true, but than we seem to have allot of combined U lineages in general. Could it be that some of the U* was just not tested for deeper clades or is it confirmed to be just U*?
Though I appreciate Palistos work and his blog in general, I have my doubts that the mtDNA frequencies are really representative because I do not agree on Palistos methodology in this specific case.
I am totally against taking all samples of studies together and than determining the frequency in percentage. Simply out of one reason. The study likely were taken in different territories. One study, though testing a much more densely populated city might has much less samples than a study taken from one single village. Than this one village would be more representative for the whole ethnicity than the sample taken from a much larger city. Simply taking all samples together could falsify the results.
And when I look at the studies and where they took their samples and than compare the sample size to the total number of people around the area. I feel confirmed about my thoughts.
I am not saying the results are incorrect or wrong. But I assume that this methodology might have caused a slight "shift" in the frequency of some specific Haplogroups.
Also I do assume that beside U4 other Haplogroups like T, HV and J have also connection to R1a, since they were found in archaeological sides of R1a bearers.