Ancient MtDna from Europe-Single Dispersal from Africa and Population Turnover

[bicicleur 2]

See my post above - some of those replacements could be "in situ" (groups expanding just within Europe, not from outside of Europe).

For example the Corded Ware - all R1a, but subclades found in Central European CW were different than modern R1a subclades there. However, there is no doubt that modern subclades found there also originated from Corded Ware, just from another part of it. After all the Corded Ware horizon stretched from the Volga River in the east, all the way up to the Rhine River in the west. So those were expansions "within", not from outside.

yes I agree, most replacements were probably from within, see also my next post

 

[bicicleur 2]

My prediction is: Y DNA I2, mtDNA U5b bearing WHGs came out of a SouthWest European refugium and migrated to West Asia giving modern West Asians.

the archeological records suggests many expansions from the Franco-Iberian refugium, which was tundra with mamouth and reindeer during LGM
mamouth got extinct in that area by the end of the LGM

my guess is that some of these reindeer hunters came from the Franco-Iberian refugium some 15.5 ka and moved north
some others stayed south and converted themselves from reindeer hunter into forest HG-Fishers
they expanded later, together with forest growth into the north and, according to this study replaced the earlier expansion of reindeer hunters

the Grotte du Bichon 13.6 ka man was Azilian, a culture then in the process of this conversion

during LGM the Alp valleys were filled with glaciers and thereby formed a barrier that could not be crossed
the archeological records does not suggest expansions from Italy or the Balkans beyond the Carpathian Basin

 

[bicicleur 2]

BTW, I've read leaks about upcoming paleo-European DNA. They don't tell much and have nothing to do with WHG AFAIK. But they suggest there's lots of Paleo-European ancestry in "Asia".

IMO the 55 ka expansion into Sundaland, Central Asia and Europe came out of Arabia.
There were also pré-55 ka expansions into Sundaland and SW China, but these were replaced by the 55 ka expansion.

 

[Maciamo]

I only saw this study now. I don't have time to read all, but if I understand well the authors found that mtDNA diversity became lower after 14,500 years ago as haplogrou U5 suddenly rose in frequency against other Palaeolithic haplogroups like M*, N*, R*, U*, U2 and U8. However II find it quite misleading as these Paleolithic lineages didn't all disappear. N1 (including hg I), N2 (including hg W), U2 and U8 all survived to this day. What may be true is that these four haplogroups (I, U2, U8, W) survived better in eastern Europe than elsewhere on the continent, and were brought back later by the Indo-European migrations. I don't see any mention of U4, which was the second most common haplogroup in Mesolithic Scandinavia, Ukraine and Russia, and the most common haplogroup of the Catacomb culture (Bronze Age southern Russia-Ukraine). The problem is that they didn't test any eastern European samples, apart from the previously sequenced Kostenki.

I am not sure of how useful it is to draw any conclusion based on a few scattered samples of nomadic hunter-gatherers in various parts of western Europe. The variations in haplogroups over time may simply be due to the fact that various tribes changed territory. The longer the time gap, the more likely tribes will have moved somewhere else. The first category of samples ranges from 45,000 to 25,000 years before present, so it's no wonder that with an enormous time frame they should find a lot of haplogroup diversity. The other categories of samples cover time frames from 3,000 to 5,000 years and exclude peripheral regions tested in the first category, like Britain, the Carpathians and Russia. Isn't it obvious that if the time frame is much smaller and the geographic area more restricted, then the haplogroup diversity should also be lower ? That's basic common sense. It doesn't mean that one population group replaced the other all over Europe, just that other groups moved to other regions. The fact that the other haplogroups still exist today is the best proof of that.

The most interesting finding was perhaps about haplogroup M, which is the only one that truly disappeared from Europe. I expect that mtDNA M carriers belonged to the same ethnic tribe as Y-DNA C1a2, and represent the earliest Cro-Magnons (Aurignacian culture). MtDNA M survives mostly in South, Southeast and East Asia today, just like Y-DNA C, and represent the earliest Out-of-Africa migration.

 

[Angela]

@Tomenable,
I know U2e survived; I carry it. When these researchers talk about "replacement", I don't think they're saying it was a total wipe out. They're saying a substantial portion, sometimes most of the prior genetic signature was lost not by chance through the passage of time or through a bottleneck owing to environmental causes perhaps, but to a migration of different, even if only slightly different people.

If the Aurignacian was, as has been suggested, yDna C and mtdna M, then I think we could say they were all but wiped out in most of Europe. For the other lineages it's not as clear. As you say, we still have U2e. However, that U2e, as Maciamo pointed out, probably survived not in western and central Europe where there was so much of it originally, but far to the east. So, indeed, if that's the case I suppose it could be said that most of the hunter-gatherers who survived the LGM in western and central Europe were "replaced" to come back to the Lazaridis statement.

Without autosomal and Y-DNA analyses of pre-LGM and post-LGM samples, they shouldn't be drawing such sweeping conclusions

.

I totally agree with this. It may be, however, that they've actually done them already, which is why they have such certainty, a certainty that doesn't seem quite warranted from the data presented in this paper.

And why do they think that those M*, R*, N* etc. lineages had endured the LGM before getting replaced ???

Maybe they simply did not endure the LGM. Did I miss something in the article which says that they survived the LGM ???

Post LGM the only mtDna they find in the samples tested is U2e and some U5 far to the east.

View attachment 7616

See my post above - some of those replacements could be "in situ" (groups expanding just within Europe, not from outside of Europe).

Indeed, although ultimately, of course, everything came from outside of Europe into Europe. It's just a question of when. The Aurignacians were first, then the Gravettians. Was the Gravettian just a local development in Europe? Maybe it depends where you draw this line in Eurasia separating Europe from Asia. The farmers do seem to have moved in from West Asia, although perhaps a similar population was already present in far southern Europe. We don't know yet. Then there is ANE. Were they really "European"? I don't think so. What about the ANE admixed EHG with their Eastern North Asian affinities? When did that population form?

That's why I agree with this part of Fire-Haired's post.

And it is hard for us to understand Europe and Asia are man made locations and we need to see them as continuous pieces of land when discussing genetics.

Bicicleur:
IMO the 55 ka expansion into Sundaland, Central Asia and Europe came out of Arabia.
There were also pré-55 ka expansions into Sundaland and SW China, but these were replaced by the 55 ka expansion.

I agree with this.

I'm not sure what the authors of this paper are saying about the expansion from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge, i.e. whether they're saying most of their descendants in Central and Western Europe were replaced by hunter-gatherers from a more eastern refugia or not. I suppose the mtDna U8 survived. I don't know if all of the U2e in modern Europe is from that eastern refugia, or if the U2e in the SHG, for example, was from Franco-Cantabria.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I'm not sure what the authors of this paper are saying about the expansion from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge, i.e. whether they're saying most of their descendants in Central and Western Europe were replaced by hunter-gatherers from a more eastern refugia or not. I suppose the mtDna U8 survived. I don't know if all of the U2e in modern Europe is from that eastern refugia, or if the U2e in the SHG, for example, was from Franco-Cantabria.

No, I haven't read anything about that in the paper, I refer to the 'archeological record', i.e. what is known about post LGM European cultures like magdalenian, azillian, tardenoisian, epigravettian etc. To me it seems likely that both groups (B) and (C) originated in the Franco-Cantabrian refuge.

 

[Maciamo]

However, that U2e, as Maciamo pointed out, probably survived not in western and central Europe where there was so much of it originally, but far to the east. So, indeed, if that's the case I suppose it could be said that most of the hunter-gatherers who survived the LGM in western and central Europe were "replaced" to come back to the Lazaridis statement.

It's too early to tell. U2 could very well have survived in Iberia, in Britain, around Poland (hotspot in the Tatra Mountains) or in the Balkans (hotspot in Macedonia). There are just so many unexplored regions and periods in Palaeolithic Europe that we cannot draw any conclusion at all for any other non-U5 lineages. I for one have thought for many years that mtDNA H could have been in the Balkans and southern Italy at least since the immediate post-glacial period given the diversity of H subclades in southern Europe that were never found in Early European farmers.

 

[Fire Haired14]

@Maciamo,

The N* from Paleo-Europe is not related to N1. The single guy who had it was equally related to all modern Eurasians(if you ignore Basal Eurasian influence), he was just an early non-African colonizer, that's why he had ambiguous N* and Y DNA F*. My opinon is that mtDNA N1a1b1(I) originated in West Asia and came to Steppe from Caucasus. All other N1 lineages, are basically exclusive to West Asia: N1a1a(came with EEF), N1b1(popular in West Asia), N1a3a(popular in West Asia).

 

[Sile]

@Maciamo,

The N* from Paleo-Europe is not related to N1. The single guy who had it was equally related to all modern Eurasians(if you ignore Basal Eurasian influence), he was just an early non-African colonizer, that's why he had ambiguous N* and Y DNA F*. My opinon is that mtDNA N1a1b1(I) originated in West Asia and came to Steppe from Caucasus. All other N1 lineages, are basically exclusive to West Asia: N1a1a(came with EEF), N1b1(popular in West Asia), N1a3a(popular in West Asia).

was this the guy which was originally classified as X* ............pre NO on the ydna tree?

 

[Maciamo]

@Maciamo,

The N* from Paleo-Europe is not related to N1. The single guy who had it was equally related to all modern Eurasians(if you ignore Basal Eurasian influence), he was just an early non-African colonizer, that's why he had ambiguous N* and Y DNA F*. My opinon is that mtDNA N1a1b1(I) originated in West Asia and came to Steppe from Caucasus. All other N1 lineages, are basically exclusive to West Asia: N1a1a(came with EEF), N1b1(popular in West Asia), N1a3a(popular in West Asia).

I agree that mtDNA I was found among the Proto-Indo-Europeans and that it probably spread from the Caucasus region. Hg I has never been found in Europe before the Copper/Bronze Age. N1a, N1b and N1c are all found in the Caucasus. Nevertheless mtDNA I is rare in the Middle East, but common in Northeast Europe. It peaks in the British Isles, the eastern Baltic (Lithuania to Finland), Mordovia - three regions with higher than average Mesolithic European ancestry, and three regions that weren't been sampled by this study from 15,000 ybp onward. So I wouldn't rule out yet the possibility that mtDNA I was already present in Northeast Europe during the Mesolithic. Its presence in the British Isles could be explained by the heavy share of R1b Steppe ancestry. However the Indo-Europeans had only a minor impact in Finland, Estonia or even among the Uralic Mordovians, so that leaves only a Mesolithic dispersal, perhaps from the North Caucasus.

 

[Tomenable]

However the Indo-Europeans had only a minor impact in Finland, Estonia or even among the Uralic Mordovians

Not sure about Mordovia but Western Finland and Estonia were parts of the Indo-European speaking Corded Ware culture. And the dispersal of Finno-Ugric languages towards the Baltic Sea took place after that of Indo-European languages - exactly as it was later the case in Hungary, where an Ugric language also replaced IE. So linguistic ancestors of both Estonians, Finns and Hungarians assimilated Indo-European substrates.

Studies such as Tömöry 2007, Csányi 2008 and Szécsényi-Nagy 2015 seem to indicate that there is surprisingly little genetic continuity between original Hungarians and modern Hungarians, though maybe this is due to unrepresentative conquest era or modern samples:

Tömöry 2007 (apparently lack of mtDNA continuity: "high-status individuals, presumably conquering Hungarians, show a more heterogeneous haplogroup distribution, with mtDNA haplogroups - N1a, X - which are present at very low frequencies in modern worldwide populations and are absent in recent Hungarian-speaking populations. Our findings demonstrate that significant genetic differences exist between 27 ancient Magyars and 177 modern Hungarian-speakers, and no genetic continuity is seen"):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17632797

http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/1088/3/Tömöry_tézisek-angol.pdf

Csányi 2008 (Y-DNA) - it indicates that among Magyars haplogroup N1c was common, but it is almost absent from modern Hungary (two 10th century elite status Hungarians had Y hg N1c and mtDNA Tat C, but in a modern sample of 197 Hungarian-speakers just 1 had Tat C):

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00440.x/abstract

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/medievaldna.shtml

2015 study (mtDNA: see Table 8. on page 137 - it shows total lack of continuity of informative mtDNA haplotypes between a sample of 25 conquest era original Hungarians and a sample of 284 modern Hungarians; even continuity with Cumanians is greater):

http://ubm.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2015/4075/pdf/doc.pdf

Also such a study on Cumanians: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596944

================================================== ===

Possible explanations is that Magyars (original Hungarian-speakers) imposed their language on much more numerous locals. It is also possible that the original Magyar stock eventually got extinct, maybe due to being overrepresented compared to local subject stock among warriors and thus suffering high casualties in wars such as against the HRE, against Mongols, or against Turks. For example, after the battle of Lechfeld in 955, most of retreating Magyars were ambushed and slaughtered by local peasants (according to Bachrach's "Warfare in Tenth-Century Germany"):

According to Bachrach, the battle itself was inconclusive (they were halted, not defeated), only the withdrawal was disastrous:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt1x7355

Magyars fought so far and wide in Europe (map), that probably they decimated themselves while trying to conquer Europe:

 

[Tomenable]

Angela,

So, indeed, if that's the case I suppose it could be said that most of the hunter-gatherers who survived the LGM in western and central Europe were "replaced" to come back to the Lazaridis statement.

And where did that replacing group come from?

I suppose they could come from North-Western Africa crossing the Strait of Gibraltar (= ancestors of Franco-Cantabrian WHG ???).

Maybe this explains dark skin of Mesolithic WHG?

 

[Angela]

Angela,



And where did that replacing group come from?

I suppose they could come from North-Western Africa crossing the Strait of Gibraltar (= ancestors of Franco-Cantabrian WHG ???).

Maybe this explains dark skin of Mesolithic WHG?

It seems to me that they're proposing a large scale "replacement" (not necessarily total, but pretty severe) of the mtDna lineages in central, western, and northern Europe from a more southerly refugia which they tentatively place somewhere near the Balkans.

That would be a regional replacement really, not one coming from outside of Europe.

At least, that's how it reads to me.

 

[arvistro]

However the Indo-Europeans had only a minor impact in Finland, Estonia or even among the Uralic Mordovians, so that leaves only a Mesolithic dispersal, perhaps from the North Caucasus.

Why do u think the impact was minor?
Fatyanovo culture was one of the base genetic components for Baltic Finns.

 

[Maciamo]

Why do u think the impact was minor?
Fatyanovo culture was one of the base genetic components for Baltic Finns.

Because the Fatyanovo culture was only present in the extreme south of Finland, and the Indo-Europeans never stayed long enough to have a lasting influence (i.e. on the modern population) on the language or Y-DNA. The Finns are Uralic speakers and have only 5% of R1a (and some of it could have come from Sweden in historical times).

With only 5% of R1a, it is unlikely that mtDNA I in Finland (4.2%) came with the Indo-Europeans. Even pure Proto-Indo-Europeans from the Corded Ware or Catacomb culture had only 3% of mtDNA I. Proportionally to R1a, we should expect only 0.1% or 0.2% of mtDNA I in Finland of Indo-European origin. It would have needed a huge founder effect to increase it 20 or 30 folds against other haplogroups to reach 4.2% today. Another possibility is that mtDNA confers a real and substantial adaptive advantage in cold climates. But then why would the neighbouring Saami, who have intermixed with their Finnish cousins for 5000 years since Corded Ware and Fatyanovo, have 0% of mtDNA I ?

 

[Tomenable]

With only 5% of R1a, it is unlikely that mtDNA I in Finland (4.2%) came with the Indo-Europeans. Even pure Proto-Indo-Europeans from the Corded Ware or Catacomb culture had only 3% of mtDNA I. Proportionally to R1a, we should expect only 0.1% or 0.2% of mtDNA I in Finland of Indo-European origin.

Some mtDNA haplotypes could increase in frequency coincidentally with selection for other traits possesed by carriers of those haplotypes.

 

[Fire Haired14]

@Maciamo,

Finnish might have little IE-admixture, but they're still very similar to Unetice, Corded Ware, etc. Finno-Urgics in the Urals have EEF, WHG, along with CHG and EHG. Maybe we shouldn't get stuck on language barrier. One way or another Uralics and early IEs share lots of ancestry.

 

[arvistro]

Lack of I in Saami who indeed largely lack IE admixture (despite mixing with Finns they are quite distant to Finns, more distant than IE folks to Finns if I recall things right) actually helps my point, does not it?

Finns, more so Estonians are pretty much same genetically as Balts / Belorussians AND they have I.
Saami are quite distant from Balts/Belorussians and Finns AND have 0 of I.

Btw, Finns themselves most likely arrived into Finland from Estonia after AD. So, it does not even matter if Fatyanovo was deep into Finland.

Textile ceramics culture (alledged fathers of Baltic Finns) formed around modern Pskov before early iron age partially on ruins of post -Fatyanovo groups.

 

[Kristiina]

“The Finns are Uralic speakers and have only 5% of R1a”

This is not correct and most Uralic groups have very high amounts of R1a:
Finns: 7.9% (according to Zerjal et al) (the Finnish average should be rounded up to 10% and not to 5%)
Western Finns: 8.7% (according to Lappalainen et al)
Eastern Finns: 5.9% (according to Lappalainen et al)
Estonians: 37.3%
Saamis: 11%
Vepsans: 36% (mostly R-M458 and R-M558)
Karelians: 40% (mostly R-Z282, R-M458 and R-M558)
Mordvins: 26.5%
Maris: 47.7% (mostly R-M558 and R-Z282)
Udmurts: 10.3% (mostly R-M558 and R-Z282)
Komi-Permyaks: Komi average 33% (mostly R-Z282, R-M458)
Komi-Zyrjans: Komi average 33% (mostly R-M458 and R-M558)

“Because the Fatyanovo culture was only present in the extreme south of Finland, and the Indo-Europeans never stayed long enough to have a lasting influence (i.e. on the modern population) on the language or Y-DNA.”

Corded Ware (in Finnish ‘nuorakeramiikka’) lasted 700 years in Finland, i.e. 3200 - 2500 BC. According to Wikipedia Continental Corded Ware is dated c. 2900–2450/2350, which means that it started 300 years earlier in Finland!
http://www.finnica.fi/keski-suomi/esihistoria/nayttely/elama3c.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture


Corded Ware covered most parts of the country and a high amount of battle axes have been found in Northern parts of the country. According to Eurogenes test, I am closer to Corded Ware than Germans or many Swedes and an Eastern Finnish male who did the same test was closer to Corded Ware than me and astonishingly close to Sintashta.



Uralic languages themselves are quite close to Proto-Indo-European language compared e.g. to Northwest or Northeast Caucasian languages, Paleo-Siberian, Eskimo-Aleut or Sino-Tibetan languages. The only big difference is the absence of gender, and the Armenian language as well as the ancient Hittite language did not have gender and it is suggested that Proto-IE did not have gender. All Uralic languages contain a big amount of words with a proto-IE status.

Of course, all Uralic languages contain a Siberian substrate but we do not know at all the yDNA of these Siberian groups.

Arvistro, maybe Saamis are not so close to Corded Ware as Finns but, however, they are very close to EHG, Ma1, Andronovo, Afanasievo and Yamnaya. (http://eurogenes.blogspot.lu/2015/08/doutgroup-poptest-pop1-pop2.html)

 

[Fire Haired14]

@Kritiina,

Finno-Urgics are so similar to neighboring IE speakers that there must be common ancestry behind IE-Finno Urgic linguistic connections in 5000 BC. There's common ancestry deep in Europe outside of Russia where EEF/WHG was.