European mtDNA Signature Established in the Mid Neolithic

[Angela]

There can’t be any rational discussion of the issues raised by Brotherton et al, or any advancement in our knowledge of this period when statements are made concerning it that are totally at odds with a plain reading of the text.


Once again, this is what they say in the abstract: 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).


They are thus claiming that already by 4,000 BC, the major part of the current diversity and distribution of H had already been established, and that therefore Bell Beaker, and Corded Ware, and Unetice) did not create the general pattern of diversity and distribution of mtDNA “H” we see in modern populations. It was already in place, or so they claim.


In the body of the paper they then go on to state this, “The combined set of analyses (PCA, Procrustes and Ward clustering) revealed that Mittelelbe-Saale’s earliest farmers (LBK; n=9) cluster with present-day Caucasus, Near Eastern, and Anatolian populations, as previously noted⁷. In contrast, individuals from the successor series of regional post-LBK (and Mid Neolithic) Rössen, Schöningen, Baalberge, and Salzmünde cultures (ca. 4625-3025 BC, MNE; n=10) cluster with present-day Central European populations (Figure 2


They further state that ,” ENE (Early Neolithic) mt genomes are generally either rare today¹⁹ or have not yet been observed in present-day populations, possibly due to subsequent extinction of these lineages” and that “This suggests that individuals from the Early Neolithic made a marginal contribution to Late Neolithic and present day hg H diversity. Although the relatively small sample numbers from each time period limit detailed analyses of the causes of the distribution shifts, we interpret this phylogenetic pattern as a genetic discontinuity between Early and subsequent Neolithic cultures in Europe, potentially mirroring genetic structure in Neolithic European populations.”


Now, such a change could be caused by either migrations or drift. The authors specifically state that drift was not the cause:

“Genetic drift could also have played a role in generating discrepant hg distributions over time and space. However, if drift was the sole cause we would expect a random distribution across all sub-hgs rather than a clear distinction between ENE and MNE/LNE/Bronze Age mt genomes.”

That leaves migration of peoples bearing other subclades of “H” as the explanation, but they never state that explicitly and so they obviously don’t explain where and when these people arrived in the area. Now, I personally have no problem speculating that there was continuous gene flow during the Neolithic or perhaps a few pulses of gene flow which would bring diversity to the area. I do have a problem with an analysis that leaves that as the only explanation but doesn’t explicitly address the issue. Nor, for that matter, do I think their argument against drift as an explanation is all that convincing. If the sample sizes are too small from each period to figure out how the diversity developed, then why aren't they too small to so definitively rule out drift as one of the factors.


Apologies to Aberdeen for speaking for him, but it seems to me that this must be the same logical trail he followed, a trail which led him to conclude that, “Here's an article published by Nature Communications about a study that suggests Europe's modern mtDNA signature was largely established about 6000 years ago, in the mid Neolithic, by people of an unknown origin who largely replaced the early Neolithic farmers, for reasons that aren't yet clear.”

The authors are clearly proposing that some genetic transition did indeed take place between the LBK or early Neolithic and the mid-Neolithic cultures before the arrival of Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, or Unetice. Now, this may not be supported by the data, it may indeed not be the best explanation of what actually happened in Europe, but it is unambiguously what they did say.


They are most definitely not saying that “ Europe's modern mtDNA signature was largely established about 6000 years ago as a result of migrations into Europe during the early Neolithic" to quote a post by Polako. Given the text of the main paper quoted above, it's also incorrect to maintain that the authors propose that “The descendants of early Neolithic farmers weren't replaced about 6000 years ago but were the ones who largely established Europe's modern mtDNA gene pool at this time." Clearly they are saying that there were indeed changes between the arrival of the first farmers and the Middle Neolithic of 6000 years ago. (4000 BC)


One can disagree with the conclusions of Brotherton et al, but one can’t re-write them; that just leads to frustration, confusion among readers, and further bad conclusions.


In addition to all of the above problems with this paper, I agree with Aberdeen that the authors are making a huge error in taking results from one area in Germany, and very small sample sizes for each specific time period, and presuming to then extrapolate from that to make broad generalizations about the peopling of Europe.

 

[LeBrok]

That leaves migration of peoples bearing other subclades of “H” as the explanation, but they never state that explicitly and so they obviously don’t explain where and when these people arrived in the area. Now, I personally have no problem speculating that there was continuous gene flow during the Neolithic or perhaps a few pulses of gene flow which would bring diversity to the area.

We can see that with farmers/middle eastern Y-dna pattern too. They don't mirror each other much and not at all in some cases. Suggesting separate entrances into Europe. In other words, few waves of farmers during Neolithic.

 

[Aberdeen]

There can’t be any rational discussion of the issues raised by Brotherton et al, or any advancement in our knowledge of this period when statements are made concerning it that are totally at odds with a plain reading of the text.


Once again, this is what they say in the abstract: 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).


They are thus claiming that already by 4,000 BC, the major part of the current diversity and distribution of H had already been established, and that therefore Bell Beaker, and Corded Ware, and Unetice) did not create the general pattern of diversity and distribution of mtDNA “H” we see in modern populations. It was already in place, or so they claim.


In the body of the paper they then go on to state this, “The combined set of analyses (PCA, Procrustes and Ward clustering) revealed that Mittelelbe-Saale’s earliest farmers (LBK; n=9) cluster with present-day Caucasus, Near Eastern, and Anatolian populations, as previously noted⁷. In contrast, individuals from the successor series of regional post-LBK (and Mid Neolithic) Rössen, Schöningen, Baalberge, and Salzmünde cultures (ca. 4625-3025 BC, MNE; n=10) cluster with present-day Central European populations (Figure 2


They further state that ,” ENE (Early Neolithic) mt genomes are generally either rare today¹⁹ or have not yet been observed in present-day populations, possibly due to subsequent extinction of these lineages” and that “This suggests that individuals from the Early Neolithic made a marginal contribution to Late Neolithic and present day hg H diversity. Although the relatively small sample numbers from each time period limit detailed analyses of the causes of the distribution shifts, we interpret this phylogenetic pattern as a genetic discontinuity between Early and subsequent Neolithic cultures in Europe, potentially mirroring genetic structure in Neolithic European populations.”


Now, such a change could be caused by either migrations or drift. The authors specifically state that drift was not the cause:

“Genetic drift could also have played a role in generating discrepant hg distributions over time and space. However, if drift was the sole cause we would expect a random distribution across all sub-hgs rather than a clear distinction between ENE and MNE/LNE/Bronze Age mt genomes.”

That leaves migration of peoples bearing other subclades of “H” as the explanation, but they never state that explicitly and so they obviously don’t explain where and when these people arrived in the area. Now, I personally have no problem speculating that there was continuous gene flow during the Neolithic or perhaps a few pulses of gene flow which would bring diversity to the area. I do have a problem with an analysis that leaves that as the only explanation but doesn’t explicitly address the issue. Nor, for that matter, do I think their argument against drift as an explanation is all that convincing. If the sample sizes are too small from each period to figure out how the diversity developed, then why aren't they too small to so definitively rule out drift as one of the factors.


Apologies to Aberdeen for speaking for him, but it seems to me that this must be the same logical trail he followed, a trail which led him to conclude that, “Here's an article published by Nature Communications about a study that suggests Europe's modern mtDNA signature was largely established about 6000 years ago, in the mid Neolithic, by people of an unknown origin who largely replaced the early Neolithic farmers, for reasons that aren't yet clear.”

The authors are clearly proposing that some genetic transition did indeed take place between the LBK or early Neolithic and the mid-Neolithic cultures before the arrival of Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, or Unetice. Now, this may not be supported by the data, it may indeed not be the best explanation of what actually happened in Europe, but it is unambiguously what they did say.


They are most definitely not saying that “ Europe's modern mtDNA signature was largely established about 6000 years ago as a result of migrations into Europe during the early Neolithic" to quote a post by Polako. Given the text of the main paper quoted above, it's also incorrect to maintain that the authors propose that “The descendants of early Neolithic farmers weren't replaced about 6000 years ago but were the ones who largely established Europe's modern mtDNA gene pool at this time." Clearly they are saying that there were indeed changes between the arrival of the first farmers and the Middle Neolithic of 6000 years ago. (4000 BC)


One can disagree with the conclusions of Brotherton et al, but one can’t re-write them; that just leads to frustration, confusion among readers, and further bad conclusions.


In addition to all of the above problems with this paper, I agree with Aberdeen that the authors are making a huge error in taking results from one area in Germany, and very small sample sizes for each specific time period, and presuming to then extrapolate from that to make broad generalizations about the peopling of Europe.

Thank you for that excellent summary of the situation, Angela. This is definitely one of those papers where the facts don't fit the conclusions. The authors state that "Our results reveal that the current diversity and distribution of hg 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)." However, that simply isn't the case, as is noted in the paper as well as in various other sources. 6000 years ago, H was less common than it later became, and those examples of H that have been found from 4000 BC and earlier show a substantially different prevalence of subclades than what developed later. And we seem to agree that there's a problem with trying to use the results from one locale as a proxy for all of Europe, since the results in that locale are not in fact representative of Europe. There's a lot wrong with this paper, although I don't have time at the moment to address it all in detail. I just wish I had been able to see the paper before I started this thread on the basis of curiosity about the abstract, since I really don't think this paper should be taken too seriously.

 

[Sile]

Certainly. However, history shows that few men can father children at a lot of women. The other way around does not seem plausible. So I had the impression that mtDNA should follow autosomical DNA more than Y-DNA.

What I call " dynastic ydna". Men who had a concubine due to their status in society ...................something we still saw in history as late as the 19th century in Zulu culture

If I am right the Baltic states never had significant neolithic immigration that kickstarted the neolithicum there. However, Baltics still do have significant EEF. They also have significant ANE and speak a Indo-European language. This might serve as evidence that there possibly the expanding Indo-Europeans carried an lot of EEF as well as WHG. Allthough possibly the EEF the Baltics show affinity to might be the exact bit in Stuttgart that was derived from WHG. Lazardis discusses that, and suggests a 20% WHG admixture.

The amber trade/migration trail and the jutland to Genoa migration/trade trail where already in action by the late-neolithic period

 

[FrankN]

I need a few more looks at the paper itself to comment on its content, but it seems to me that some posters here have problems to place it into the correct historical setting:
Let's start with the Elbe-Saale region that has been analysed in the paper. Of course it is only one Central European region, and as such not necessarily representative of other regions. However, if there is a single region that captures most of Central European population dynamics, it is exactly that area along the Middle Elbe and Saale:

1. Central part of the LBK EEF expansion during the early Neolithic from the Lower Danube north-westwards (LBK arrived at the Middle Elbe a couple of centuries before it reached the middle and lower Rhine);
2. Part of the area where lactase persistency developed first. Recent genetic research puts the origin somewhere into Western Hungary, i.e. the starting point of the LBK expansion, in the second half of the 5th millennium BC. Lactase persistency seems to have spread strongest along the central LBK expansion path - through Moravia, Bohemia and along the Upper Elbe - and less intensively / slower along the western path (Upper Danube / Rhine). The Middle Elbe/ Saale region is still today part of the area where lactase persistency is highest within Europe;
3. Part (actually the western edge) of the first stage of IE expansion into Central Europe, marked by the Globular Amphora Culture, and the place where quite a number of linguists assume Proto-Germanic to have been formed;
4. Eastern border of the Bell Beaker expansion out of Iberia, and the only region where co-existence of Bell Beakers and (IE- influenced) Global Amphora / Corded Ware people is archeologically documented;
5. Convergence zone of (Proto-Celtic) Urnfield & Hallstatt cultures, and (Proto-Germanic) Jastorf culture;
6. Western border of the Slavic expansion during the early middle ages.

LBK EEFs settled on the loess plains along the major rivers (Danube, Morava, Elbe, Vltava, Oder, Rhine, Main, etc.). Archaeological research in the Rhine-Main area around today's Frankfurt, and by Czech archaeologists along the Upper Elbe and around Prague shows that the LBK heartland was quite densely populated. The mountain ranges between the main rivers, however, were left to HGs. This may, especially when looking at older maps, create the impression of isolated settlements. But in fact, as recent excavations have shown, the settlement pattern included larger "towns" every 50-60 km, and smaller settlements as well as individual "farms" in-between and reaching into secondary valleys. Not a pattern that necessarily promotes genetic isolation and drift.
Below is a recently published map by the Archeological Service of Saxony Anhalt, which indicates all Unetice sites (2,700 - 2,100 BC) that have been identified/ documented to date. The indicated settlement density is actually higher than today (though many of the places may not have been settled continuously, but only for some 3-5 generations before the soils were exploited and settlers moved on to a nearby place).

Entrance of EEF into HG areas has obviously lead to conflicts, in particular as LBK farming seems to have been strongly based on cattle herding, with field crops (grain, linen) only playing a secondary (but nevertheless important) role. What is more tempting to hunters than large herds of well-fed cattle? However, aside from the "Australian Aborigines" / "Native Americans" way to "solve" such conflicts, there is another possibility: Farming and cattle-herding communities along the Niger in West Africa employ Saharans (Tuareg) for their salt supply. Salt trade, while it surely existed already during the Neolithic, is difficult to trace archeologically. But we have ample evidence of medium-distance flint and tool trade. One well documented case is the flint mines near Kehlheim in Upper Bavaria, which supplied their flint as far as Lake Constance and the Middle Rhine to the West, and Dresden, Prague and Linz to the (south-)east. The "flint road" from Kehlheim to Pilsen (from where it continued to Prague) is archeologically well documented from a series of camps in the Bavarian Forest where evidence of small-scale stone processing has been found. The area is still scarcely populated today, and, with one exception (near the town of Cham), no traces of Neolitihic agriculture have been found along the "flint road". As such, it is assumed that traders, following the rivers and creeks, just used their spare time on the evening campfire to get rid of a bit of weight by doing some stone processing. And I am pretty sure that these traders didn't carry sandwiches with them, but hunted (or, more likely, fished) for their food along the way. In other words - some LBK EEF communities found a way to economically integrate HGs from the periphery into their economy, just as Sahel farmers have done with the Tuareg. I furthermore assume that most (all?) of the flint miners and processors were originally HGs - they probably were already regularly (outside hunting season) visiting such mines and preparing replacement spear and arrow heads before farming created additional demand for flint tools. EEFs marrying women from HG communities may have helped to promote such, more peaceful ways of coexistence, and could have become quite frequent once regular trade connections were established.

I am not aware of genetic studies of LBK graves. However, later graves from the extended Middle Elbe / Saale region (Eulau, Lichtenstein cave) clearly indicate a patrilocal culture, whereby women move towards the husband's residence. In both cases, strontium analyses yielded that the adult women were born at least 60 km away from their burial place. As such, a mtDNA "travelling speed" of 200-250 km/ century across Central Europe is well possible even in the absence of mass migrations.

 

[John Doe]

Haplogroup U was present in Europe before the Neolithic, is it possible that some carriers of U migrated to Western Asia where K, the subclade of U originated, and then some West Asian carriers of K (such as Jews) migrated into Europe?

 

[epoch]

@FrankN

The genetic history of pigs is quite an interesting one. It shows that early LBK settlers took their own pigs with them, as the earliest remains of pigs show affinity with Anatolian wild boar. There are a number of cultures, if I understand correctly that are considered surviving hunter-gatherers, one of them being the Ertebolla culture, that started to keep pigs in their villages. The remains of the oldest pigs found at Ertebolla sites also show affinity with Anatolian wild boar. That makes it very clear that trade between LBK and HG's existed.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/pigs.htm
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130827/ncomms3348/full/ncomms3348.html

(The latter of the two links also states that Ertebolla and LBK lived alongside each other but apart from each other for almost thousand years.)

Strangely enough remains of more recent neolithic pigs shows them to be descendant from local wild boar.

https://www.academia.edu/1949053/Genetic_aspects_of_pig_domestication

The same Near Easternhaplotype was also identified in four specimensfrom the 8th millennium Linear Bandkeramik (LBK) site of Eilsleben in northern Germany,and in two samples from the mid Neolithic(very early 6th millennium Chasséen culture)site of Bercy in the Paris Basin. At Bercy,mtDNA sequences of European origin werealso extracted from archaeological specimensidentified by zooarchaeological criteria asdomestic swine, making it the earliest sitewhere both Near Eastern and Europeandomestic swine have been identified together.

EDIT: One more link about pigs genetic history:

http://geknitics.com/2007/09/ancient-pig-dna-and-the-neolithic-transition/

It appears that domesticated swine came into Europe with Neolithic farmers. Interestingly, the archaeological sequences suggest that these Near Eastern lineages were replaced by indigenous wild boar which were quickly domesticated.

 

[Angela]

Thank you for that excellent summary of the situation, Angela. This is definitely one of those papers where the facts don't fit the conclusions. The authors state that "Our results reveal that the current diversity and distribution of hg 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)." However, that simply isn't the case, as is noted in the paper as well as in various other sources. 6000 years ago, H was less common than it later became, and those examples of H that have been found from 4000 BC and earlier show a substantially different prevalence of subclades than what developed later. And we seem to agree that there's a problem with trying to use the results from one locale as a proxy for all of Europe, since the results in that locale are not in fact representative of Europe. There's a lot wrong with this paper, although I don't have time at the moment to address it all in detail. I just wish I had been able to see the paper before I started this thread on the basis of curiosity about the abstract, since I really don't think this paper should be taken too seriously.

Thanks for the kind words, Aberdeen. I just thought that before even getting to the merits of the conclusions, we needed to know precisely what, in fact, the authors were claiming in terms of the populating of Europe from a mtDNA "H" perspective.

 

[LeBrok]

Thanks for the kind words, Aberdeen. I just thought that before even getting to the merits of the conclusions, we needed to know precisely what, in fact, the authors were claiming in terms of the populating of Europe from a mtDNA "H" perspective.

It was a great summary Angela, I gladly enjoyed it not having time to read research papers these days.

 

[epoch]

GailT, who posts at Anthrogenica makes the point far better than I can, and coming from a far better grasp of mtDNA than I have:

"My guess is that there were not just a few waves of migration - the concept of early farmers partially replacing hunter-gatherers, and late Neolithic immigrants partially replacing earlier farmers is much too simplistic. There were very likely many waves of migration that varied in different parts of Europe. For example, much of the U5 found in Finland today is not a Paleolithic remnant, rather, a large part of it appears to be a Neolithic migration that arrived via eastern Europe. So I think we need many more ancient samples from a much wider region to even begin to understand the complexity of past migrations. The new studies from Brandt et al and Bollinger et al. are fascinating, but they focus on a small geographical area. We need that level of analysis from many different areas."

Until very recently - In the Netherlands that was 1980 - wild areas in Europe were drained and cultivated. Or, in the case of undrainable lands, tranformed to meadows for cattle. Agriculture and the spread into wild areas are intimately connected. That means that agricultural cultures are *constantly* colonizing. Taking my country as an example again, one third of the Netherlands consisted of peatbogs. They all are transformed to agricultural grounds, apart from small remnants. One could call this something like "migration within".

Couldn't it be that *some* changes in haplogroups somehow reflect the uptake of people met during this "migration within"?

I would just add that given Lazaridis et al and now the Paschou et al paper, it seems to more probable that although there might have been different pulses of the Neolithic into Europe, the autosomal signature shows a departure for Europe from the Levant area primarily by sea and then splitting and differentiation after that, but further testing will clarify matters.

Could you elaborate on this?

 

[epoch]

Indeed, that's why the Haak group has been mining this area for years, not just in this paper but in the prior Haak et al papers and the Brandt et al paper referred to by Epoch.

I just don't think that changes the fact that, setting aside any other issues with the paper, such as the number of ancient samples per culture, and their determinations concerning drift just as two examples, it is injudicious to extrapolate from this area to make broad generalizations about all of Europe.

I understand this hesitation, mind you. The answer to it is the answer that has been given on many occasions: "We need more data"

 

[Angela]

epoch;435031]Until very recently - In the Netherlands that was 1980 - wild areas in Europe were drained and cultivated. Or, in the case of undrainable lands, tranformed to meadows for cattle. Agriculture and the spread into wild areas are intimately connected. That means that agricultural cultures are *constantly* colonizing. Taking my country as an example again, one third of the Netherlands consisted of peatbogs. They all are transformed to agricultural grounds, apart from small remnants. One could call this something like "migration within".

Couldn't it be that *some* changes in haplogroups somehow reflect the uptake of people met during this "migration within"?

I absolutely think that's possible. What I think is a mistake is to imagine that the present day haplogroup distribution in European countries, especially in terms of yDNA, but even to some extent for mtDNA, is an exact mirror of what it was even after the arrival of the Indo-Europeans, for example. When climate change and the Huns pushed the Germanic tribes west and south, tribes that ultimately toppled the Empire, there had to have been some "mixing" of genes. Then the Slavic invasions further "stirred the pot". (That's not to say that the affect was the same for all countries. I don't see much evidence for influence in Italy from the Slavic tribes, and even the "Germanic" influence seems pretty minor if we are to go by the y-DNA sub-groups that I think most people would see as markers of those migrations, like R1b U106 and I1.)

Industrialization is another huge factor. Just in terms of Italy, which I know best, there has been an extremely large internal migration from the areas south of Rome to the north, and in particular to the Lombardia (Milano), Piemonte (Torino), and Liguria (Genova) triangle, as these were the areas that were first industrialized. The majority of that migration took place starting in the mid 1950's and continues to this day, but there was migration to Genova in the late 19th century, for example, from the hinterlands of Liguria itself, from the Veneto, and from northern Toscana. *

I think it's probable that such "internal" migrations, particularly of women, would have taken place in Neolithic Europe as well, and may go some way toward explaining the changes from the early Neolithic to the Middle Neolithic which Brotherton et al purport to see, in addition differentiation within Europe, and to drift.

Could you elaborate on this?

The comment I made to the effect that, "although there might have been different pulses of the Neolithic into Europe, the genetic signature shows a departure for Europe from the Levant area primarily by sea and then splitting and differentiation after that" is based on my interpretation of the findings of Paschou et al. (and Lazaridis et al) FrankN and I are going to have to agree to disagree about it. Of course, a paper could come out tomorrow showing there were two autosomally different waves of the Neolithic, one from the Levant and one from Anatolia; it's just that I don't think that's what Paschou shows.

You can see the discussion here:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...Europe-(Paschou-et-al-2014)?highlight=Paschou

*Edited to add "in the late 19th century".

 

[Aberdeen]

I think this thread has gone badly off course. Is there anyone who's actually read the study I originally referenced and who has an opinion as to whether it makes sense?

 

[FrankN]

I think this thread has gone badly off course. Is there anyone who's actually read the study I originally referenced and who has an opinion as to whether it makes sense?

While I understand that some of the discussion has gone off topic, and actually myself proposed to shift some posts to a new thread, as you did, I feel you done a bit too much of re-arranging. For the points I was to bring forward (and I have been working on more than one answer to the original question posed), the following posts that I feel are pertinent to the discussion would greatly help to understand my arguments (numbers relate to the new thread):

#8 Flint mining as essential part of Neolithic interchange in Central Europe
#17 Background on the LBK culture that, according to Brotherton, has been completely overturned in the middle & late Neolithic
#20 MK as a possible culprit (I plan to go into further detail on that)
#22 Epoch on Swifterblade culture (I intend to further comment on the Swifterblade-MK relation outlined in his links)
#29 If it is possible for you to split the post, the second half should go here, the first half is fine where it is now. Otherwise, I might just repost the second half here.
#30 Epoch on Dutch land losses (I intend to look into the issue of population pressure from drowning lands in more detail. Short answer is - it's probably not an issue, but the point is nevertheless interesting enough for a few more paragraphs).

I also think that the housing piece may still become relevant, but at the moment I haven't progressed beyond 4,000 BC, the initial genetic turnover found by Brotherton. If I understood you correctly, your interest is more on BB/ Corded Ware, and housing might tell us something about them as well. However if you prefer to keep it outside this thread, I'll accept it (though I don't really see it in any way related to "limitations of genetic models").

Once you have shifted the above posts back, I will delete this post. If you feel they should stay in the other thread I will have quite some problems to contribute further in a meaningful way, which would be regrettable as I think the study, and the region in question are important to better understand Central European Neolithic.

 

[Aberdeen]

While I understand that some of the discussion has gone off topic, and actually myself proposed to shift some posts to a new thread, as you did, I feel you done a bit too much of re-arranging. For the points I was to bring forward (and I have been working on more than one answer to the original question posed), the following posts that I feel are pertinent to the discussion would greatly help to understand my arguments (numbers relate to the new thread):

#8 Flint mining as essential part of Neolithic interchange in Central Europe
#17 Background on the LBK culture that, according to Brotherton, has been completely overturned in the middle & late Neolithic
#20 MK as a possible culprit (I plan to go into further detail on that)
#22 Epoch on Swifterblade culture (I intend to further comment on the Swifterblade-MK relation outlined in his links)
#29 If it is possible for you to split the post, the second half should go here, the first half is fine where it is now. Otherwise, I might just repost the second half here.
#30 Epoch on Dutch land losses (I intend to look into the issue of population pressure from drowning lands in more detail. Short answer is - it's probably not an issue, but the point is nevertheless interesting enough for a few more paragraphs).

I also think that the housing piece may still become relevant, but at the moment I haven't progressed beyond 4,000 BC, the initial genetic turnover found by Brotherton. If I understood you correctly, your interest is more on BB/ Corded Ware, and housing might tell us something about them as well. However if you prefer to keep it outside this thread, I'll accept it (though I don't really see it in any way related to "limitations of genetic models").

Once you have shifted the above posts back, I will delete this post. If you feel they should stay in the other thread I will have quite some problems to contribute further in a meaningful way, which would be regrettable as I think the study, and the region in question are important to better understand Central European Neolithic.

I can't move posts - only a moderator can do that. I'm just saying that my personal opinion is that the thread is now badly off topic in many respects. I originally posted a reference to this study because I only had the abstract to look at, since the rest of the paper was behind a paywall, and I was curious as to how they arrived at their conclusions. Once ebAmerican posted the whole study for us to look at, I felt that the conclusions of the study failed to match the data. While the mtDNA haplotype H was present in Europe from an early date (and was found in at least one LBK site), it had not reached its present dominance in Europe by 6000 BP, which is what the authors indicated. And while subclade H1 was present by then, H5 seemed to still have been the most common subclade at that point. And I don't see any point in trying to decide how the present structure of mtDNA H came to be established 6000 years ago when that is not in fact the case.

As for housing styles, you would have to show consistency of styles over a very long period of time for housing styles to be relevant. Showing that some barns that currently exist follow a style somewhat similar to a really ancient building doesn't, in itself, prove continuity. Nor does it address the question of whether different ethnic or tribal groups may have used a similar style of building construction and/or layout. There have been a lot of population movements in that part of the world. And I'm not sure what housing styles in one part of Europe have to do with the present predominance of mtDNA H, particularly H1 and H3, in the whole of Europe.

 

[FrankN]

Timeline underlying the Brotherton Study

The Brotherton study has yielded several remarkable results that, however, could definitely have been presented in a clearer and less misunderstandable way. In order to create an overview on their actual findings, I try to put together a cultural timeline, based on the cultural epochs used by them, and describe their findings (including those only documented in the annex) within that timeline. I furthermore add Wikipedia information on the cultures themselves, and on the development of metallurgy in the region as described here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-Age-in-Europe?p=432246&viewfull=1#post432246

1. LBK (5,500 - 4,800 BC): The share of mtDNA H increases from virtually zero to 20%. In the PCA analysis, the LBK sample clusters together with present-day populations from the Near East and the Caucasus, especially Lebanese and Ossetians. Brotherton et. al interpret this as confirmation for the spread of farming via substantial immigration from these regions, and not just by cultural exchange as supposed by other theories.
2. Rössen (4,800 - 4,200 BC): According to their Supplementary Material, the phase actually contains several, partly temporally overlapping or regionally distinct cultures. Aside from Rössen, there is the ornamented ware (STK) culture that precedes Rössen, and the Gatersleben culture as regional phenomenon in the late Rössen phase. Increasing regional differentiation during this phase has also been observed elsewhere, e.g. the Großgarlach, Hinkelstein, Bischheim and early Michelsberg cultures that have preceded or paralleled the Rössen culture along the Rhine. The beginning of this period is marked by the construction of several large earthworks with astronomical functions such as the Goseck circle, a phenomenon that originated in the Danubian Lengyel culture and apparently spread along the Elbe. Along the Rhine, Rijkholt flint (Maastricht area) is increasingly being replaced by upper Bavarian flint. This corresponds to an expansion of the Michelsberg Culture (MK) from the Paris Basin towards the Rhine, and most likely also into the upper Danube basin.
   The share of mtDNA H increases to 40%. Changes in the sub-composition are not assessed. Visual inspection of the phylogenetic network suggests a relatively constant composition. Brotherton's demographic simulation yields a substantial increase in absolute mtDNA H population, within a population that is growing as well, but apparently at a lower rate. Unfortunately, they have only published their skyride plot, not the underlying data. In any case, they seem to interpret this as a sign of relative demographic success of early farmers vis-à-vis the original HG population. I personally think that additional immigration from the LBK "homeland" around the central Danube would plausibly explain both the emergence of astronomical earthworks, and at least part of the increase in mtDNA H frequency.
3. Schöningen (4,100 - 3,950 BC): A rather obscure culture that is neither covered in their supplementary materials nor by Wikipedia. It seems to be commonly regarded either as final phase of the Gatersleben culture, or as initial phase of the subsequent Baalberge culture. The period is nevertheless remarkable, as it shows the first evidence of copper imports from the Western Carpathians (Slovakia). The westerly adjacent Michelsberg Culture MK expands into the Scheldt and Rhine-Meuse basins, replacing the Mesolithic Swifterbank culture there, and also gains cultural influence on the Elbe-Saale region. Under influences of Elbe-Saale cultures and MK, the Mesolithic Ertebolle culture in Northern Germany, Denmark and Southern Sweden transforms into the Funnelbeaker Culture. The shift in Northern Germany is fast, in Denmark abrupt.
   Brotherton et al. are apparently themselves not sure where to place this phase. For statistical purposes, they treat it as Middle Neolithic, but in their phylogenetic analysis it appears as Early Neolithic. The fact that mtDNA H frequency drops to below 20% suggests significant demographic change. However, as there are only two samples from this phase, it is hardly possible to assess whether this demographic change relates to additional gene inflow (immigration), mtDNA H gene outflow (migration to other regions, e.g. due to overpopulation), and/or a major farming crisis. The period in question marks the transition from the wet and hot Atlantikum to the cooler and dryer Boreal. The local climate may have furthermore been affected by the Littorina Transgression, i.e. the flooding of the (previously dry) Western Baltic Sea basin through the Great Belt, which started in 5,500 BC and reached its maximum extent by 2,500 BC. Brotherton's demographic simulation displays stagnation, but not decline of the absolute mtDNA H population.

As I have a football match to watch tonight, and will be visiting friends, I leave it here for the time being, but will continue next week.

 

[LeBrok]

Off toppic posts were moved yesterday to this new thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30234-Limitations-of-current-genetic-models

I'm not sure why this new thread didn't show up on Forums main page? Sorry, I should have mentioned it in a new post here.

 

[MOESAN]

Mt DNA autosomals in some regions

• I precise the geographic distribution does not imply any climatic rapid selection of mt DNA-H1-
  
• I'm aware I base that on the today distribution -
  
• the founding survey of this thread is very unprecise concerning geography

the debate concerning mt H is veryinsteresting, even if personally I lack more detailed data about thegeographical distribution of all the mt-H subclades
-H1 I found very interesting : itsdistribution peaks among Berbers, Atlantic Europe and Finland/Estoniadoesn't seem illustrating an I-Ean East to West introgression OR wewould imagine a first vawe followed and partly erased by othersteppic people, but the presence in North Africa (of which LybianBerbers) even if exagerated maybe by founder effects, doesn't suggestthis I-Ean origin –
but on the other hand, the strongenough presence in not-I-Ean populations as Finland (18,0%) andEstonia (16,7%), finnic speaking and TOO among other finnic speakersof the Oural region (13,6%), if not typical of I-Eans, could seemweird for Neolithic peasants from the Near-East or even Anatolia -confirmation of the russian position close to finnic speakingpopulations, here too; by the fact, the Near-Eastern regions, as theCaucasus as a whole, are poor enough for mt-H1 (from 0,0% to 4,2%,the most being around Lebanon) – the BBs influence was evocatedconcerning the spreading in Atlantic and central peri-danubianregions of Europe (here at poor enough levels from 8% to 12% with alittle peak in Slovakia – but the presence among western finnicspeaking people is still a question ! -
the Eupedia map of mt-H1+H3 doesn'tchange this global sketch, in complement we can add the British Islesand Scandinavia as hotspots – in fact, the western steppes Norththe Caucasus are less poor for H1/H3 than southeastern Europeregions as Italy, Greece and most of all Albania and CarpathianRomania Moldavia (echo of Starcevo and then Cucuteni-Tripoljehere?) ; this seems excluding even more the FIRST genuineneolithic peasants from Near-Eastern and farther South than theI-Eans -
first consequence, knowing agricultureseem having been born until us by populations with a strong'south-western asian' component, we can say the H1+H3 element didn'tcome with it – maybe at a close enough time, BUT NOT withit – the strong enough density on the northern side of North Africais very confusing – one of the BBs theory (not stupid) imagining amaritime East to West road until Iberia and N-Africa requires morebasis – the Long Barrows or other megalithic people possiblecolonizations of northwestern and northern Europe doesn't explain thenorthwestern eurasian steppes and Finland presence, even if someonescould object time passed since... -
As the today Basques seem the focus ofthis grouping of mt-DNA and as the presence in Dodecad K12 of'basque' autosomals component in northern Europe and even Finland(even if the densities are not comparable in absolute) are noticeablecompared to southeastern Europe and Near-East we could imagine therethe signal of an old enough colonization by these « females » ?a survey about the respective distributions of 'south-east-farmers'EEF , 'west-hunters-gatherers' WHG and 'ANE' showed roughly a highenough WHG in northern Europe as for ANE, even if this two componentsare not parfectly parrallelic – the Spain Basques are in some wayricher for EEF + ANE (!) than the France Basques who are richer forWHG : I 'm almost sure the french Basques are the most typicallybasque, as a whole – the ANE component in Iberia is confusing butit seems the Spain Basques share there something with theCantabrians ? (whose mt DNA has something special recording someparts of northern Europe, according to some scholars, but I've notthe details) – we would need more regional data about autosomals– the ANE would recall some eastern colonizations, I-Ean or not, orboth ; I think Portugal W+S Spain WHG would be more linked tothe mt-H1+H3 complex, the N-Spain and other WHG more linked to mt-U(5the most) – U5 and ANE could be arrived in western Europefrom East just after the 9000 BC (Solutrean people from W-Asia asbelieved the old scholars? More brutal phenotypes ?) -
all that is speculations because noneof the criteria Y-DNA, mt-DNA and autsomals are evolving at the verysame speed – (even the categorizations of autosomals is cause ofinternal autosomals differences) and we have not the sufficientsamples for every place and period -


now I've the problem of elderness ofmt-H as a whole and H1-H3 in particular, and also the way taken toreach western and northern Europe : I'm tempted to think H1-H3were born by the first mt-H already present in W or S Iberia at lastMesolithic... their presence of their ancetors Haplo's in southernEurope could trace back very earlier (Paleolithic, before LGM) -
hypothesis : a) E >> Wthrough Mediterranea (middle or late Neolithic ? lateMesolithic?) – b) W >> E through N-Europe (late Neolithic ?calcholithic-bronze age?) - mt-U5 seemed the only or almost only mtDNA among the HGs of Europe – we lack dense data about theMesolithic compared to Neolithic (and yet, in this last case too thedensity is weak in fact) – is mt-U so old as Palolithic in westernEurope ? Nothing tell us for sure - Was Cro-Magnon of mt-Ustock ??? We (I only?) lack every kind of DNA from recentPaleolithic in Europe -
WHG with already some mt-H amongmt-U when mt-U was more exclusive in ANE ? Or H1-H3 ancestorsalready present at two ends of Europe in late Mesolithic and andjunction helped by Atlantic Bronze with the help of BBs boosting ???very imaginative this last one! -
whatever thehypothesis we can construct, it seems to me the « explosion »of mt-H in Europe, for me already before metal ages, as conclude somesurveys, even it at this last date new mt-H could have been arrivedthere – the surveys about the mtDNA in the post-Danubianagricultural cultures in Hungary show clearly a very bigger weight ofmt-H West the Tisza (LBK : ) compared to East the Tisza (ALPC),being the opposite for mt-J – other mtDNA haplogr's show somedifferences of distribution, but very less strong – I 'm sure theH1-H3 are not the descendants of the mt-H rare yet among theNear-East agricultors and who gave birth surely to other subclades ofmt-H –the strong presence in Finland, Scandinavia and the light butnoticeable presence among Balts and some Russians compared to thepoorness among S-E Europe confirms that – but at the same time, thestronger weight in far North seems eliminatating an I-Ean« importation » at first sight – so mt -H1/H3 is OLD inW and N Europe – the presence in N-Africa could could have beenmagnified by the BBs colonization or exploitation (even if alreadythere) + the reinforcing of this presence in Atlantic and CentralEurope at immediate pre-Bronze-Age is surely linked to BBscolonization and later to a demographic increase linked to theprogress due to previous BBs intervention in other subesquentcultures -
a W to E or E to Wsingle travel at the daybreak of metal ages is too simplistic :but males mediated colonizations more or less local or ongreat scale (1° Long Barrows and assimilated, early : 4200/4000BC ??? – 2° protoceltic or partly celtic Y-R1b-<<L11,later : 2500 BC ?) could have reinforced AND modified theprevious mt-H1/H3 geographic distributions locally, principally inCentral Europe -
so : a firstW>>E move at middle-to-last Neolithic time with a preferencefor N-coasts (what Y-Haplos?) and then at pre-metal and metal agescomplicated intrication of diverse moves, where Celts played a bigrôle, after the help send by BBs of unknown origin to me – Iadd the presence in Finland and around is older : just after theLGM -
western females anddiverse southern and eastern males + demographic encrease – thesefemale (maybe with a strong 'basque' + light 'sardinian' autosomalelement present among West-HGs, these last maybe corresponding to the« SECOND Mesolithic » trapeze microliths) mixed more thana time with male mediated autosomals from South-East('west-mediterranean' as 'sardinian' + 'east-mediterranean' and maybe'southwest-asian') and some East ('northsea' or 'northwesterneuropean' autosomal elements +others ???: more linked toproto-Celts-Italics-Germanics) –
I'm not sureEurogenes thinks mt-H1 among Trichterbecher Culture in Sweden is asign of southeastern mediterranean agricultors ? - it could verywell be an error if it were the case: I red somewhere theTrichterbecher (Funnelbeaker) culture was born in a crossing place(peri-Danmark area and great rivers around) with previous megalithic'Long-Barrows'like, Neolithic agricultors (more bovins) cultures andlater Globular Amphores cultures influence - the last one, lateneolithical, could have had I-Eans influences and had comprised someeastern influences (?) - but for me the mt-H1 elements in theTrichter-B culture of Scandinavia came more surely from themegalithical elements -the mt-H bearers population could even hadbeen there before the megalithers, being after reinforced by the mixcalled 'Trichterbecher' where finally the megalithers (LongBarrows-like, tombes à couloir) seems the impulsing element -whatever the case I recall my opinion about what I consider the'long-barrow' anthropological mix where western pre-neolithicalelements from atlantic France-Iberia dominated eastern mediterraneanelements – concerning autosomals understanding, the Eurogenesthought that the mix 'Europeans' + Near-Easterners took place on thecontinent and then was transmitted to Scandinavian by Trichterbecherpeople is not stupid – all the way it says nothing about datationof mt-H1 pr pre-H1 presence in North...
the presence inFinland and near the Baltic could be due to W >> E earlier(Ertebölle?) and later (I-Ean corded?) movements implicating diverseY-DNA bearers (among them Y-I1 people, first, and later Y-R-U106 +Y-R1a) : it would be interesting to know the estimated age ofthe mt-H1/3 in Finland an around -
Sorry for thisunprecise enough post concerning dates – it is just a try to applygood sense to very unlevel data (for time, localisation, homogeneity,sample size) = for the fun of betting -

 

[Aberdeen]

The Brotherton study has yielded several remarkable results that, however, could definitely have been presented in a clearer and less misunderstandable way. In order to create an overview on their actual findings, I try to put together a cultural timeline, based on the cultural epochs used by them, and describe their findings (including those only documented in the annex) within that timeline. I furthermore add Wikipedia information on the cultures themselves, and on the development of metallurgy in the region as described here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-Age-in-Europe?p=432246&viewfull=1#post432246

1. LBK (5,500 - 4,800 BC): The share of mtDNA H increases from virtually zero to 20%. In the PCA analysis, the LBK sample clusters together with present-day populations from the Near East and the Caucasus, especially Lebanese and Ossetians. Brotherton et. al interpret this as confirmation for the spread of farming via substantial immigration from these regions, and not just by cultural exchange as supposed by other theories.
2. Rössen (4,800 - 4,200 BC): According to their Supplementary Material, the phase actually contains several, partly temporally overlapping or regionally distinct cultures. Aside from Rössen, there is the ornamented ware (STK) culture that precedes Rössen, and the Gatersleben culture as regional phenomenon in the late Rössen phase. Increasing regional differentiation during this phase has also been observed elsewhere, e.g. the Großgarlach, Hinkelstein, Bischheim and early Michelsberg cultures that have preceded or paralleled the Rössen culture along the Rhine. The beginning of this period is marked by the construction of several large earthworks with astronomical functions such as the Goseck circle, a phenomenon that originated in the Danubian Lengyel culture and apparently spread along the Elbe. Along the Rhine, Rijkholt flint (Maastricht area) is increasingly being replaced by upper Bavarian flint. This corresponds to an expansion of the Michelsberg Culture (MK) from the Paris Basin towards the Rhine, and most likely also into the upper Danube basin.
   The share of mtDNA H increases to 40%. Changes in the sub-composition are not assessed. Visual inspection of the phylogenetic network suggests a relatively constant composition. Brotherton's demographic simulation yields a substantial increase in absolute mtDNA H population, within a population that is growing as well, but apparently at a lower rate. Unfortunately, they have only published their skyride plot, not the underlying data. In any case, they seem to interpret this as a sign of relative demographic success of early farmers vis-à-vis the original HG population. I personally think that additional immigration from the LBK "homeland" around the central Danube would plausibly explain both the emergence of astronomical earthworks, and at least part of the increase in mtDNA H frequency.
3. Schöningen (4,100 - 3,950 BC): A rather obscure culture that is neither covered in their supplementary materials nor by Wikipedia. It seems to be commonly regarded either as final phase of the Gatersleben culture, or as initial phase of the subsequent Baalberge culture. The period is nevertheless remarkable, as it shows the first evidence of copper imports from the Western Carpathians (Slovakia). The westerly adjacent Michelsberg Culture MK expands into the Scheldt and Rhine-Meuse basins, replacing the Mesolithic Swifterbank culture there, and also gains cultural influence on the Elbe-Saale region. Under influences of Elbe-Saale cultures and MK, the Mesolithic Ertebolle culture in Northern Germany, Denmark and Southern Sweden transforms into the Funnelbeaker Culture. The shift in Northern Germany is fast, in Denmark abrupt.
   Brotherton et al. are apparently themselves not sure where to place this phase. For statistical purposes, they treat it as Middle Neolithic, but in their phylogenetic analysis it appears as Early Neolithic. The fact that mtDNA H frequency drops to below 20% suggests significant demographic change. However, as there are only two samples from this phase, it is hardly possible to assess whether this demographic change relates to additional gene inflow (immigration), mtDNA H gene outflow (migration to other regions, e.g. due to overpopulation), and/or a major farming crisis. The period in question marks the transition from the wet and hot Atlantikum to the cooler and dryer Boreal. The local climate may have furthermore been affected by the Littorina Transgression, i.e. the flooding of the (previously dry) Western Baltic Sea basin through the Great Belt, which started in 5,500 BC and reached its maximum extent by 2,500 BC. Brotherton's demographic simulation displays stagnation, but not decline of the absolute mtDNA H population.

As I have a football match to watch tonight, and will be visiting friends, I leave it here for the time being, but will continue next week.

No, you are mistaken, IMO. HV may have been present in Spain and Italy during the Paleolithic, and H was definitely present in Russia, the Ukraine and Spain over 7,000 years BP, i.e. prior to Rosen. However there were a variety of mtDNA types, and U was the most common. If I look at the results reported in Ancestral Journeys, it indicates that the Rossen results show 4 out of 15 have mtDNA H (and one HV) but only one of those four is H1 and none are H3, so we don't have a pattern similar to the modern H distribution in Europe. And H is much less apparent in the large number of samples from Schoningen and Baalberge at a slightly later date, right around 4,000 B.C. or a bit later for Baalberge. So H seems to have been at least marginally present in Europe since at least the Mesolithic but only shows up in large numbers in Iberia 5000 years BP and later, and the modern mtDNA structure of Europe doesn't really seem to have developed until the Iron Age. IMO, there's no point in trying to discuss what the conclusions of this paper mean for DNA in Europe when the conclusions seem to be quite wrong.

 

[FrankN]

No, you are mistaken, IMO. HV may have been present in Spain and Italy during the Paleolithic, and H was definitely present in Russia, the Ukraine and Spain over 7,000 years BP, i.e. prior to Rosen. However there were a variety of mtDNA types, and U was the most common. If I look at the results reported in Ancestral Journeys, it indicates that the Rossen results show 4 out of 15 have mtDNA H (and one HV) but only one of those four is H1 and none are H3, so we don't have a pattern similar to the modern H distribution in Europe. And H is much less apparent in the large number of samples from Schoningen and Baalberge at a slightly later date, right around 4,000 B.C. or a bit later for Baalberge. So H seems to have been at least marginally present in Europe since at least the Mesolithic but only shows up in large numbers in Iberia 5000 years BP and later, and the modern mtDNA structure of Europe doesn't really seem to have developed until the Iron Age. IMO, there's no point in trying to discuss what the conclusions of this paper mean for DNA in Europe when the conclusions seem to be quite wrong.

I was simply reporting their findings. Supplementary Fig. 3 in the Annex states clearly that none of the 13 Mesolithic samples from the region contained mtDNA H, and I recall having read an earlier paper from some of the co-authors where they already reported these results in more detail. Among the 102 LBK samples (and this is quite a sample size, better than what we have for most countries' present population!), however, 20% had mtNA H. Of course, mtDNA H must already have been present somewhere else in Europe in the Mesolthic, but those places weren't in the Elbe-Saale region. Their LBK samples date from around 7,000 BP, that rather seems to be contemporary or even older than the samples from Russia, Ukraine and Spain that you mention (I hope you realise that Rössen was about 500-1,000 years after the period in question here).

The more important point is that the mtDNA H they found in the LBK samples is hardly present any more in Central Europe.

Early Neolithic (and in particular LBK) mt genomes are either rare today (H16, H23, H26), extinct or have not yet been observed in present-day populations (H46b, H88, H89). In sharp contrast, most of the later H sub-hgs are more common in present-day European populations (e.g. hg H3, H4, H6, H7, H11, and H13)^12,14-16. Of the 39 haplotypes detected, only three (within the common, basal, sub-hg H1) were shared between ENE and MNE/LNE cultures. Since the observed gene diversity is high, we might expect the number of shared haplotypes within and between cultures to be low. However, since the MNE/LNE haplotypes are on different sub-hg branches from the ENE haplotypes, these patterns combined show minimal local genetic continuity over this time period.
(..)
Our genetic distance data also indicate minimal local genetic continuity between the Early Neolithic and the Mid/Late Neolithic in Central Europe (Figure 1; Table 1), again suggesting that Early Neolithic lineages were largely superseded during the Mid/Late Neolithic (~4100-2200 BC) in a previously unrecognised major genetic transition. This pronounced genetic changeover between Early and Mid/Late Neolithic cultures is comparable to other known major genetic transition thus far revealed by ancient DNA and coalescent simulations (between indigenous European hunter-gatherers and incoming early farmers from the Near East during the initial Meso-Neolithic transition from ~7500 BC in Central Europe).

I invite you to demonstrate why this conclusion is wrong. Distribution maps of H16, H23, H26, H46b, H88 and H89 could be of great help in this respect to show to which places in Europe the offspring of all those EEF females migrated. Oh, they didn't migrate anywhere - 66% of the EEF female gene pool just disappeared. Well, that certainly hasn't any relevance to Europe as a whole.

It would, btw, also be nice if anybody could explain to me how those other 3 LBK samples, which all carry mtDNA H1, made it from their presumed Franco-Cantabrian LGM refugium to the Middle Elbe just in time to join their distant Anatolian cousins at the LBK party.

This, btw, is another interesting finding by Brotherton et al. that so far hasn't been discussed:

Another major advantage of the temporal calibration points provided by ancient hg H mt genomes is that the data allow a relatively precise estimate of the evolutionary substitution rate for human mtDNA. The temporal dependency of evolutionary rates predicts that rate estimates measured over short timespans will be considerably higher than those using deep fossil calibrations, such as the human/chimpanzee split at ~6 million years²⁹. The rate calibrated by the Neolithic and Bronze Age sequences is 2.4×10⁻⁸ substitutions/site/year (1.7 to 3.2×10⁻⁸; 95% High Posterior Density) for the entire mt genome, which is 1.45× (44.5%) higher than current estimates based on the traditional human/chimp split (e.g. 1.66×10⁻⁸ for the entire mt genome³⁰ and 1.26×10⁻⁸ for the coding region³¹). Consequently, the calibrated ‘Neolithic’ rate infers a considerably younger coalescence date for hg H (10.9 to 19.1 kya) than those previously reported (19.2 to 21.4 kya for HVSI¹⁰, 15.7 to 22.5 kya for the mt coding region³¹ or 14.7-22.6 kya when corrected for purifying selection³⁰ .

I am anything but an expert when it comes to these kinds of calculations, but I suppose that finding is not only relevant to mtDNA H, but to most of the coalescence dates that we have been using so far.