European mtDNA Signature Established in the Mid Neolithic

Aberdeen

Regular Member
Messages
1,835
Reaction score
380
Points
0
Ethnic group
Scottish, English and German
Y-DNA haplogroup
I1
mtDNA haplogroup
H4
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. Although it does also indicate that Bell Beaker folk expanding out of Iberia did have a significant impact during the late Neolithic.

www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2656.html

Here's the abstract.

Haplogroup H dominates present-day Western European mitochondrial DNA variability (>40%), yet was less common (~19%) among Early Neolithic farmers (~5450 BC) and virtually absent in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. Here we investigate this major component of the maternal population history of modern Europeans and sequence 39 complete haplogroup H mitochondrial genomes from ancient human remains. We then compare this ‘real-time’ genetic data with cultural changes taking place between the Early Neolithic (~5450 BC) and Bronze Age (~2200 BC) in Central Europe. 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). Dated haplogroup H genomes allow us to reconstruct the recent evolutionary history of haplogroup H and reveal a mutation rate 45% higher than current estimates for human mitochondria.
 
Another paper that completely ignores the Indo-European migrations. Many mtDNA lineages did not spread around Europe until the Bronze Age, as explained here.
 
Another paper that completely ignores the Indo-European migrations. Many mtDNA lineages did not spread around Europe until the Bronze Age, as explained here.

People tend to go with the simple and comforting answer. Nations are constantly moving, mixing, trading, interacting, and so I am sure there were other groups besides eastern Indo Europeans who caused genetic changes in Europe after the initial spread of farming.
 
Another paper that completely ignores the Indo-European migrations. Many mtDNA lineages did not spread around Europe until the Bronze Age, as explained here.

I'm merely trying to generate some discussion about this theory. I haven't seen the background data, so can't argue about how accurate it is. However, when I look at the information available so far from various sources that were collected by Ancestral Journeys, I would have to say that I'm not sure there's enough data available to definitely prove or disprove the idea. Certainly there's more mtDNA H among the 5000 year old Portugese samples and among the Bell Beaker samples than among earlier samples, but I think more detailed data is necessary before one draws definite conclusions about the date when certain subclades of mtDNA H became more dominant in Europe. There does seem to have been some DNA change between the early and later Neolithic, but I don't know if there's enough data to say it all happened at once, as this study seems to be arguing. I suspect it would actually have been ongoing change.
 
Accidently double posted while editing. See next post.
 
Last edited:
I was hoping that someone had paid to read the article so they could tell me what it said. When I look at the charts on Ancestral Journeys, I don't see a stable mtDNA structure in Europe between the early Neolithic and the Bronze Age - I think the authors are right to say that there was a significant change between the start of the Neolithic and the start of the Copper Age. But it seems to me that the uptick in mtDNA H really started in Portugal about 3000 B.C. and is also found among Bell Beaker samples after about 2400 B.C. (although H doesn't seem to be as dominant in the earliest Bell Beaker samples). And of course the Bronze Age did make a difference, but more in terms of Y DNA. It looks as if mtDNA remained fairly mixed even in the Bronze Age, with H not being as dominant as it later became. As for this paper and its conclusions about a major mtDNA turnover supposedly taking place about 4000 B.C., I'm having trouble finding out what that conclusion is based on, so if someone has read the whole paper, perhaps they could tell us what it's about.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978205/ I believe it is all or most of the paper. What I got out of it was that mtDNA H was brought to Iberia from the near east, and after a natural decline in population of the LBK, and with the spread of the Bell Beaker cultural package mtDNA H merged with the newly developed Corded ware Culture and Central Europe. I believe the author is suggesting that mtDNA H is not Mesolithic/Paleolithic, but was brought to southern Europe during the Neolithic transition. The earlier lines became extinct, and the Iberian lines populated the rest of Europe after the mid Neolithic.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978205/ I believe it is all or most of the paper. What I got out of it was that mtDNA H was brought to Iberia from the near east, and after a natural decline in population of the LBK, and with the spread of the Bell Beaker cultural package mtDNA H merged with the newly developed Corded ware Culture and Central Europe. I believe the author is suggesting that mtDNA H is not Mesolithic/Paleolithic, but was brought to southern Europe during the Neolithic transition. The earlier lines became extinct, and the Iberian lines populated the rest of Europe after the mid Neolithic.

Thanks. The time frame is a bit different than indicated in the abstract and fits the actual data better, but the conclusion still seems to me to be a bit of an exaggeration.
 
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.

No, the study doesn't say that. It says that Europe's modern mtDNA signature was largely established about 6000 years ago as a result of migrations into Europe during the early Neolithic.

However, it also says that from the late Neolithic onwards there were new migration waves into the heart of Europe from eastern and western Europe that added new components to this already established gene pool.

Obviously, they're talking about the movements of pan-European cultures like the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware, which makes sense. However, one thing that looks a bit funny in this study is the claim that Indo-European languages spread into Europe during the Neolithic, and then Celtic languages expanded from Iberia with the Bell Beakers.

Of course, any claim that Proto-Indo-European existed during the early Neolithic and sat around in different parts of Europe waiting to expand and differentiate during the Bronze Age can't be taken seriously. It's also at odds with recent ancient DNA evidence which indicates a significant population turnover across Europe during the Copper Age, which is the generally accepted Proto-Indo-European time frame, and a shift from Mediterranean-like to more Northern European-like genetic structure.
 
No, the study doesn't say that. It says that Europe's modern mtDNA signature was largely established about 6000 years ago as a result of migrations into Europe during the early Neolithic.

However, it also says that from the late Neolithic onwards there were new migration waves into the heart of Europe from eastern and western Europe that added new components to this already established gene pool.

Obviously, they're talking about the movements of pan-European cultures like the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware, which makes sense. However, one thing that looks a bit funny in this study is the claim that Indo-European languages spread into Europe during the Neolithic, and then Celtic languages expanded from Iberia with the Bell Beakers.

Of course, any claim that Proto-Indo-European existed during the early Neolithic and sat around in different parts of Europe waiting to expand and differentiate during the Bronze Age can't be taken seriously. It's also at odds with recent ancient DNA evidence which indicates a significant population turnover across Europe during the Copper Age, which is the generally accepted Proto-Indo-European time frame, and a shift from Mediterranean-like to more Northern European-like genetic structure.

Were you drunk when you wrote that? You "correct" what I said by saying the exact same thing, i.e., that the abstract indicates that Europe's modern mtDNA signature was largely established about 6000 years ago.

Of course, that isn't what the body of the paper is saying. First of all, the paper is partly focussed on one locale but partly addresses the situation throughout Europe, so some of the comments about Europe as a whole are based on the results for that one region, while others are based on the results of Europe as a whole - that was not well thought through. And the paper does conclude that most of the change happened during the Copper and Bronze Ages, although the paper doesn't actually mention the Copper Age. I agree that comment about conflating the Celtic language with Bell Beaker is obvious nonsense. But, no, the Indo-Europeans don't appear to have arrived during the Copper Age, they appear to have arrived during the Bronze Age. It's an interesting question as to why there seems to have been a partial population turnover in Europe during the Copper Age - were those people from an early kind of proto-proto-IE horizon or were they a different but somewhat genetically related group? I think we need more data from Copper Age and Bronze Age Eastern Europe in order to answer that question.

The biggest flaw in the paper, IMO, is that it doesn't really address the mystery of mtDNA H haplotype - while H was present in a small way from early on and it does appear to have increased in frequency all during the period from the mid Neolithic right up to and into the Bronze Age, it still wasn't nearly as dominant as it later became. To me, the real mystery is why H became so much more dominant after the population turnover of the Bronze Age.
 
Were you drunk when you wrote that? You "correct" what I said by saying the exact same thing, i.e., that the abstract indicates that Europe's modern mtDNA signature was largely established about 6000 years ago.

Let me try and explain again.

Your understanding of the study:

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.

What the study actually argues:

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.

They were then partly replaced by invaders from western and eastern Europe after the final Neolithic (ie. during the Copper Age).


See the difference now?

To me, the real mystery is why H became so much more dominant after the population turnover of the Bronze Age.

Bell Beaker invasion from the west, as mentioned above.
 
Let me try and explain again.

Your understanding of the study:

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.

What the study actually argues:

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.

They were then partly replaced by invaders from western and eastern Europe after the final Neolithic (ie. during the Copper Age).


See the difference now?



Bell Beaker invasion from the west, as mentioned above.

Your current comment is somewhat similar to what the paper says, but is not what the abstract says. One of the points I was making is that the abstract doesn't actually reflect what's in the paper. See the difference now? And no, the Bell Beaker "invasion from the west", if it was that, would not explain why the level of dominance by mtDNA H appears to have continued to increase into the Iron Age. As I said, the Copper Age and Bronze Age both seem to have increased the percentage of mtDNA that is H in western Europe, but even at the end of the Bronze Age, H still wasn't yet as dominant as it later became. See my point now?
 
Why do you guys group all mtDNA H together? It has over 100 basal clades all with differnt histories.
 
@Aberdeen

"It's an interesting question as to why there seems to have been a partial population turnover in Europe during the Copper Age - were those people from an early kind of proto-proto-IE horizon or were they a different but somewhat genetically related group?"

I think an early IE expansion may have displaced some of the Cucuteni type cultures west of the Black Sea and pushed them west.

"I think we need more data from Copper Age and Bronze Age Eastern Europe in order to answer that question."

yes


"To me, the real mystery is why H became so much more dominant after the population turnover of the Bronze Age."

Yes, my guess it was an adaptation that was only directly advantageous in females e.g. something to do with children.

@Fire-haired

"
Why do you guys group all mtDNA H together? It has over 100 basal clades all with differnt histories."

Important point but we'd be having the same argument except referencing specific clades.

 
Your current comment is somewhat similar to what the paper says, but is not what the abstract says. One of the points I was making is that the abstract doesn't actually reflect what's in the paper. See the difference now? And no, the Bell Beaker "invasion from the west", if it was that, would not explain why the level of dominance by mtDNA H appears to have continued to increase into the Iron Age. As I said, the Copper Age and Bronze Age both seem to have increased the percentage of mtDNA that is H in western Europe, but even at the end of the Bronze Age, H still wasn't yet as dominant as it later became. See my point now?


Holy shit. Is English your first language or not?


The paper says exactly what the abstract says. This is the part from the abstract that you're not getting.


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).


So let's break this down:


By 4,000 BC (or 6,000 years ago) the current diversity and distribution of mtDNA H was largely established, and this was among the descendants of early Neolithic farmers, rather than some mysterious population that swept into Europe 6,000 years ago, as you claimed.


However, there were also substantial genetic contributions from around 2800 BC, or the late Neolithic (aka. Copper Age or Chalcolithic), into Central Europe from Western and Eastern Europe that had a significant impact on the modern European mtDNA structure.


The Bell Beakers were one of the most important groups in this respect, because it seems that their Copper Age and early Bronze Age exploits eventually led to later expansions, during the Iron Age, that increased the levels of mtDNA H to around 40% across much of Europe and also upped the frequencies of Atlantic-specific subclades of mtDNA H. So if not for the Bell Beakers, it's likely that Europe today would show lower frequencies of mtDNA H and higher frequencies of Eastern European and Near Eastern derived subclades.
 
@Aberdeen

"It's an interesting question as to why there seems to have been a partial population turnover in Europe during the Copper Age - were those people from an early kind of proto-proto-IE horizon or were they a different but somewhat genetically related group?"

I think an early IE expansion may have displaced some of the Cucuteni type cultures west of the Black Sea and pushed them west.

"I think we need more data from Copper Age and Bronze Age Eastern Europe in order to answer that question."

yes


"To me, the real mystery is why H became so much more dominant after the population turnover of the Bronze Age."

Yes, my guess it was an adaptation that was only directly advantageous in females e.g. something to do with children.

@Fire-haired

"
Why do you guys group all mtDNA H together? It has over 100 basal clades all with differnt histories."

Important point but we'd be having the same argument except referencing specific clades.


You're right. The reason I didn't bother to get into specific subclades is because if we were to discuss specific subclades, we'd have much the same issue to discuss, without getting any better answers. It's not clear why the subclades of H that appear early on in Europe seem to have vanished or become rare, depending on the specific subclade, while other subclades that don't seem to be there earlier later become dominant. I know that strange things happen in genetic history, but I'm sure there are explanations for the changes. I'm just not sure we'll ever have all the answers, although we may get a bit better understanding of the issue once we have more data from the relevant time periods and geographic areas. It still looks as if there was some kind of expansion out of Iberia but we don't yet know how those people got there. And some of the change in H and specific subclades probably came from the east. I don't think the answer is simple.
 
Holy shit. Is English your first language or not?


The paper says exactly what the abstract says. This is the part from the abstract that you're not getting.





So let's break this down:


By 4,000 BC (or 6,000 years ago) the current diversity and distribution of mtDNA H was largely established, and this was among the descendants of early Neolithic farmers, rather than some mysterious population that swept into Europe 6,000 years ago, as you claimed.


However, there were also substantial genetic contributions from around 2800 BC, or the late Neolithic (aka. Copper Age or Chalcolithic), into Central Europe from Western and Eastern Europe that had a significant impact on the modern European mtDNA structure.


The Bell Beakers were one of the most important groups in this respect, because it seems that their Copper Age and early Bronze Age exploits eventually led to later expansions, during the Iron Age, that increased the levels of mtDNA H to around 40% across much of Europe and also upped the frequencies of Atlantic-specific subclades of mtDNA H. So if not for the Bell Beakers, it's likely that Europe today would show lower frequencies of mtDNA H and higher frequencies of Eastern European and Near Eastern derived subclades.

You don't seem to be very bright, but please try re-reading the paper. Nowhere in it is there any evidence given of a major turnover of mtDNA 6000 years ago, mostly because that didn't happen. Regardless of what the authors of the paper said in terms of generalities, when they do get around to discussing specifics, they admit that H was present in small part fairly early on but the first major uptick of mtDNA H seems to have happened with Bell Beaker and another wave of increased H happened during the Bronze Age, as I previously discussed. In order for you to get a better grasp of the facts, you might also want to look at the charts at Ancestral Journeys. Do you see any evidence there that mtDNA H became dominant 6000 years ago? I don't.
 
Just a hypothesis from the paper: there was E-v13 found in Iberia at 5000 BC and now it is mainly in the Balkans. H also is at 50% in Balkans. So they must have come together from Iberia at 5000 BC.
Then the Turkish farmers came and made everybody R1b, except some well developed areas that kept their ydna makeup.
Then the Indo-Europeans came with R1a and J.
 

This thread has been viewed 45243 times.

Back
Top