# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Paleolithic & Mesolithic >  25,000-year-old Russian Cro-Magnons might have been hg H17

## Maciamo

Two Gravettian-period skeletons from Sunghir (200 km east of Moscow) were tested for mtDNA. 

The only mutation found to differ from the CRS was 16129A. The adolescent boy and girl shared the same mutation, and were therefore probably siblings. 

According to the current PhyloTree, this mutation would correspond to haplogroup pre-H17. This is much more far-reaching and significant than one might think. It means that haplogroup H already existed 25,000 years ago, and not just anywhere, but in the middle of European Russia. If it did exist there, as the chances of it arising in Russia and spreading back to all Iberia and Morocco during the Mesolithic are close to nil, it means that H is older than previously thought. If a subclade had already developed in Russia 25,000 years ago, then haplogroup H* itslef might be 35,000 to 40,000 years old. It might well precede the arrival of anatomically modern humans in Europe (from the Middle East).

----------


## LeBrok

Another interesting snippet of our history. Thanks Maciamo for finding and posting it for us for easier digestion.

----------


## Maciamo

What I don't understand is why professional population geneticists, university professors and testing companies alike do not notice such blatant inconsistencies. 

Family Tree DNA, the Genographic Project and Genebase all write that mtDNA haplogroup H appeared between 25,000 and 30,000 years ago in the Near/Middle East.

Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford, estimates that the "Helena clan", as he calls haplogroup H in his book The Seven Daughters of Eve, arose 20,000 years ago. 

There are many other examples, and they almost always underestimate the age of haplogroups. This shows how fast genetic genealogy is evolving. Sykes' book was published in 2001 and is now completely outdated. He doesn't even mention mitochondrial haplogroup I and W among the European lineages. I am surprised that he is now doing a similar work on 9 Japanese lineages, although most of them are identical to China, Korea and indeed most of East Asia. What is the point of attributing meaningless "clans" to extremely old mtDNA haplogroups ? If at least he was looking at deep subclades that would be interesting, but it's not the case. In 2001, mtDNA was better studied than Y-DNA, but now the reverse is true.

----------


## Fire Haired

> What I don't understand is why professional population geneticists, university professors and testing companies alike do not notice such blatant inconsistencies. 
> 
> Family Tree DNA, the Genographic Project and Genebase all write that mtDNA haplogroup H appeared between 25,000 and 30,000 years ago in the Near/Middle East.
> 
> Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford, estimates that the "Helena clan", as he calls haplogroup H in his book The Seven Daughters of Eve, arose 20,000 years ago. 
> 
> There are many other examples, and they almost always underestimate the age of haplogroups. This shows how fast genetic genealogy is evolving. Sykes' book was published in 2001 and is now completely outdated.


i completely agree with u i dont know that much about the mutations and genes that define mtDNA haplogroups but i looked at what defines H17 and this 25,000 year old these two remains in Russia had it it also could have been H27

and i have heard there is a 28,000 year old H sample on the south tip of Italy so it was in Italy and Russia over 25,000ybp i have heard people say it was contamination but they tested all people that had any type of contact with it and the mutations did not match so that means it was for sure H this is incredble that means H is alot older than it is reported as and it has a much differnt history in Europe than we thought

also i saw the estimation age for mtDNA V is 9,000 years old and they know it came from northern Spain but they have two 12,000 year old V samples in northwest Africa they also said that the Iberian refuge mtDNA H1, H3, U5b, and V migrated to north Africa about 8,000-9,000ybp built what this shows is they came at least 12,000ybo

they also said Y DNA G2a3 is only 4,000 years old but there is a 7,000 year old G2a3 sample in Germany LBk culture

and they say that Y DNa IJK is only 40,000-45,000 years old this is the father haplogroup of nearly all non African Y DNA but we have remains of human in italy from 43,000-45,000 BP, in britain from 41,500-44,200 BP, we have extremely amazing statue of a man lion in Germany from 42,000ybp and a flute from germany from 42,000ybp but they saw the first human came to europe just 40,000ybp it seems like it was more like over 50,000ybp

we have mtDNA U2 from 37,985 year old Russian and they still say Y DN IJK is just 40,000-45,000 years odl U2 is caucasin it is not found in chinese or naive Americans so this means caucasins where already a seperate race and IJK muct be alot alot older they estimate Caucasian mtDNA U as 60,000ybp, Ro 50,000, JT 55,000 years old
Mongoloid B as 50,000, D 50,0000
Oceania M as 50,000

so why do they give Y DNa such younger dated i don't understand what did IJk spread across all of Eurasia and Australia and replace the old Y DNa no way IJk is probably closer to 80,000 years old i get sick of these young dates who known maybe the first human where alive 400,000ybp i cant really trust their dna age testing any more it is somewhat accurate but it almost always gives extremely young dates that are proven wrong by human remains they said mtDNA B is 50,000 years old but 42,000 year old bone in china had B4'5 which is a subcalde of a subclade i mean come on when ever i hear the dates they give i add 5,000 years for groups like H1 and 20-40,000 years for major groups like L3 or U

----------


## Fire Haired

does this mean the brother and sister in russia from 25,000ybp had 100% for sure mtDNA H17 or at least H

and also that 28,000 year old bone from south tip italy i am pretty sure it also had H once i even heard H1 and all the people that had any type of contact where tested and did not have the same mutations so it was not contamination so i would like to know if that was also for sure mtDNA H or H1

----------


## Maciamo

Little update. Marom et al. 2012 reassessed the Sunghir samples to c. 30,000 ybp, which makes it even more amazing if they indeed belonged to haplogroup H. 

The Phylogenetic tree has well evolved over the last four years, and there are now various possible haplogroups matching the 16129A mutation. If it is the only HVR mutation differing from the CRS, then H1e3, H1j1, H3b, H3af, H17 and H63a are all possible candidates. If other HVR mutations were missed in the analysis, then the sample could also belong to:

- HV4a2 (with the mutation 16221T)
- H1b1b (with 16362C, 16356C and 16189C!)
- H1aw (with 460C)

HV4 would be extremely unlikely in Palaeolithic Europe, but all the other haplogroups were almost certainly found among European hunter-gatherers, and all are found in northern or eastern Europe today, apart from H1j1 and H3b, which are more specific to western Europe.

If the results are correct and were not contaminated by modern DNA, then it looks like the age of haplogroup H is considerably older than what has been estimated by practically all population geneticists.

----------

