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
There's, indeed, a suitable piece of evidence when one checks the Mediterranean percents starting from Scandinavia (not less than 25%), then going down to Germany (30%), France (40%), Iberia (50%), and ending in North Africa (40%), where there's very little North European and virtually absent among Berbers (Pre-Arab ethnic group).

If those populations have something in common, that is definetely MtDNA H. So I'm afraid the answer seems pretty clear.

scandnaviens have just about as much mtDNA H1 and H3 as spainhttp://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_mtdna_haplogroups_frequency.shtml

they have the second highest amount in Europe but they have only about 25% globe13 med and north Africans have alot of H1 and H3 because of the Iberian refuge which spread H1,H3, V, and U5b1 across europe and north africahttp://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013378 http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/1/19.full and it is northwest africans not people like egyptiens and northwest africans actulley do have a signifcant amopunt of north european in globe13 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadF9CLUJnTUdSbkVJaDR2UkRtUE9kaUE#gid=0

they have about 6% that is more than anywhere outside of Europe and groups where there is recorded contact with european people in every type of austomnal dna test they show Atlantic Baltic or north europeanhttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadHZ6SHpiLTNTa3lsUmZJY2pQblVRR2c#gid=0 which they probably got from the Iberian refuge it would have been LA Brana's people who migrated to north Africa and they also got some from recent inter marriage with Spanish and Portuguese

so your argument about them not having north european is wrong they have high amounts compared to other non europeans and since the only austomnal type to originate in europe they call it north European or Atlantic baltic so over 10,000ybp pretty much everyone in europe had north european and mtDNA H1 and H3 which take up 30-50% in Iberia and the most popular subclades in europe where born in iberia 15,000-20,000ybp before med ever got to europe and we have three H samples in europe from over 25,000 years ago in russia and italy so H probably arrived in europe well over 30,000ybp and most H in europe today almost defintley descends from the first H in europe so i still dont think there is strong evidence connecting mtDNA H to med but i might be wrong i want to hear more of ur arguments

since there was some med in hunter gathers in swedan from 5,000ybp and they did have some contact with farmers the 5,000 year old farmer in the same area of swedan had 64% med in globe13 but maybe that is evidence med has been in europe for at least since like 15,000 and LA brana had 24% which is lower than most of europe and alot less than modern iberian and he did have contact with farmers but guess that is evdence top
 
Wrong. Iberia has actually the least Neolithic of all Southern-Europe..how do I know that, because on PCA plots, when running a linear axis PCA from Middle-East to Baltic, the Iberians are between NW Europeans and North-Italians.

westcentraleurasia123.png

yes iberia has very little west asian and southwest asian and mid eastern blood period they have about as much as most of europe but they still have the most med which was the dominate group in all types of austomnal DNA tests of neloithci farmers in europe so i still think iberians have alot of blood from those farmers we dont know exactley where those farmers came from there defintley was some west asian and southwest asian in th,e otzi in globe13 had 15% southwest asian only italy,greec,yugoslvai, and soith east europe has that much today so there was something mid eastern about them but what is wierd is they had so much med when today there is no place where med is completly dominte we know these farmers did not come from europe because their Y DNA was G2a which is from north antolia, caucus, and northenr iran but those areas have less med than europe it is a mystery i think austomnal DNA percentages are not exact according to them most people in europe are less than 50% european these austomnal tests are alot more complicated i think the best thing is look at a bunch of difernt types of tests those farmers like otzie who had over 50% med almost defintley did not orignate from europe r
 
yes iberia has very little west asian and southwest asian and mid eastern blood period they have about as much as most of europe but they still have the most med which was the dominate group in all types of austomnal DNA tests of neloithci farmers in europe so i still think iberians have alot of blood from those farmers we dont know exactley where those farmers came from there defintley was some west asian and southwest asian in th,e otzi in globe13 had 15% southwest asian only italy,greec,yugoslvai, and soith east europe has that much today so there was something mid eastern about them but what is wierd is they had so much med when today there is no place where med is completly dominte we know these farmers did not come from europe because their Y DNA was G2a which is from north antolia, caucus, and northenr iran but those areas have less med than europe it is a mystery i think austomnal DNA percentages are not exact according to them most people in europe are less than 50% european these austomnal tests are alot more complicated i think the best thing is look at a bunch of difernt types of tests those farmers like otzie who had over 50% med almost defintley did not orignate from europe r

You certainly know this already, then please don't mind, but I think in general a reminder is necessary from time-to-time (hoping I do not sound too teacher-like):

Haplogroups represent selected deep ancestry whereas autosomals represent the complete ancestry. It means that HG G from Ötzi could well represent a much much older "root" ancestry in Caucasus or wherever, whereas his autosomals surely represents all later migrations and admixtures from Ötzi's other ancestors until his birth. So HG G could be trace of the early but watered-down West-Asian component in Ötzi. Sardinians also have some G today and some West-Asian remnant, similar to Ötzi. It should be clear that a HG shows only one of several thousands of ancestry lines. Basically the more time passes the more become HGs and autosomals uncorrelated, they eventually become completely unrelated. A correlation can exist only within a limited time window.
 
scandnaviens have just about as much mtDNA H1 and H3 as spainhttp://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_mtdna_haplogroups_frequency.shtml
Those figures seem to be wrong.. here is from an actual study :

1-s2.0-S0002929707637987-gr3.jpg



still have the most med which was the dominate group in all types of austomnal DNA tests of neloithci farmers in europe so i still think iberians have alot of blood from those farmers we dont know exactley where those farmers came from there defintley was some west asian and southwest asian in th,e otzi in globe13 had 15%
What are you talking about...Otzi was not a Neolithic farmer, he was from the Calcholitic era. And he was Sardinian-like genetically. Gok4 is the one neolithic famer, and she is mostly Atlanto-Med which means she already has a lot of Northern-Euro in her, meaning her ancestors were already living in Europe before the Neolithic.
 
Fire Haired, you only see what you want to see, and you only read what you want to read:

- First of all, you say Scandinavians have "only" 25% Med, when the incredibly North Euro-like Moroccans you checked are ONLY 6.5% North European. ¿How do both things match? LOL.

- Second, North Africans don't have more North European than any other population outside of Europe: Selkup (35%), Ket (27.7%) Jatt (18.4%), Uzbeks (16.3%), Dolgan (13.1%)...and so on.

- I specially mentioned Berbers, since they are Pre-Arab, and they also did not mate with Vandals and other similar people who probably brought minor North European component. Check the Mozabite samples and you'll see they are 0% North European in globe13.

- Take the North African samples as whole, and you'll see how low is the average North European: Mozabite (0%), Behar Moroccans (2.3%), Algerian (5.8%) and Dodecad Moroccans (6.5%) = 3.65% average.

- Of course, I am not taking into account Morocco Jews (8.9%), since Jews are always outliers compared to their host populations. However, they also probably spread some North Euro as well among the main North African population, but not in more isolated regions where Berber tribes lived.


So H was definetely responsible of the Mediterranean admixture in North Africa, since North European is rather the product of the overlap between some allele frequencies, or the result of minor migrations as I said. Completely irrelevant.


Edited:

At lower K's when the Atlantic-Baltic component is present, the program simply searches the most likely fit taking the available clusters as reference (No Med available at K=7). But Dienekes' already made another experiment proving that the West Eurasian ancestry in North Africa is overwhelmingly Sardinian-like, hence Mediterranean.

http://dodecad.blogspot.com.es/2012/06/k10a-calculator.html

The Mozabite samples as expected show noisy Atlantic-Baltic figures.
 
Fire Haired, you only see what you want to see, and you only read what you want to read:

- First of all, you say Scandinavians have "only" 25% Med, when the incredibly North Euro-like Moroccans you checked are ONLY 6.5% North European. ¿How do both things match? LOL.

- Second, North Africans don't have more North European than any other population outside of Europe: Selkup (35%), Ket (27.7%) Jatt (18.4%), Uzbeks (16.3%), Dolgan (13.1%)...and so on.

- I specially mentioned Berbers, since they are Pre-Arab, and they also did not mate with Vandals and other similar people who probably brought minor North European component. Check the Mozabite samples and you'll see they are 0% North European in globe13.

- Take the North African samples as whole, and you'll see how low is the average North European: Mozabite (0%), Behar Moroccans (2.3%), Algerian (5.8%) and Dodecad Moroccans (6.5%) = 3.65% average.

- Of course, I am not taking into account Morocco Jews (8.9%), since Jews are always outliers compared to their host populations. However, they also probably spread some North Euro as well among the main North African population, but not in more isolated regions where Berber tribes lived.


So H was definetely responsible of the Mediterranean admixture in North Africa, since North European is rather the product of the overlap between some allele frequencies, or the result of minor migrations as I said. Completely irrelevant.


Edited:

At lower K's when the Atlantic-Baltic component is present, the program simply searches the most likely fit taking the available clusters as reference (No Med available at K=7). But Dienekes' already made another experiment proving that the West Eurasian ancestry in North Africa is overwhelmingly Sardinian-like, hence Mediterranean.

http://dodecad.blogspot.com.es/2012/06/k10a-calculator.html

The Mozabite samples as expected show noisy Atlantic-Baltic figures.

okay ur right the north euro thing in north africans is not signifcant because most mid eastern have as much but in k7b northwest africans have 27% atlantic baltic how can u say H in north africa is related to med because we have the la brana austome dnaa he had very little med as much as modern scandnvaiens he was a hunter gather spainard in the neloithci age he probably got it from otzie people and the farmer in swedans people who ha over 55% med and lived in spain at that time because they had y dn g2a and we have 3 y dna g2a samples from farmers in spain from 7,000ybp so if u went to spain 15,000ybp that is 8,000 years before la brana they would have no med or very very very little so to say all med in north africa comes from H would mean they had like 100% med what u are saying has very weak evidence okay sure otzie was chaloithic but he was apart of that farmer race with y dna g2a in europe it does not matter what age experts put him in he is the same genticalley as the Neolithic farmers so he does count as a early farmer in europe that is why his austome dna was like the farm from swedan and sure he was related to sardinens that does not help ur argument at all his people still went to spain and by the way spainish and sardinens are very related they are the only people with y dn i2a1a1 which ur so u can not deny europe would have probably had absoultly no med austomnal dna before the Neolithic and the farmers including otzie where dominated by med while hunter gathers where north euro there is no way H and med spread to north africa and all of europe has about 40% H including norway but med does not show relation to H and the source i gave is not unreliable it is real mtdna tests they took on people so those re rel results and i have heard Scandinavia has very high amount of h1 and h3 before and mtdan is just a direct linage no haplogroup has shown real connections to austome groups and since H has been in europe for about 35,000 years that is before med or north euro even existed and it has mixed with so many diff austome groups
 
You are fighting against evidence. The only high frequency haplogorups in common between North-Africa and Europe is mtDNA H ...and the only autosomal component shared with europeans and north-africans at high frequency is Mediterranean. The 27% Atlantic-Baltic of NW-Africans on K7b is mostly West-Med, because remember that this Atlanto-Baltic component is a mixbag of Northern and West-Med alelles, that in case of North-Africans only shows the west-med side. That's why for example Basques got 72% of Atlantic-Baltic, cos besides the west-med there is northern-euro thrown in there. In the case of Lithuanians, is the other way around, mostly the northern alleles manifesting. Hope that helps.
 
The 27% Atlantic-Baltic of NW-Africans on K7b is mostly West-Med
The K10a experiment I posted was basically proving that point. Shows clearly the real affinity of the "Atlantic-Baltic"element at K=7.


To summarise, an exellent quote from Dienekes':

the Mediterranean component here is modal in Sardinians as usual, but also projects into North Africa. Again, this is intermediate between K7 which shows a predominance of West Eurasian ancestry in North Africa + an African component, and K12 in which there are "Atlantic_Med" and "Northwest_Afican" regional components.

These are strong hints that the West Eurasian element in Africa differs between NW and E Africa. In the former region, it is most related to Sardinians, and in the latter it is most related to Arabians.
 
You are fighting against evidence. The only high frequency haplogorups in common between North-Africa and Europe is mtDNA H ...and the only autosomal component shared with europeans and north-africans at high frequency is Mediterranean. The 27% Atlantic-Baltic of NW-Africans on K7b is mostly West-Med, because remember that this Atlanto-Baltic component is a mixbag of Northern and West-Med alelles, that in case of North-Africans only shows the west-med side. That's why for example Basques got 72% of Atlantic-Baltic, cos besides the west-med there is northern-euro thrown in there. In the case of Lithuanians, is the other way around, mostly the northern alleles manifesting. Hope that helps.

well europeans and north Africans have about 15% mtDNA U that is another similaty so H is not the only one Europeans and north africans have mainly brown hair and all non caucasin people have black hair so what just because they have similarities does not been those similarties are connected we know that the farmers that came to europe where over 60% med and the hunter gathers where 20% or less europe was orignalley just north european in austomnal dna h1 and h3 spread to north africa from spain 15,000-10,000ybp before med ever became popular in europe so ur rgument is defeated by those facts u guys are very stubborn about the connection with mtdna h and med but mtdna h is older than any of those austpmnal groups it is about 40,000years old since we have a two 25,000 year old h17 in russia one 28,000 year old h in italy and it orignated in the mid east so it is at least 40,000 years old so the orugnal H people had a ancestor caucasin group they did not have med because it did not exist yet mtdna h1, h3, h6 and other european h subclades where born into people who where about 100% north european in austomnal dna meditreaen austomnal is also in the mid east does that mean they got it from European H no it does not maybe some europeans had med in paloithci but that is almost impossible
 
North Africans are U6, while Europeans belong to U5 with very minor U6 presence. Certainly U6 seems to be a Paleolithic remnant in North Africa, but I don't see any special connection with U5. Both splitted from U, but that happened a very long time ago. The same as For example K, the main subclade of U8, has something in common with U...of course, already buried in the most remote antiquity.

So that point goes nowhere.
 
well europeans and north Africans have about 15% mtDNA U that is another similaty
No, it's not a similary, like Knovas says they belong to the "berber" clade U6..

so H is not the only one Europeans and north africans have mainly brown hair and all non caucasin people have black hair so what just because they have similarities does not been those similarties are connected we know that the farmers that came to europe where over 60% med
No, there is no evidence, since Otzi is not a neolithic migrant, he is Calcholitic, and his ancestors, or part of them could have been in Europe in pre-Neolithic times.

and the hunter gathers where 20% or less europe was orignalley just north european in austomnal dna
La Braña shows non-trivial levels of mediterranean, up to 45% in some calculators. And even if it was 25%, it's still high, and evidence of being Mesolithic.

yet mtdna h1, h3, h6 and other european h subclades where born into people who where about 100% north european in austomnal dna
Prove it. La Braña was far from being 100% North-Euro.
 
not all north africans have U6 that is just their unque subclade and La Brana had only 20% med in globe13 that is lower than anyone in europe today not counting scandnaviens so no way can u say med was nearlly as popular in spain or anywhere in europe in mesloithci and paloithic age and sure otzie is chaltoithic age he decends from neloithic migrants he has y dna g2a so do 26 of 31 y dna samples in western europe from 7,000-4,700ybp even a 7,000 year old NELOITHIC farmer from germany he was in tehwestern european neloithci race

sure la bran is up to 40% med in some calculators but u cant say med percentage in k7b is same as med in globe13 sure in those calcultaors la brana had 40 med that is much lower than almost all modern europeans only north europeans have 40% med in those calculators it is a fact la brana was most related to finnish and sami and northern europeans peruiod he was not a meditreaen person in austomnal dna some with all pre Neolithic Europeans there is no way 15,000ybp when h1 and h3 spread to north africa from spain that those people had alot or any med so right there your argument is defeated but what confuses me is that otzie had he same white skin genes as modern europeans even though he technically was less than 20% european and modern sardinen people who have as much med as those farmers and have the highest amount of g2a in europe and and te closest modern relatives to early european farmers they are also white bit are also like only 20% european and G2a rignated in north antolia or iran but in those areas med is lower than in europe and west asian is the majority then why dident the farmers have alot of west asian they had tons of med and they had white skin his makes me think they had to be mainly european and maybe the med is european but besides that there is no good evidence and it almost defintley was not in spain before neloithic
 
What the calculators show is La Braña had non trivial amounts of Mediterranean, so that is telling us indeed something.

And again, obviously North Africans have other maternal lines, but the U ones are almost exclusively U6. Well, and K, but that's all. There's no U5.

Oh, and the West Asian component isn't significant in both Sardinians and Neolithic individuals. Still getting nowhere.
 
not all north africans have U6 that is just their unque subclade and La Brana had only 20% med in globe13 that is lower than anyone in europe today not counting scandnaviens so no way can u say med was nearlly as popular in spain or anywhere in europe in mesloithci and paloithic age and sure otzie is chaltoithic age he decends from neloithic migrants he has y dna g2a so do 26 of 31 y dna samples in western europe from 7,000-4,700ybp even a 7,000 year old NELOITHIC farmer from germany he was in tehwestern european neloithci race

sure la bran is up to 40% med in some calculators but u cant say med percentage in k7b is same as med in globe13 sure in those calcultaors la brana had 40 med that is much lower than almost all modern europeans only north europeans have 40% med in those calculators it is a fact la brana was most related to finnish and sami and northern europeans peruiod he was not a meditreaen person in austomnal dna some with all pre Neolithic Europeans there is no way 15,000ybp when h1 and h3 spread to north africa from spain that those people had alot or any med so right there your argument is defeated but what confuses me is that otzie had he same white skin genes as modern europeans even though he technically was less than 20% european and modern sardinen people who have as much med as those farmers and have the highest amount of g2a in europe and and te closest modern relatives to early european farmers they are also white bit are also like only 20% european and G2a rignated in north antolia or iran but in those areas med is lower than in europe and west asian is the majority then why dident the farmers have alot of west asian they had tons of med and they had white skin his makes me think they had to be mainly european and maybe the med is european but besides that there is no good evidence and it almost defintley was not in spain before neloithic
Where do you get that Sardinians are only 20% european ? How can they be only 20% european when their mtDNA haplogropus are typical european, and their y-DNA also, except for 15% G2 , which is not that behind the Alpine region like Switzerland which has 8%..
 
We don't know yet for sure how old is G2/G2a in Europe. It seems pretty old, at least, in the Caucasus region. I suspect a very long time ago the Caucasus could have been dominant in Mediterranean, and at some point was mostly replaced by the West Asian admixture. It is interesting to note that Georgians and Abkhazians retained their Non Indo-European languages, and they still possess substantial Med component shared with Sardinians and other Southern European populations.
 
in glbe13 armanians med is 29.2%, for georgians it is 25.3%, in adygie it is 21.8% https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadF9CLUJnTUdSbkVJaDR2UkRtUE9kaUE#gid=2

all of thes are caucus people vnow here are european examples

dutch in globe13 have 33.3% med, bulgaran have 34.1% serb have 31.2%, french have 40.1%, swedish 26.1%, finnish who have 9.8%

finnish have been proven to be closet reltives to la bran hunter gather sapain hunter gather and to two hunter gathers from swedan 5,000ybp http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...riation.html&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13725450115847

so la brana and the two hunter gathers from swedan are most related to sami and finnish who have the least amount of med in europe so in my opion that proves la bran was not a major med person like iberians and lot of europeans today so that defeats your argment and ur argument is aginst what all austomnal dna experts say and the people that aculley tested la bran europe before he neloithic had almost no if any med in any type of austomnal dna test europe was orignalley almost only north european in austomnl dna and only sami and finnish ho have been genetically isolated from the rest of europe for about 10,000 years hve kept those austomnal genes and super high north european also people around parts of russi have to but ur argument abot med bieng major in europeans 10,000ybp or before is almost defintley not true

europeans unlike mid easterns and north africans have are their own ethnic group they europeans ancestors 10,000's ybp only inter married with each other they devloped the north europen austomnal group and developed unque features that is why all europeans are all white while other caucasins are rar;ey white skinned that is why Europeans have unque hair colors that only they have since europeans are a unque ethnic group that did not inter marry till 10,000ybp it makes sense they only had one austomnal dna group which is north european before 10,000ybp so that is another strong point that i think defeats ur argument
 
i disagree with saying sardinens are only 20% european but according to austomnal dna north europen is the only europen austomnal group and they and some other south europens have about 20% and most europens have round 40-50% which suprises me because u know europeans are more than half european

also the farmer otzie who had over 55% med and less than 20% north european in globe13 also had the genes for european white skin his closest mdern relatives are sardinens who also have white skin and are most likley the last true neloithic western europeans so these super med people who spread y dna g2a and technically should not be european actulley would have not looked phiscalley any differnt from modern europeans or the hunter gathers they conquered they would have been white but if they are not european then why are they white so somehow there is a europen thing about them u cant find in austomnal dna or i dont really know how to explain it and where did the med farmers come from y dna g2a is from caucus turkey iran area but those areas have very little med most med is in europe but europe over 10,000ybp probably had almost no med so where the heck did these farmers come from and if they where not native to europe why where they white just like the native hunter gathers this is very confusing i defintley think u guys have some good points that maybe these med farmers where european maybe there was some med in europe before 10,000ybp it is not a bad idea to investigate it
 
so la brana and the two hunter gathers from swedan are most related to sami and finnish who have the least amount of med in europe so in my opion that proves la bran was not a major med person like iberians and lot of europeans today so that defeats your argment

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.
 
so what those utah americans are from either england or somewhere in teh uk germany or norway they are still north europeans and those where random people 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

and made a very string point earlier europeans are a ethnic group unlike mid easterns, south asians, and sub cahren aafricams 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 orignalley caame frm teh mi8d east about 50,000ybo then became dominet in europeans ancestors when they migrted to europe or when they where in the mid east but ssince europeans are from one familyu that one family like 30,000 or more years ago would have had a unque austomnal group which is north euro all of europe would haave had north euro before neloithic

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
 

This thread has been viewed 39486 times.

Back
Top