i dont know what they mean by squence but to me it seems they are saying it is mtdna h which takes up about 40% of Europeans not HV which takes up less than 1% or U which is about 15%. according to this wikpedia link they say it was H
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DNA-tested_mummies they also contridiced themselves and said it has no for sure haplogroup but H is defintley a possibility. also it was identical to the Cambridge reference sequence i dont completly understand it but it is mtdna H2a2. and they call certain mutations in it rCRS which also corrspond with mtdna H and the 28,000 year mtdna in Italy had it so there is a good chance it had H. i guess i was wron hough it is not for sure H but there is a very good chance that is why it was first published as H.
the two 25,000 year old H17 in European Russia had the rCRS which means there is a good chance it had H. the only mutation that differed from rCRS was 16129A which according to the Phylo tree it is H17. unless it was contamination both samples where H17. this link says they where both for sure H17 or H27
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/p/ancient-mtdna-maps-of-europe.html
i dont know that much about the mutations of haplogroups but from what i have seen the two from russia where H17 or H27 unless it was contamination. also i have looked at lists of ancient dna and studies they did on it these scientits are very exact and they check a ton to see if it is contamination if they are not 150% sure it was not contamination they will say probable contamination even though all the ancient dna they test is probably not contamination. so the ones from Russia where almost defintley H17 or H27.
also u need to remeber there are alot of genetic historians who are fanatics about H in europe being from neloithic mid eastern farmers. so every h sample people find from pre neloithic europe those fanatics say it was probably contamination, say there is not enough info to say it was H, or just ignore it. so when ever they have paloithic european mtdna they will assume anything close to U is U but if it is probably H but has a possibility to be another haplogroup they will say it is that other haplogroup.
also there are two for sure 15,000 year old H samples in northern spain one had H6 but of course many people argued agianst it but they did many tests and they where H(unknown subclade) and H6. even though ii dont really trust age testing the age of almost all H subclades in europe are around the same age as in the south caucus and around iraq. here is a link to some age estimates of H subclades in Europe and middle east
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/436/T1.expansion.html
if these age estimates are true that means H has been in europe for over 30,000 years. i dont really trust the H sample from italy but i defintley think the two from Russia are legit. i saw that maciamo in the mtdna area of this webiste said H is over 35,000 years old not like over estimates that say 25,000. also those fanatics i was talking about think haplogroups are ur full ancestry even though they are just a duirect lineage.
these fanatics are honestly spreading lies they say it is a fact mtdna H came to europe in neloithic and that europeans decend from those mid eastern neloithic invader. here are some links to big time media companies spreading these lies the list includes bbc i noticed they all came out around april23 and say alost word for word the same thing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22252099 http://www.hngn.com/articles/2114/20130423/ancient-dna-unloceurope-s-dynamic-genetic-history.htm
http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=123512
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...c-history-mystery-uncovered-using-ancient-dna
http://churnalism.sunlightfoundatio...ic/41dccf34d03d5183b2a94afb69b6743a/4/139877/
http://historical-nonfiction.tumblr...cient-eastern-europeans-magically-disappeared
http://www.livescience.com/28954-ancient-europeans-mysteriously-vanished.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/ancient-europeans-genetic-transformation_n_3142552.html
they need to realize mtdna H does not define being european. sami in far north scandnvai have less than 1% H.
aust. dna which tells ur full ancestry shows that europeans come from the Paleolithic age they usulley call the european group north european because it is more popular in north europe. there is aust. dna from la brana a hunter gather from spain who according to these fanatics had non modern european u5b2c1. in the globe13 test he had 71% north european so he was more european than almost all modern europeans and he was not a farmer. also he had 25% med that was most likely from farmer inter marriage. because at this time most of Spanish where farmers
There is aust dna from two farmers both had over 59% med so the farmers where actulley mainly non european. The hunter gathers these fanatics say where killed off by europeans ancestors where actulley the main ancestors of modern europeans.
i know i am speaking strongly against these people i hope i dont become a fanatic like them. i am willing to change my opinion about mtdan H if someone gives me good enough evidence.