New map of mtDNA haplogroups H1+H3

[Wilhelm]

Some 15,000 years elapsed from the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (start of the re-expansion from the LGM refugia) and the beginning of the Bell Beaker culture. A lot could have happened in between. It's hard to know what period was the most important for the spread of H1 and H3. However since no Mesolithic samples to date in northern Europe belonged to hg H, it is better to assume that the expansion of H1 and H3 from Iberia and southern France took place only during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic with the Beaker culture.

There is also mtDNA H in mesolithic Northern-Europe, in Oleni Kastrov

 

[ElHorsto]

There is also mtDNA H in mesolithic Northern-Europe, in Oleni Kastrov

True, and it is even as far as north-eastern Europe. But it is the only occurence so far in the whole mesolithic europe according to the table, which raises some doubt and does not really destroy the epipaleolithic theory yet. The lack of H in mesolithic europe is still overwhelming. But given that the Yuzhnii Oleny Kostrov one is only 7500 years old it is possible that at this late stage some very few H individuals already made it to the north. But for the neolithic theory it could represent a more serious problem, because the sample was a hunter-gatherer.
It is also possible that some H entered north Russia already earlier from near-east via the the eastern land route.

 

[Angela]

Sorry, I confused things. Of course there are the skull images, I was mentioning them by myself and they can be seen in the link. But still I'm not able to classify them.

That's too bad...that looks a lot like my skull...not my facial bones, though.

According to John Robb in his book The Early Mediterranean Village, the people of the Central and Southern Italian Neolithic still avoided fish and seafood. Since the latest mtDNA paper proposing that at least for a couple of hundred year period, the Neolithic agricultural and Mesolithic fisher cultures of Central Europe might have divided up the resources, I had thought perhaps the same situation took place in Italy, but here we have Mesolithic culture people in Italy also not using marine resources. ( I have some issues with the interpretation of that paper...with the conclusions as well, but that's for another thread.)

It's certainly the case in the modern era that the Mediterranean is poor in fish. Dante even mentioned in The Divine Commedy that the Ligurian Sea, at least, was a "mare senza pesci." It's not quite the case that it's without fish, but the fish taken from the sea in these areas is usually small and bony, lots of sardines and anchovies, and so you need a lot of them to feed people. There's eel and some shellfish too, but nothing like the fish that are provided by the Atlantic and North Baltic fishing grounds. Perhaps that was the reason the diet was so different.

 

[Maciamo]

I checked the dates of the major clades in Behar et al, http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(12)00146-2

If his dating is correct, these are the oldest dates (BP) for the following:

HV: 19,000

H: 12,846

H13: 12,475

H2: 11, 905.3

H4: 10,000

H1: 9,888.6

H5: 9877.6

H2a2 (CRS): 9126.3

H3: 8919

Looking at this, it doesn't seem likely to me that "H" is Paleolithic, and even Mesolithic is doubtful. If it's about 11,000 years old, and it spread in a starburst pattern from the Middle East, then it developed after the Neolithic transition there.

H1 and H3 are very young, and therefore it seems equally unlikely, if these dates are correct, that they were in any Franco-Cantabrian Refugium.

It's certainly possible that HV had arrived in Europe in the Mesolithic, but it seems to be too young for Paglicci 25, which then perhaps is R0, which is plenty old enough.

As for U6, which is ubiquitous in North Africa, it's much older than "H".

So, until we get a better tested, unambiguous "H" sample in Europe clearly dated to the Mesolithic, I'm going to go with Behar's dates and an emergence in the Middle East after the Neolithic transition, and a northern Mediterranean coastal and then inland spread after that.

You can't really trust these estimates. The age of both the mtDNA and Y-DNA root has been constantly pushed back in time over the years. In other words the age estimates have always been underestimated, and I am pretty sure they still are. Just compare the estimates with the actual ancient DNA data. How can HV be only 19,000 years old when the 30,000-year-old sample from the Paglicci Cave was already HV ? Besides chances are that HV did not originated in southern Italy, but in the Middle East, so that would mean HV is at least a few millennia older than 30,000 years.

There are many other examples. I cited the H1b sample from Mesolithic Portugal (c. 8,500 years old), which doesn't agree with the age of 6,200 years given by Behar. Likewise, there is an H6 from Paleolithic Cantabria (12,000 years old), but Behar gives it an age of 11,000 years old. That is close enough, but only if H6 actually originated in Iberia. That's very unlikely considering that H6 is most common in Eastern Europe.

 

[ElHorsto]

It is also possible that some H entered north Russia already earlier from near-east via the the eastern land route.

But anyways this is only H, not H1 or H3, so it should be no problem for the theory. Actually it is very surprising that there are not many more mesolithic H samples from paleolithic/mesolithic. The table is a bit incomplete, but completion would probably not change the proportions that much.

 

[Angela]

You can't really trust these estimates. The age of both the mtDNA and Y-DNA root has been constantly pushed back in time over the years. In other words the age estimates have always been underestimated, and I am pretty sure they still are. Just compare the estimates with the actual ancient DNA data. How can HV be only 19,000 years old when the 30,000-year-old sample from the Paglicci Cave was already HV ? Besides chances are that HV did not originated in southern Italy, but in the Middle East, so that would mean HV is at least a few millennia older than 30,000 years.

There are many other examples. I cited the H1b sample from Mesolithic Portugal (c. 8,500 years old), which doesn't agree with the age of 6,200 years given by Behar. Likewise, there is an H6 from Paleolithic Cantabria (12,000 years old), but Behar gives it an age of 11,000 years old. That is close enough, but only if H6 actually originated in Iberia. That's very unlikely considering that H6 is most common in Eastern Europe.

I may have confused matters by giving a wrong date for the HV, and for not providing the SD figures for the rest of the clades. I apologize for that. Here are the correct dates:

HV: 21,905.8, +/- 2,832.7

H: 12,846, +/- 773.4

H13: 12,475, +/- 867.7

H2: 11, 905.3, +/- 1364.4

H4: 10,617.3, +/- 1,471.3

H1: 9,888.6, +/- 880.6

H5: 9877.6, +/- 1,401.7

H2a2 (CRS): 9126.3, +/- 1,873.7

H3: 8919, +/- 1062.6

You mentioned H1b. These are his figures for that. I suppose if you stretch the SD to the very limits of the older range, it just might fit the Iberian sample, but that is indeed *stretching it*.
H1b: 6,237, +/- 1,805.3

These are the figures for H6, which comes out to about 12,000 years ago if we use the middle range of the SD:
10,945.6, +/- 1873.7

I have a date of 24,000 B.P. for Paglicci 25, and with the correct Behar date of about 22,000 to 23,000 for HV taking into account the SD it looks like a pretty good fit to me. Of course, the typing of the Paglicci sample also says HV or RO, and RO is certainly old enough.

All the dates are in the supplementary table in Behar et al,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929712001462

Just generally, I am always a little skeptical of the mtDNA classifications done by academics in the past, and sadly even in the present occasionally, based solely on HVRI data, and when we're talking about ancient DNA, fragmentary sequences at that. That's why I tend to give more credence perhaps to the trees and the dating based on the sequencing of the entire mtDNA, although they certainly do change these dating schemes, and so, I am definitely keeping an open mind about all of this..

FWIW, I checked the Behar dates against those in this paper on mtDNA N, I, X and W. They used completely sequenced mtDNA. When taking into account the SD figures, the Behar figures are a good match for the ones in this paper. The authors provide some great distribution maps too.
The Arabian Cradle: Mitochondrial Relicts of the First Steps along the Southern Route out of Africa, Fernandes et al
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929711005453

 

[MOESAN]

Of course also a neolithic origin is possible. But I was talking about the epipaleolithic only, which is basically the same very late time frame as the neolithic, just without farming. Another example: Combe-Capelle
In hindsight I'd remove HV from my theory, sticking to H1/H3 only, because it has not been found in the european mesolithic, thus it is possibly way too old for the epipaleolithic. HV in europe (see also Favignana cave) might have been from extinct hunter-gatheres. But the Franchthi cave was inhabited for a very long time until the neolithic, long enough also for HV survival.

concerning 'brünn' type, when I mention it I mention only one of the different types found in this region of S-Bohemia - 'brünn' (associated to 'c-capelle' prototypes) are surely older than 9500 but in other places (more eastern?) than France, according to the scarce readings I have about Brünn or Predmost places (very confused allusions sometimes) - apparently a skull or more was of 'cromagnoid' type' - apparently too, even the brutal type of 'brünn' (# 'cromagnon') would be old enough (aurignacian?) but old scientists seemed believing 'cromagnon' was older than 'brünn' even in central Europe (?) - all the way, an other type, alone (unique) dolichocephalic too, but less brutal, was already found in W-France at Chancelade, dated between 17000-12000 BC, magdalenian, different from the other magdalenians who were in majority 'cromagnoid' already on the way to partial gracilization - someones think it was a rare type without noticeable descendants when other think it was one of the genitors of the dolichocephalic non-cromagnoid types of late mesolithical SW France and N Spain - uneasy to say but some so called (mean) 'atlanto-mediterranean' types could have a big part of it - it seams present among the Charles-Riquet 'aquitain' types of the late Neolithic period even if someones have (for me) some more rough shapes, closer to 'combe-capelle'... if we could trace back to deeper roots in the phyletic tree we could found common ancestors to the three? but yet 'chancelade' shows for me more 'eurafrican' and gracilization on the 'mediterranean' side than 'combe-capelle' even if still robust enough compared to small gracile 'mediterraneans' - it evoques to me also some high statured North-Africans - so an already proto-mediterranean population at late magdalenian time and later could be possible (different from the later small refined 'mediterraneans' of Arabia and surroundings and from the gracilized cromagnoid 'mediterraneans'*
*: this last ones who seem having occupied the Mediterranea shores at last mesolithic, from Greece to Portugal and whose shapes cannot be confused with the diverse true 'mediterraneans', robust or not, mesolithical or neolithical) –
all the way, the Iberia S-France populations of Neolithic times were an uneven mix of mesolithical already mixed remnants (first 'robust mediterrans among them) and different 'mediterranean' ligneages, showing some affinities and also some surely recent enough divergeances, but with common traits like comparatively high skull, high upper-face, narrow lighter jaws, large nose holes with a tendancy towards fronto-nasal shapes, if I don't mistake... I say here my opinion the so called 'mediterranean' complex, even if from a not too remote common origin, shows different subgroups of phenotypes that surely needed some isolation before converging again geographically and mixing one together – if true, the closer to the earlier origins would be the tall enough 'eurafrican' type, not too far from 'chancelade', and possibly related in ancient times to 'combe-capelle' type and 'brünn' more than to 'cromagnon' – the apparent uniformity of 'mediterraneans', based on dolichocephaly and very dark pigmentation for caucasian types, does not resist to skeletal analysis. Let's look at Portugueses faces and bodies – according to places the neolithic stature means were between 1m56 to 1m 72 !!! some were short very legged others very long legged and so on...
deportment differences between current western and eastern mediterraneans have surely some old basis, being climate out of play -
the 'long barrows' people, at least the more typical ones, showed a lot of features pushing them far enough from all kinds of 'méditerraneans' as described above – too long skulls, too horizontal and relatively low «roof», to highplaced occiput, little face but with relatively broad jaw, too square orbits... I see there a taste of 'cromagnoid' of some kind, as what I see as a mix of 'aquitain' type ('chancelade' heirs?) and 'cromagnoid mediterraeans' of Charles, occupying Northern Spain at eneolithical times, in a megalithic environment – Coon tried to compare them to El Ubaid types but failed to explain the shortness of the face and some features –
concerning dates, I red no available skeletal study about the period between 9000 BC and 3000BC (the modern surveys as published do not pay attention to typology, only to means and «distances» and environmental pressure) -
but the lonely 'chancelade' type, upperpaleolithical, could have been a first intrusion from Mediterranea distinct from central european 'c-capelle' even if showing affinities, and its supposed descendants (for the most), 'aquitains' could very well have been between Spain and France and even more northernly, a long time ago, Mesolithic maybe; but in small numbers – they could have had parallele lifes with 'cromagnoids' during Mesolithic before crossings with them (popular basis of future megalithics population?) and later with more gracilized 'mediterranean' from East, small statured, small faced and narrow faced (part of Cardial, these last ones?) -
all that is very confusing in absence of more data - a remote mediterranean (geographically) origin does not exclude a northern enough occupation at Mesolitihic – but more seriously the relatively tall «megalithic» types (men) found in N-W France and Portugal or Basque country were found only at Neolithic making my bets only bets! -
all the way I see megaliths diffusers being distinct from the other neolithical people (more western coastal mesolithic inhabitants accultured by genuine neolithic people? But through North or South?)-
mt H1-H3 could very well be of megalithic diffusion if not by origin – an Atlantic Bronze other diffusion is not excluded at proto-celtic times -

 

[Tabaccus Maximus]

Particularly in regard to mtDNA H, it has a definite starburst pattern emanating from the Middle East...

And look at the Paglicci Cave 25 Gravettian sample. It is listed as HV or RO.
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

As you say, it may have spread with the Neolithic as well, in fact most of it probably did, since it's biggest expansion seems to correlate with the Neolithic, but that doesn't mean H wasn't already present, as was HV.

In terms of its spread, I have also wondered if it spread across North Africa and from there into Iberia, but U6 was, I think, already dominant there...I have to check the dates.

If the early Paleolithic culture members were indeed fisherman, then a coastal spread might make more sense, and given the tides and wind currents in the Mediterranean, it would have had to spread, I think, along the northern Mediterranean. (It's counter clockwise from the Middle East from what I understand...and maritime travelers of that time would have bound by those currents and winds.)

I checked the dates of the major clades in Behar et al, http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(12)00146-2

If his dating is correct, these are the oldest dates (BP) for the following:

HV: 19,000

H: 12,846

H13: 12,475

H2: 11, 905.3

H4: 10,000

H1: 9,888.6

H5: 9877.6

H2a2 (CRS): 9126.3

H3: 8919

Looking at this, it doesn't seem likely to me that "H" is Paleolithic, and even Mesolithic is doubtful. If it's about 11,000 years old, and it spread in a starburst pattern from the Middle East, then it developed after the Neolithic transition there.

H1 and H3 are very young, and therefore it seems equally unlikely, if these dates are correct, that they were in any Franco-Cantabrian Refugium.

It's certainly possible that HV had arrived in Europe in the Mesolithic, but it seems to be too young for Paglicci 25, which then perhaps is R0, which is plenty old enough.

As for U6, which is ubiquitous in North Africa, it's much older than "H".

So, until we get a better tested, unambiguous "H" sample in Europe clearly dated to the Mesolithic, I'm going to go with Behar's dates and an emergence in the Middle East after the Neolithic transition, and a northern Mediterranean coastal and then inland spread after that.

Angela, do you or anyone else here know anything about the Ozbal, 2004 dna from Tell Kurdu, Syria?

It appears from what I have been able to read that several samples of H3a were taken from Halaf and Ubaid layers on the Syria, Turkish border. If I'm reading correctly, it appeared to be two individuals from the Halafian and two from the Ubaid. I haven't been able to find anything on this study.

 

[sherlockholmes]

My mtdna is H18.Is map related to me ?

 

[sherlockholmes]

My mtdna is H18.Does this map interests me ?