of mtDNA H, and prove that they were not would have been crushing for many people.

But southern samples (e.g. Iberia) show a considerable present of hg H at least since the Mesolithic. I wouldn't be surprised if Mesolithic Italians and Southeast Europeans were the true source of most Neolithic H subclades. Only a few subclades appear to be truly Near Eastern in origins, like H2, H5, H7, H13 and H20.

Would you say the same is true for J1c, T2b, J2b1a, J2a1a, and J1b1a1? To me it seems like mtDNA that the evidence"European" subclades of west Asian haplogroups originated around west Asia were somehow erased after they arrived in Europe, and the only way we know they came from west Asia is ancient DNA.
 
I don't understand how La brana-1 could be 100% the same thing as northwest European hunter gatherers if hunter gatherers from his area had ancestry(maternal lineage R0) the northwest European hunter gatherers lacked.

La Brana is the north of Spain, close to Cantabria and the Basque country, a region that is climatically closer to France and the British Isles, and probably shared more with north-west European hunter-gatherers than with Mediterranean hunter-gatherers.
 
All we can say about the "H" from Mesolithic Portugal and Magdalenian Spain is that they without almost any doubt had R0 because all of them except the reported H6 had G73A. The testing was so primitive there is no way to know for sure what type of R0 they had(there are many possibilities). There is also for sure 24,000 year old R0 from Gravettian Italy because it had both R0's mutations.

I don't understand how La brana-1 could be 100% the same thing as northwest European hunter gatherers if hunter gatherers from his area had ancestry(maternal lineage R0) the northwest European hunter gatherers lacked. If south European hunter gatherers during the LGM had a high amount of R0 and their descendants resettled northern Europe, then why did northern hunter gatherers completely lack R0? R0 in Italy 24,000 years ago is explainable but R0 in Portugal during the end of the Mesolithic is not. It is an interesting idea and possible but unlikely.

The European hunter gatherer R0 samples could somehow be false, maybe the dates(Neolithic not Mesolithic) are off, who knows. They don't make any sense(especially in Mesolithic Portugal) and at the time of their discovery the mainstream theory was that the first Europeans were full of mtDNA H, and prove that they were not would have been crushing for many people..
There is also a Mesolithic Russian with mtDNA H.
 
I never claimed there was a major turnover of mtDNA 6,000 years ago. You did and the evidence is in the posts above.



No, the authors very obviously state that the major portion of European mtDNA H diversity and distribution was established by the middle Neolithic, around 6,000 years ago. This is stated several times in the posts above, including your own.

And no, there was no "other wave" of mtDNA H into Central Europe during the Bronze Age. The phylogeography of the full mtDNA sequences studied in the paper show that Neolithic farmers and Bell Beakers from the Atlantic facade can explain almost all of the mtDNA H in Europe (the rest can be explained by Corded Ware and other expansions from the east which carried Eastern European-specific mtDNA H subclades).

So what most likely happened was that the Neolithic and Bell Beaker-derived populations, sitting in Western and Central Europe, where population densities were relatively high and could get much higher than in Eastern Europe, experienced large population growth during the metal ages, thereby pushing up the frequencies of mtDNA H and the Atlantic-derived subclades of mtDNA H even further.



Yes, it's stated in the paper including in the abstract. Here's that quote again.

Your first two statements contradict one another. As for a statement about mtDNA becoming dominant 6000 years ago, I'll explain what's wrong with the statement by using a simple example, because that seems to be necessary if I want you to understand. If researchers found and presented a lot of data showing that donkeys can't fly, but stated in their paper and in their abstract that their evidence shows that donkeys can fly, that would not be proof, it would be an inaccurate statement.
 
There is also a Mesolithic Russian with mtDNA H.

But it's only around 7,000 years old and could be explained by farmer admixture unlike 12,000 year old R0 from Spain.
 
But it's only around 7,000 years old and could be explained by farmer admixture unlike 12,000 year old R0 from Spain.

What are you trying to say?.............that mtDna H advanced along the afrcan coast into iberia before moving into Europe via Anatolia!
 
What are you trying to say?.............that mtDna H advanced along the afrcan coast into iberia before moving into Europe via Anatolia!

Farmers had already established themselves in areas where they could have had contact with the hunter gatherers of Uznyi Oleni Ostrov. The east Asian C1 and in later samples Z1a found there are from east Asia, and so why can't the H be from European farmers? Besides it is only one isolated H, in no way is it evidence most H in modern Europe is from European hunter gatherers. It is ridiculous that people focus so much on H when European mtDNA is in subject, H has around 100 basal clades, it was total luck that the diverse and old H lineage became 40% in almost all of Europe.
 
Farmers had already established themselves in areas where they could have had contact with the hunter gatherers of Uznyi Oleni Ostrov. The east Asian C1 and in later samples Z1a found there are from east Asia, and so why can't the H be from European farmers? Besides it is only one isolated H, in no way is it evidence most H in modern Europe is from European hunter gatherers. It is ridiculous that people focus so much on H when European mtDNA is in subject, H has around 100 basal clades, it was total luck that the diverse and old H lineage became 40% in almost all of Europe.

wasn't mtDna U and its sister K earlier than H in Europe ..............maybe even T2
 
wasn't mtDna U and its sister K earlier than H in Europe ..............maybe even T2

U and K are not sister clades, K is another name for U8b2. K was probably not in Europe or at least most of it before the Neolithic. There is an around 30,000 year old U8 sample from the Czech Republic but it's specifically U8c, so not K.
 
Your first two statements contradict one another. As for a statement about mtDNA becoming dominant 6000 years ago, I'll explain what's wrong with the statement by using a simple example, because that seems to be necessary if I want you to understand. If researchers found and presented a lot of data showing that donkeys can't fly, but stated in their paper and in their abstract that their evidence shows that donkeys can fly, that would not be proof, it would be an inaccurate statement.

The fact that most of the modern mtDNA H diversity and distribution was established in Europe by the middle Neolithic doesn't contradict the fact that there was no mtDNA turnover in Europe 6,000 years ago.

That's because this diversity and distribution was established via gradual migrations over thousands of years as well as genetic drift.

Quit embarrassing yourself and move on while you're not too far behind.
 
Although I agree that most major mtDNA H subclades were already present in Europe during the mid Neolithic, I can't agree with this paper that the modern distribution of H subclades was already established back then. As you said, the Corded Ware (+ the Unetice and all subsequent IE cultures) redistributed eastern H subclades across most of Europe, and by doing so changing substantially the mtDNA landscape and the frequencies of H subclades.

They couldn't have changed the character of mtDNA H across Europe too much, because they didn't carry much mtDNA H. Their contribution is better seen in the rising levels of U4, U5, U2, and I in much of Europe after the Neolithic.
 
I don't understand how La brana-1 could be 100% the same thing as northwest European hunter gatherers if hunter gatherers from his area had ancestry(maternal lineage R0) the northwest European hunter gatherers lacked. If south European hunter gatherers during the LGM had a high amount of R0 and their descendants resettled northern Europe, then why did northern hunter gatherers completely lack R0? R0 in Italy 24,000 years ago is explainable but R0 in Portugal during the end of the Mesolithic is not. It is an interesting idea and possible but unlikely.

The European hunter gatherer R0 samples could somehow be false, maybe the dates(Neolithic not Mesolithic) are off, who knows. They don't make any sense(especially in Mesolithic Portugal) and at the time of their discovery the mainstream theory was that the first Europeans were full of mtDNA H, and prove that they were not would have been crushing for many people.

I have been thinking about that too. The most surprising thing is that Stuttgart is supposedly 25%-30% WHG but there is hardly any mtDNA U5 or U4 in Lineband Beaker settlements found. That itself could mean - I am merely speculating - that they picked it up in the south east of Europa and that Hunter-Gatherers there had different mtDNA.

We mostly have data of Nothern and north-western WHG's which could be somehow "cherry picking" for U5. Mesolithich HG's are supposed to be the same people as the late Paleolithic (Correct me if I'm wrong) and in the late Paleolithic population was extremely thin. So the omnipresence of U5 in the northern part of WHG's might be due to some sort of founder effect, especially since the area was repopulated only after the LGM. Iberian HG's had Y-DNA had C1 too, another hint that haplogroups absent from WHG in the north and north-west could have been present in the south. Also, apparently the mesolithic finds in Greece point to more mtDNA than just U5. I thought it was X1.
 
@Aberdeen & Polako

Quit embarrassing yourself and move on while you're not too far behind.

Were you drunk when you wrote that?

Gentlemen. If you left out remarks such as cited yours would actually look like an interesting discussion. I understand how sometimes irkiness enters the discussion but we all should put effort in bending the discussion back to civilized.

Mind you, not to say you aren't civilized gentlemen.
 
@Aberdeen & Polako

Gentlemen. If you left out remarks such as cited yours would actually look like an interesting discussion. I understand how sometimes irkiness enters the discussion but we all should put effort in bending the discussion back to civilized.

Mind you, not to say you aren't civilized gentlemen.
I second that.
 
They couldn't have changed the character of mtDNA H across Europe too much, because they didn't carry much mtDNA H. Their contribution is better seen in the rising levels of U4, U5, U2, and I in much of Europe after the Neolithic.

It is true that the Bronze Age steppe people carried less mtDNA H than the European average, but based on the few hundreds ancient samples from the Yamna, Corded Ware, Catacomb and Unetice cultures, they still had a significant 25% of h H. Typical H subclades of Bronze Age steppe people include H1b, H1c, H2a1, H4a1, H5a, H6, H10 and H11.
 
@Fire Haired

I have also been suprised that southern Scandinavia has such high WHG affinity where it has low U5/U4 rates compared to northern Scandinavia. Yet la Brana shows great affinity to the Scandinavians. Did they explicitly mean non-southern Swedes by that? In that case it is surprising that current day Swedes aren't similar to early Funnel beaker farmers but show larger affinity to WHG.

The mismatch between mtDNA ancestry and autosomal is quite strange.

I have a hunch that while LBK might be clearly a colonisation of EEF (20% WHG) that managed to stay more or less separate for a thousand of years from surrounding WHG's - as some studies suggest - the cultures that followed were more hybrids. And even then there might be considerable differences in WHG ancestry between different sub-cultures. Rosen culture, Baalberg culture, they might have collected a number of WHG's when colonizing new area's whereas the dutch Swifterband culture might be a slow adaptation of WHG's to husbandry. So in the end we end up with villages across Europa with each different but substantial autosomal WHG ancestry.

Farmer villages in ancient times may have been far more isolated than today. After initial colonization farmer communities may have become quite closed communities, as they are until this day. Even recently one wouldn't marry all that easy into closed communities. In closed communities, due to founder effect en genetic drift, minority haplogroups have a slightly higher chance of disappearing completely so after a while U5 might simply disappear, while autosomically these communities might have considerable WHG ancestry.

It's just a thought, mind you.
 
All we can say about the "H" from Mesolithic Portugal and Magdalenian Spain is that they without almost any doubt had R0 because all of them except the reported H6 had G73A. The testing was so primitive there is no way to know for sure what type of R0 they had(there are many possibilities). There is also for sure 24,000 year old R0 from Gravettian Italy because it had both R0's mutations.

I don't understand how La brana-1 could be 100% the same thing as northwest European hunter gatherers if hunter gatherers from his area had ancestry(maternal lineage R0) the northwest European hunter gatherers lacked. If south European hunter gatherers during the LGM had a high amount of R0 and their descendants resettled northern Europe, then why did northern hunter gatherers completely lack R0? R0 in Italy 24,000 years ago is explainable but R0 in Portugal during the end of the Mesolithic is not. It is an interesting idea and possible but unlikely.

I think the HGs during the LGM are likely to have been split into two related but separate populations mirroring two ecosystems: a southern and coastal population including southern Europe and around the Atlantic coast and a mammoth steppe population extending from northern France to Siberia. If so the resettlement of northern Europe after the end of LGM might easily have been mostly from the mammoth steppe population as they were closer with some distinctive input from the more coastal population along the Atlantic coast.

edit: actually three might make more sense, a southern refuge population, a coastal maritime population up the Atlantic coast (thinking of Eskimo as an example of a coastal population living in a cold environment then possibly quite far north along the Atlantic coast) and thirdly a mammoth steppe population).
 

This thread has been viewed 45249 times.

Back
Top