# Population Genetics > mtDNA Haplogroups > H >  Strong Evidence mtDNA H did not spread in Neolithic and was already popular in Europe

## Fire Haired

*I have noticed people in this website assume that mtDNA H was not popular in Europe till the Neolithic age and it was spread by mid eastern farmers and Bell Beaker culture* I have read news articles that don't even consider H was in Europe before the Neolithic age to many people assume mtDNA H spread in Europe during the Neolithic and did not exist before that


So, these are arguments I have created that argue against the so strongly believed theory that mtDNA H spread in Europe during the Neolithic age




I want to know what peoples think about this so please vote on the poll and post your opinion




*There is not Enough Investigation pre Neolithic European mtDNA samples and people only mention the ones that don't have alot of H*


mtDNA *H was 41.52% from from 236 mtDNA samples in Iberia from 7,000- 4,340ybp* http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...indo-europeans
and in the same article i showed that mtDNA *H was 46.6% from 14 mtDNA sample from pre Neolithic Iberian s 20,000-7,500ybp from 3 mtDNA 15,000 year old mtDNA samples in northern spain 2 had mtDNA H one had H6 from 9 mtDNA 9,500-7,500 year old samples in Portugal 5 out of 9 had mtDNA H two had H1b which orignated in Iberia
*
also the oldest mtDNA samples in Iberia from 20,000-18,000years ago one had for sure U and for the other all they know is it was in the RO family mtDNA RO is the grandmother of H today it is almost only found in Arabia and it is over 50,000 years old and probably* never migrated to Europe* but its daughter mtDNA HV did and so did H so this sample most likely had either mtDNA HV or H also this sample had the R* CRS muation which is usulley reported as mtDNA H but they just did not have enough DNA information to say it was for sure but it probably was H 


also a *26,000 year old mtDNA sample from Wales also had the R* CRS muation which means it almost definitely had mtDNA H* and now that the technology for receiving DNA from ancient remains is getting much better maybe they can do another test on this remains from Wales the one from Spain this will confirm that we have


*two 25,000 year old mtDNA samples from central Russia most likely brother and sister had the CRS and mutation 161219A which means they where for sure mtDNA H17* 


and *28,000 year old mtDNA sample on the south tip of Italy was for sure mtDNA H and it was not contamination because all of the people that where near it or had contact mtDNA did not match.*


so that means we have *4 mtDNA samples in Europe from over 25,000ybp with mtDNA H in Italy, Wales, and Russia* and one even had a subclade and we also have 3 mtDNA mtDNA H samples in Europe from 20,000-15,000ybp all in Spain this means mtDNA H has been in Europe for about 35,000 years 


i took a National Genographic DNA test and i have mtDNA H64 they tried to explain my DNA story and said mtDNA *H orignated in the middle east just 20,000-25,000ybp why would they say that if we have four over 25,000 year mtDNA H samples from all over europe one even had H17 this means mtDNA H probably originated in the middle east over 40,000 years ago* it is nearly twice as old as DNA experts predicted i think this also means age predictions on DNA haplogroups are not always accurate usulley they ave a dat at least 5,000 years to young because they also saud mtDNA V is only 9,000 years ago in Spain and migrated acroos Europe and north Africa just 7,000ybp then we find four 12,000 year old mtDNA V samples in north Africa.


*here is all the mtDNA samples from Paloithci Europe 37,985-12,300ybp there are 20*
*U=12 60%(U5=6(U5b=3(U5b1=2, U5b2b1=1), U2/3/4/7/8/9=1, U2=1), H=7 35%(almost defintley H=2, H*unknown subclade=2, H17=2, H6=1), HV=1 5%*


and mtDNA H1 and H3 are the most popular H subclades in Europe and northwest Africa they all come from a *huge migration that started in north Spain about 15,000ybp also mtDNA V and some U5b subclades also migrated with that group* from northern Spain.


from* 22 mtDNA samples that are dated as 12,000 years old in Morocco which is far northwest North Africa* 
*H/V/U=12, H=4, H/V=3, V=2* 
mtDNA V is only 15,000 years old and originated in northern Spain it is apart of that group that migrated across Europe and north west Africa 10,000-15,000ybp so these are remains of the ones that went to north Africa so really we have mtDNA samples from Mesolithic Spaniards who immigrated to north Africa only one had the possibility of being mtDNA U which is strange compared to other Mesolithic mtDNA samples all of them had the possibility of being H or V four where for sure H and two where for sure V i am guessing the rest where H but who knows i think this and the other Mesolithic and Paleolithic Iberian remains are good evidence that mtDNA H was dominant in Iberia at least 15,000ybp and the fact that about 30-50% of Iberian mtDNA are H1 and H3 which originated in Iberia about 15,000ybp 


I also made a thread http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...NA-from-German
which shows that from* 86 mtDNA samples all came from Germany except two came from Denmark from 6,625- 4,025 ybp 40.7% had mtDNA H* just like modern Europeans and H1 and H3 where th main subclades even though most where not well enough preserved to show subclades this means even back then most of central European mtDNA H was H1 and H3 like today and originated in Spain 15,000ybp 


also the pre Bell Beaker Germany remains also had mainly mtDNA H and the same subclades so that mean Bell Beaker probably did not spread mtDNA H in central Europe and there is no way they spread it to Scandinavia, Britain, or any where east of Germany because Bell Beaker culture never expanded there so i think Bell Beaker is not the reason mtDNA H is so popular in Europe 


only about 24% of the small sample size of 29 5,000 year old mtDNA samples from Trellis southwestern France had mtDNA H but all had European H1 and H3 which take up 20-30% of mtDNA in that area today.




*The main mtDNA H subclades in Europe are rarly found in the middle east*
*mtDNA H1 and H3 takes up about 30-75% of the H subclades in central, western, and northern Europe and are also the most popular H subclades in all of Europe they take up about 10-30% of their total mtDNA in central, western, and northern Europe in the Middle east mtDNA H1 and H3 only take up about 5-10% of their H subclades and take up usulley less than 1-5% of their total mtDNA* and almost all experts believe both mtDNA H1 and H3 originated in northern Spain about 15,000ybp and spread across Europe 10,000-15,000ybp they call it the Iberian refuge http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/1/19.full 
so that means mtDNA H1 and H3 where already 10-30% or more in central and western Europe before the Neolithic age and there is no way they came from middle eastern farmers and they expanded during the Mesolithic age 10,000-15,000ybp not the Neolithic 6,000-10,000ybp 


also *mtDNA H6 which takes up 5-40% of mtDNA in volga Russia and far eastern Europe it also is believed to have originated in Europe about 15,000-20,000ybp and a 15,000 year old remain in northern Spain had H*6 and mtDNA H6 is actually very spread out in all of Europe and also found in the middle east it is probably one of the oldest H subclades 


*mtDNA H5 and H13 are about 10% of H subclades in the middle east but they are very very very rarely ever found in central, western, northern Europe* at the most they reach 3% of the mtDNA H subclades they are commonly found though in north Italy and eastern Europe they usulley hit about 5-15% of H subclades in eastern Europe sometimes more popular than in the middle east but in some areas they are less than 1% of the H subclades.


there are many H subclades found in Europe and the middle east but i could not find any information of where they originated or how old they are so right now i cant say which mtDNA H subclades in Europe are from the middle east but in general most Europeans have mtDNA H subclades did not come from middle eastern farmers. 


*and if there is any one with information out there on where H13, H5, H7, H9, H15, H16, H18, H11, H10, H20, H21, H4 originated that would be extremely helpful*






*It is impossible for Bell Beaker to Have spread mtDNA H*
I have heard many people say Bell Beaker spread mtDNA H in Europe but to me that sound *impossible* sure Bell Beaker probably started in Iberia where mtDNA H has been popular for 15,000 years and their culture spread across all of western Europe between just 4,800-3,800ybp there are *no real signs Bell Beaker spread their culture from Spain by conquering western Europe all they did was spread a culture and bell beaker culture is identified only by a type of pottery style that is all it may have not even been a culture just a type of pottery that spread* but lets say it was a culture that started in Spain and conquered most of western Europe when people conquer the *native women are not killed* off the native men are mainly because they are the ones that fight in the war the invading army replaces the old Y DNA not mtDNA so the Bell Beaker would have done something from what we know no people group has done in history and Internationally only kill off the women and also* Bell Beaker never expanded to Scandinavia or east of Germany but in those areas mtDNA H is still 40% so Bell Beaker is not a good explination* and H1 and H3 are still the most popular mtDNA H subclades in areas bell Beaker never spread so to me the Bell Beaker argument does not have good evidence* just assumptions*
and Bell Beaker was actulley conquered by proto Germanic speakers and proto Italoi Celtic it is explained in this link https://www.google.com/url? sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0 CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eupedia.com%2Feurope %2FHaplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml&ei=We3IUYTMFeGqyAHts4GAAQ&usg=AFQjCNHXsH j4Btu0ZPVHyQKiyCoKbeHnKw


*Europeans have Different mtDNA H subclades from each other* 


*eastern Europe has very diffenrt mtDNA H subclades than western Europe* in eastern Europe H13 and H5 are very popular but they are almost never found in western Europe in western Europe H1 and H3 are very popular but not nearly as popular as in eastern Europe it is true* most of Europe has 40% mtDNA H but different regions have different subclades which means it did not spread in the same event and that it is just luck most of Europe turned out to have 40% mtDNA H* eastern Europe has many similar subclades as the middle east which could mean its spread in the Neolithic age but western, central, and northern Europe do not so obviously mtDNA H was spread in western, central, and northern Europe from the same event probably Iberian refuge 10,000-15,000ybp but mtDNA H is eastern Europe had to of been spread by a different even they do have some H1 and H3 which means they got some b fro Iberian refuge but since they has many similar subclades to mid easterns it probably spread from the middle east. but mtDNA H1 and H3 are still the most popular mtDNA H subclades in all of Europe which probably means the Iberian refuge made a huge impact on European mtDNA 


*Conclusion*so basically what i am trying to say is people *do not investigate the origin of mtDNA H in europe enough they just assume it came from the Neolithic age based in the few mtDNA samples we have of pre Neolithic Europe but for some reason they dont realize that 35% of Paloithic EUropean mtDNa samples had H* and people do not look at subclades i think the origin of mtDNA H in Europe mostly comes from the Iberian refuge and Mesolithic Europe 10,000-15,000ybp some does come from the Neolithic age but most does not and people only mention the few Neolithic cultures like LBK that did not have 40% mtDNA H but most did which people don't mention 


also another big thing is a *28,000 year old mtDNA sample from south tip Italy, two 25,000 year old mtDNA samples in central russia have H17, one 26,000 year old sample in wales most likley had mtDNA H it defintley did not have U, 20,000-18,000 year old mtDNa sample in south tip Spain also almost defintley had mtDNA H, and two mtDNA samples from norther Spain had mtDNA H one had H6 had H so it probably first arrived in Europe over 35,000ybp
*




what i want people to know is mtDNA* H is alot more popular in Paleolithic and Mesloithci European remains than advertised* and mtDNA U is not 100% like the impression they give mtDNA H also shows up in Mesolithic European remains all of this proves mtDNA H was deifntley present in pre Neolithic Europe and was actulley very popular and most mtDNA H subclades in Europe originated in Europe most mtDNA mid eastern farmers brought was T, X, K, J orignalley i think Europe was just U, H, and HV but i may be wrong they might find a T or K in pre Neolithic European remains




so lets say most mtDNA and Y DNA haplogroups in europe arrived in the Neolithic age but still Europeans ancestry is from Paleolithic Europeans modern Europeans have a unique austomnal DNA type some tests call it north European other Atlantic Baltic because it is mainly in those areas but since Europeans are dominated by a austomnal DNA type that originated in Europe almost definitely in the Paleolithic age that means most of Europeans ancestry are the so called Cro Magnon or people that arrived over 30,000ybp


and when people say well none of the 31 Neolithic European Y DNA samples had R1a or R1b and 50% of modern Europeans have them this does not mean Europeans did not arrive in Europe till 5,000ybp because Y DNA and mtDNA are just direct lineages there are black people with European Y DNA but they are only about 5% European this is because their great great great great grandfather was European so it does not tell your full ancestry the Indo Europeans brought R1a and R1b to Europe 6,000-4,000ybp in June 2013 they released some DNA information from *6,000 and 5,000 year old remains from some of the very first Indo European cultures in the Pontic Steppes they said there is no doubt they where a European population they had all of the some light skin genes that dominate Europeans today and they also said they had mainly brown eyes and 4,000 and 3,8000 year old DNA from Indo Iranian Indo Europeans in south Siberia and west china they spread the Indo European language in asia they also had the same white skin genes as modern Europeans and had mainly light eyes and hair and some even had red hair.* what i am trying to say is the Indo Europeans that spread the language in Europe and Asia where ethnically European just like the European people they conquered so even before R1a and R1b where popular in Europe the people where already Europeans and the main ancestors of modern ones


Also austomnal DNA from *7,000 year old late Mesolithic hunter gather in Spain with mtDNA U5b had more north European than most modern Europeans* and the only true Mesolithic Europeans left are Finnish and Sami people in Scandinavia they have almost only north European globe13 austomnal DNA and the speak a uralic language which according to Maciamo migration map arrived in Scandinavia from north east Asia about* 7,000-8,000ybp and since Sami have about 50% mtDNA V and 50% mtDNA U5b and they have unique subclades which are about 8,000 years old this means Sami, Finnish, and all Scandinavians come from Mesolithic hunter gathers who came there at least 10,000ybp since they where already spread out 8,000ybp and Sami and Finnish people's ancestors where not affected by the Neolithic age like other Europeans that is why they have almost no none European austomnal DNA so they are really the last living Mesolithic Europeans and they are the closet modern relatives to Genomes of the Mesolithic hunter gather in Spain and two 5,000 year old hunter gathers from Sweden and they don't look any different from the rest of Europe* they actually are paler and have light hair and eyes than any other people in Europe so the European ethnicity is not defined by mtDNA H and did not arrive in the Neolithic age the part of Europeans blood that makes them European arrived in Europe at least 35,000ybp-50,000ybp most of Europeans mtDNA any ways traces back to ancestors that arrived over 35,000ybp 


the latest mtDNA haplogroup to arrive in Europe was H and it came 33,000-36,000ybp but mtDNA U5 arrived 50,000-60,000ybp 


Here are some resources i used
http://www.genebase.com/doc/mtdnaHap...bution_Map.pdf


http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...requency.shtml


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_...cientdna.shtml


http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0002700


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0715204741.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DNA-tested_mummies


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...pOKphS2kkGf_vA


http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...of-europe.html

----------


## Fire Haired

I my own opinion i think almost all mtDNA H in western Europe was already there 10,000-15,000ybp but i dont know about eastern Europe i also think that it is impossible for Bell Beaker to have spread mtDNA and there is no good evidence for it

i also defintley think people come to quick conclusions and to many are taking it as a fact that mtDNA H in Europe was spread in the Neolithic age and their only argument is the few pre Neolithic mtDNA samples we have and most come from central and northern europe

and if you are reading this Maciamo since u are the leader of this website i think u need to really investigate where mtDNA H in Europe comes from and not go for quick conclusions that all of it spread in the Neolithic age because obviously alot did not

----------


## zanipolo

> I have noticed people in this website _assume that mtDNA H was not popular in Europe till the Neolithic age and it was spread by mid eastern farmers and Bell Beaker culture_ I have read news articles that don't even consider H was in Europe before the Neolithic age to many people assume mtDNA H spread in Europe during the Neolithic and did not exist before that
> 
> So, these are arguments I have created that argue against the so strongly believed theory that mtDNA H spread in Europe during the Neolithic age
> 
> 
> _I want to know what peoples think about this so please vote on the poll and post your opinion_
> 
> _The main mtDNA H subclades in Europe are rarly found in the middle east
> _mtDNA H1 and H3 takes up about _30-75% of the H subclades_ in central, western, and northern Europe and are also the _most popular_ H subclades in all of Europe they take up about _10-30%_ of their total mtDNA in central, western, and northern Europe in the _Middle east mtDNA H1 and H3 only take up about 5-10% of their H subclades and take up usulley less than 1-5%_ of their total mtDNA subclades and almost all experts believe both mtDNA H1 and H3 originated in northern Spain about 15,000ybp and _spread across Europe 10,000-15,000ybp they call it the Iberian refuge_ http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/1/19.full 
> ...


what about these ancient mtdna actual finds

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...of-europe.html

----------


## Fire Haired

> what about these ancient mtdna actual finds
> 
> http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...of-europe.html


thank u for the information i had no idea that the 18,000-20,000 year old mtDNA sample in southern Spain had the R* CRS muation which is uslley reported as H so in my opinon that means it had H and also a 26,000 year old mtDNA sample from wales all they could find is it had the R*CRS muation which means it also probably had H 

these are huge finds and if they do more tests and confirm they are H that would really mean mtDNA H was in Europe in teh Paloithic age well we already have that 28,000 year old mtDNA sample from south tip Italy that had H but this would mean we have 3 H samples in europe from over 20,000 years ago and at every corner of western europe even wales this probably means it arrive dine urope well over 33,000ybp i would guess over 36,000ybp and mtDNA H is actulley probably over 40,000 years old. 

i hope they get alot more mtDNA, Y DNA, and austomnal DNA from Mesolithic and paleolithic people from all over the world it would solve so many mysterious and lets say they get over 10o or over 200 mtDNA samples from Europe that are 10,000-15,000 years old i bet they will have 25-45% mtDNA H mainly H1 and H3

----------


## Maciamo

In my opinion, mt-haplogroup H was present in Europe _and_ in the Middle East during the late Palaeolithic. Some subclades developed in Europe (probably H1 and H3, for example), while others came from the Middle East during the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age (through the Pontic Steppes for the latter).

----------


## polako

Both mtDNA H and R1b are of post-Ice Age (ie. Neolithic) origin in Western Europe.

They have to be, because Western Europeans are more Middle Eastern in terms of genome-wide genetic ancestry than the populations of the East European Plain, by a wide margin.

Plenty of studies show this clearly, and you can work it out yourself by running a very simple MDS test of Middle Eastern and European samples using something like PLINK. This will produce a cline running from Arabia to the East Baltic, and Western Europeans will be closer to Arabia than Eastern Europeans.

----------


## kamani

> They have to be, because Western Europeans are more Middle Eastern in terms of genome-wide genetic ancestry than the populations of the East European Plain, by a wide margin.


That is mainly due to the Mediteranean component, present everywhere in Western Europe. Eastern Europe on the other hand has more East-Asian component, due to mixing with mongoloid genes. This is more visible in Russia and Finland however.

----------


## Fire Haired

> In my opinion, mt-haplogroup H was present in Europe _and_ in the Middle East during the late Palaeolithic. Some subclades developed in Europe (probably H1 and H3, for example), while others came from the Middle East during the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age (through the Pontic Steppes for the latter).


mtDNA H is alot older than what they age it for it was already in Russia and southern Italy over 25,000ybp and it originated in the mid east i was shocked that out of a total of 19 mtDNA that had a for sure haplogroup from Paleolithic Europe four where for sure had H and the 25,000 year old one from Russia had a subclade same with the 15,000 year old one in Spain the one in Spain had H6 which is usulley in far eastern europe in my opinon mtDNA H is 40,000-45,000 years old and probably came to Europe around 35,000 years ago

I think there needs to be more study on mtDNA H in Europeans, middle easterns, and north africans i know that mtDNA H1 is the most popular subcalde in Europe and it was born in spain in the paloithci 15,000-20,000ybp so it did no come with mid eastern farmers i know H6 originated in Europe and i have heard H13 originated in the middle east i wish i could find a way to figure out what percentages of European H originated in Europe then get the percentages i am sure it will be over 20% most of H in Europe was probably there before the Neolithic age in north africa i think most H also is H1 which means it came from the iberian refuge 15,000-20,000ybp i don't know about the middle east i think they have subclades from the mid east

if we can find all the mtDNA that originated in Europe it can give an idea of how europe was settled before the neolithic age U later U5 and other U subclades probably came first 50,000-60,000ybp then HV and H probably came next 35,000-40,000ybp i don't know if there are any other haplogroups europe would have had 

and also everyone in europe is related they all come from one big family in austomnal DNA they call it north european or atlantic baltic but either way Europeans have a unique group that originated in europe the pale skin genes they know of originated in the mid east probably 60,000ybp because mid easterns have the same genes at almost the same rate but Europeans became dominated by the genes the genes for blue eyes also originated in the mid east but it became very popular in Europe blonde hair red hair originated in europe and unlike other people like Indians and Iraqis who are a mix of different families that lived in that area europe was founded by one family

when was this family founded when did it split from middle eastern DNA families i think it was the first migration that made this family with the European austomnal groups then later they inter married with mtDNA H maybe they can give age estimates for austomnal groups

----------


## Fire Haired

> Both mtDNA H and R1b are of post-Ice Age (ie. Neolithic) origin in Western Europe.
> 
> They have to be, because Western Europeans are more Middle Eastern in terms of genome-wide genetic ancestry than the populations of the East European Plain, by a wide margin.
> 
> Plenty of studies show this clearly, and you can work it out yourself by running a very simple MDS test of Middle Eastern and European samples using something like PLINK. This will produce a cline running from Arabia to the East Baltic, and Western Europeans will be closer to Arabia than Eastern Europeans.


H is not Neloithci becaue we have a two 25,000 year old H17/H27 in European Russia one H sample in southern Italy from 28,000ybp two H samples from northern Sapin from 15,000ybp one even had the H6 subclade and one probably H in Wales from 26,000-33,000ybp and H1 and H3 orignated in SPain 15,000-20,000ybp and their teh most popular subclades of H in Europe probably most of H was already in Europe before teh neloithci age and it decended from H that arrived in Europe about 35,000ybp

y DNA R1b in western Europe did come in Neolithic age but it is not from mid eastern farmers it is from Indo Europeans who came from around Russia and Ukraine that is the reason why R1b in europe breaks down into languages R1b S116 is Italo Celtic R1b U106 is Germanic and Spain has the celtic gaulic version because celts wet to spain also red hair in western europe was spread by R1b Indo Europeans

just saying people exagrete teh absence of mtDNA H in pre neloithci europeans it ws there 33% of paloithci european mtDNA was H it was in russia and southern italy over 25,000ybp and it already had a subclade and most of H in europe is native to Europe all the evidence says the Neolithic is not why H is so popular in europe but people with that opinon are to stubborn to admit it and ignore the DNA we have and they spread false new on the media like bbc does that soemhow there was a genetic turnover in Europe and modern Europeans ar from Neolithic mid estern how does that make any sense and we have austomnal DNA from a Mesolithic European and he had more European blood than almost any modern Europeans and a haplogroup does not define a family group like europeans 

when they say pre Neolithic Europeans where almost only U i actuality checked myself it was hunter gathers in Europe 6,000-5,000ybp they where dominated by U and most of the remains came from teh same area of northern europe so that is not reliable to represent all Europeans before farming and like i said we have 2 H samples in europe from over 25,000ybp

----------


## ElHorsto

> Both mtDNA H and R1b are of post-Ice Age (ie. Neolithic) origin in Western Europe.
> 
> They have to be, because Western Europeans are more Middle Eastern in terms of genome-wide genetic ancestry than the populations of the East European Plain, by a wide margin.
> 
> Plenty of studies show this clearly, and you can work it out yourself by running a very simple MDS test of Middle Eastern and European samples using something like PLINK. This will produce a cline running from Arabia to the East Baltic, and Western Europeans will be closer to Arabia than Eastern Europeans.


I agree about Arabia (SW-Asian) and West Europe but I'm confused: Don't you consider West-Asian to be "Middle Eastern" as well? I'm asking because Eastern Europe is more West-Asian instead SW-Asian, but that's still Middle Eastern imho (Caucasus, Anatolia, Levant,...). 

(welcome to the forum polako, I personally look forward to your contributions.)

----------


## ElHorsto

> That is mainly due to the Mediteranean component, present everywhere in Western Europe. Eastern Europe on the other hand has more East-Asian component, due to mixing with mongoloid genes. This is more visible in Russia and Finland however.


This little bit is not really comparable to the med. admixture in NW-Europe.

----------


## Wilhelm

The mtDNA H theory being neolithic is outdated, when we have already mtDNA H samples from Paleolithic Iberia. And this time there is no confusion, they are clearly H6 and H

----------


## Fire Haired

i know and like i said in this thread a for sure H sample in southern Italy from 28,000ybp and it was not contamination because they checked all the people that had any type of history or contact with it and none of them matched and two for sure H17 or H27 samples in European Russia from 25,000ybp and likley H samples in Wales from 26,000-33,000ybp and southern Spain from 18,000-20,000ybp

and the most popular H subclades in Europe are H1 and H3 and they both orignated in Europe H1b was found in 9,500-7,5000ybp in Portugal so H has probably been in europe for 35,000 years but how do we know if the H europe has today is from Paloithci H i know alot is but maybe most of H in europe is Neolithic that is why i wanted to know where all of those subclades came from i think most H in europe is decended from H that came there 35,000ybp

and i have only been looking at ancient DNA for a few months i dont know how long u have but i though the theory H in europe is neloithci was a new theory because i have seen articles on the news that say it is a fact modern european H came in Neloithci and modern europeans ancestors where mid eastern farmers who 6,000ybp but teh natives toe xtinction that souded crazy to me because europeans are white mid easterns are brown and I already know there was H in Paloithci and MEsloithci europe and because europe has its own unque austomnal DNA and Y DNa haplogroups that are not found in teh mid east and europe has so many features no one else has liek red hair that would take thousends of years to devlope and not everyon in Europe became a farmer liek northern scandviens so i think that theory is honestly RACIEST and a attack against European people

some with theories that teh genes that create white skin in europens are less than 20,000 years old because many mid easterns and north Africans have teh exact same genes some even have white skin and when a European person have a kid with a chinese or africa the SLC4a2 rs14554 alleles switch from European pale skin A,A to A,G but mid eastern and north Africans have about 60% European A,A that means it is not from inter marraige and for some reason all the European white skin genes are just about as popular in the mid east and northa frica this means they are not european they originated in the mid east probably 60,000ybp so the first Europeans would have already had white skin genes

and they say blue eyes are only 6,000-10,000 years old and like with white skin genes blue eye gens are also found in mid eastern and north Africans Europeans have the younger version of blue eye genes mid easterns and north Africans have the ancestral genes blue eyes are extremely rare in north Africans and mid eastern but they do have some and it is not from European inter marriage except kalsh people have the younger versions like Europeans and this study i saw had no idea kalsh are partially descended of European Indo Europeans who migrated to asia about 5,000ybp the tarium mummies are apart of that migration and the sythiens so these results sound legit to me so the first Europeans also would have had some blue eyes so just saying don't trust the people who say that stuff

----------


## Knovas

> That is mainly due to the Mediteranean component, present everywhere in Western Europe. Eastern Europe on the other hand has more East-Asian component, due to mixing with mongoloid genes. This is more visible in Russia and Finland however.


I see the main idea. It rather seems the other way around: the Middle East is more Mediterranean-like, and that's what produces the effect. If there's a difference between Med and SW Asian, is simply because SW Asian represents Mediterranean alleles + something else.

On the other hand, Siberian admixture is not that significant in most parts of Eastern Europe. The Finns cannot be considered part of it, since they are an isolated population. Russians...yeah right, the closer to the Urals, the more Siberian genes we find (not to mention Russian territories in Asia), but certainly depends on the region ¿How about near Latvia or Estonia?. Concerning the rest of Eastern Europe, if there's 1-2% Siberian, doesn't worth much to comment.




> The mtDNA H theory being neolithic is outdated, when we have already mtDNA H samples from Paleolithic Iberia. And this time there is no confusion, they are clearly H6 and H


The authors confirm the results for both samples, so until there's evidence showing the opposite, the info is correct.

----------


## Fire Haired

in globe13 austomnal DNA europe has the most meditreaen a average of about 30-40% and southern europe only has about 6% more than most of europe and only spain has about 50-60% basque have 59% and otzie the iceman a farmer in alps italy from 5,300ybp in globde13 had 59.5% med and a farmer from swedan from 5,000ybp had 64.5% med but mesloithci hunter gather in spain from 7,000ybp had 71.9% north european and 24.8% med and hunter gathers in swedan from 5,000ybp had 79.1% north european and 85.8% north european and 10.3 and 5.8% med so the Mediterranean in Europe probably came from Neolithic farmers but and north european is from the Mesolithic and paloithci hunter gathers but they may have orignalley had some medutreaen but the thing is that med is centered in iberia and is more popular in europe than the mid east and north africa but these farmers had Y DNA G2a which orignated in iran or northern Anatolian and those areas have less than 40% med then where the heck did Europe get the Mediterranean from also otzi had 15.9% southwest asian while most of europe has less than 2% and the farmer in swedan had 7.6% southwest asian otzi also had alittle west asian but the hunter gathers had no southwest asian or west Asian this means the farmers are connected to the middle east they had more southwest asian which is surprising because that group is mainly round arabia and isreal not where G2a is found

----------


## Wilhelm

Like I said in the other thread...Mediterranean, or part of it, in Europe is at least Mesolithic, not neolithic farmers...as La Braña shows this Med levels depending on the Calculator :

globe13 :* 24.8%*
harrappaWorld : *27.42%*
MLDP5 : *44.14%*
K12b (Atlanto-Med) : *45%*


In my opinion, the Neolithic farmers are responsible for the Southwest-Asian and West-Asian components, but not mediterranean, which is much older in Europe.

----------


## Knovas

Minor components, especially those below 10%, aren't informative at all considering the low number of markers available. 25% Mediterranean it's at least a generous figure, and goes quite according to the argument that the component could be restricted to some parts of Southern Europe long before the Neolithic. Not necessarily arose in Iberia, maybe it was originally from the Southern Alpine region and reached Iberia after some time. Curious that Sardinia (half way more or less) has the highest known Med percent, and that the isolated samples from the Friulli region seem to posses even more.

We already talked about this in the other thread, and there are many problems to explain its supposed Middle Eastern/Neolithic origin. Well, at some point, all Europeans have ancestors who lived in the Middle East, but my point is that this Med people left the area long before than what some people think.

PD: By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but you Fire Haired seem to link MtDNA H with North European, when it's obviously linked to Mediterranean. That is important, because it completely destroys your theory considering you admit H is Paleolithic.

----------


## Fire Haired

Knovas and Wilhelm there is not enough austomnal DNA to make any conclusions if we had 40 austomnal DNA from every region of Europe in the Mesolithic age then we can make conclusions but right now we cant

i think there is a possibility med was in Europe in paleolithic but iut seems originality europe was all north european or Atlantic baltic and in K12b austomnal DNA most of northern Europe has 40% Atlantic med like La brana different austomanl tests have different percentages of med in some tests med will be 40% in British but 15% in another test so u cant use the same tests the same way u have to see what modern people have La Brana defintley had some meditreaen but that is probably because there where already many farmer culture in europe and spain 7,000ybp tha lived right next to him it was probably inter marraige and even if it was ine urope in mesloithci it was from non european inter marraige and the reason modern iberians and Europeans have it is they are a result of farmer and hunter gather inter marraige and La brana was the begging of that

also Knovas we dont have enough DNA to say what haplogroups group with what autsomnal DNA i don't think there is evidence H is connected with Mediterranean because we have for a fact 3 mtDNA H samples in Europe that are over two 25,000 years old H17/27 in russia from 25,000ybp and H in southern italy from 28,000ybp this is before med would have ever been in Europe or maybe even before med and north european austomnal DNA was born

and maybe med got to europe 10,000ybp but mtDNA H1 and H3 the most popular subclades in europe are 15,000-20,000ybp and came from spain and i dont think there is a pattern with people in europe who have alot of H and also have alot of med so i dont think there is any evidence and we cant make any conclusions on when med got to europe because we don't have austomnal DNA from any one in europe from before 7,000ybp and since the farmers where over overwhelmingly med that means they definally brought most of it to europe and i bet if they made globe13 med maps in europe areas that got farming late will have very little med that is why finnish have less than 2%

Iberia at 50-60% has teh higest which means they probably have the highest amount of neloithic blood the rest of southern europe has second highest at about 40% but they prpbably oirgnalley had as mouch or more than spain but latter in greco roman times they inter married with mid easterns that is why they have 20-25% west asian and 15-20% southwest asian while ibera has 5% west asian 5% southwest asian

the reason why central and western Europe might have only 30-40% med is indo European R1b migrations they have 6,000 year old early indo european dna in steppes with some austomanl DNA but they have not published yet these are just guess i am probably wrong

----------


## Knovas

> also Knovas we dont have enough DNA to say what haplogroups group with what autsomnal DNA i don't think there is evidence H is connected with Mediterranean


There's, indeed, a suitable piece of evidence when one checks the Mediterranean percents starting from Scandinavia (not less than 25%), then going down to Germany (30%), France (40%), Iberia (50%), and ending in North Africa (40%), where there's very little North European and virtually absent among Berbers (Pre-Arab ethnic group).

If those populations have something in common, that is definetely MtDNA H. So I'm afraid the answer seems pretty clear.

----------


## Wilhelm

> i dont think there is any evidence and we cant make any conclusions on when med got to europe because we don't have austomnal DNA from any one in europe from before 7,000ybp and and i bet if they made globe13 med maps in europe areas that got farming late will have very little med that is why finnish have less than 2%


Yes there is evidence. Since North-African share with Europeans the mtDNA H1 and H3, and the only autosomal component that North-Africa share with rest of Europe, in a high degree, is Mediterranean component. They don't have Northern-European component. 




> since the farmers where over overwhelmingly med that means they definally brought most of it to europe


The farmer Gok4 didn't come directly from Middle-East to Sweden, we don't know, so his ancestors probably came from other parts of Europe, specially from Iberia, since he seems to plot in Southwestern-Europe on PCA. 




> Iberia at 50-60% has teh higest which means they probably have the highest amount of neloithic blood the rest of southern europe has second highest at about 40% but they prpbably oirgnalley had as mouch or more than spain but latter in greco roman times they inter married with mid easterns that is why they have 20-25% west asian and 15-20% southwest asian while ibera has 5% west asian 5% southwest asian


Wrong. Iberia has actually the least Neolithic of all Southern-Europe..how do I know that, because on PCA plots, when running a linear axis PCA from Middle-East to Baltic, the Iberians are between NW Europeans and North-Italians.

----------


## Fire Haired

> There's, indeed, a suitable piece of evidence when one checks the Mediterranean percents starting from Scandinavia (not less than 25%), then going down to Germany (30%), France (40%), Iberia (50%), and ending in North Africa (40%), where there's very little North European and virtually absent among Berbers (Pre-Arab ethnic group).
> 
> If those populations have something in common, that is definetely MtDNA H. So I'm afraid the answer seems pretty clear.


scandnaviens have just about as much mtDNA H1 and H3 as spainhttp://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...requency.shtml

they have the second highest amount in Europe but they have only about 25% globe13 med and north Africans have alot of H1 and H3 because of the Iberian refuge which spread H1,H3, V, and U5b1 across europe and north africahttp://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0013378 http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/1/19.full and it is northwest africans not people like egyptiens and northwest africans actulley do have a signifcant amopunt of north european in globe13 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...tUE9kaUE#gid=0

they have about 6% that is more than anywhere outside of Europe and groups where there is recorded contact with european people in every type of austomnal dna test they show Atlantic Baltic or north europeanhttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...QblVRR2c#gid=0 which they probably got from the Iberian refuge it would have been LA Brana's people who migrated to north Africa and they also got some from recent inter marriage with Spanish and Portuguese

so your argument about them not having north european is wrong they have high amounts compared to other non europeans and since the only austomnal type to originate in europe they call it north European or Atlantic baltic so over 10,000ybp pretty much everyone in europe had north european and mtDNA H1 and H3 which take up 30-50% in Iberia and the most popular subclades in europe where born in iberia 15,000-20,000ybp before med ever got to europe and we have three H samples in europe from over 25,000 years ago in russia and italy so H probably arrived in europe well over 30,000ybp and most H in europe today almost defintley descends from the first H in europe so i still dont think there is strong evidence connecting mtDNA H to med but i might be wrong i want to hear more of ur arguments 

since there was some med in hunter gathers in swedan from 5,000ybp and they did have some contact with farmers the 5,000 year old farmer in the same area of swedan had 64% med in globe13 but maybe that is evidence med has been in europe for at least since like 15,000 and LA brana had 24% which is lower than most of europe and alot less than modern iberian and he did have contact with farmers but guess that is evdence top

----------


## Fire Haired

> Wrong. Iberia has actually the least Neolithic of all Southern-Europe..how do I know that, because on PCA plots, when running a linear axis PCA from Middle-East to Baltic, the Iberians are between NW Europeans and North-Italians.


yes iberia has very little west asian and southwest asian and mid eastern blood period they have about as much as most of europe but they still have the most med which was the dominate group in all types of austomnal DNA tests of neloithci farmers in europe so i still think iberians have alot of blood from those farmers we dont know exactley where those farmers came from there defintley was some west asian and southwest asian in th,e otzi in globe13 had 15% southwest asian only italy,greec,yugoslvai, and soith east europe has that much today so there was something mid eastern about them but what is wierd is they had so much med when today there is no place where med is completly dominte we know these farmers did not come from europe because their Y DNA was G2a which is from north antolia, caucus, and northenr iran but those areas have less med than europe it is a mystery i think austomnal DNA percentages are not exact according to them most people in europe are less than 50% european these austomnal tests are alot more complicated i think the best thing is look at a bunch of difernt types of tests those farmers like otzie who had over 50% med almost defintley did not orignate from europe r

----------


## ElHorsto

> yes iberia has very little west asian and southwest asian and mid eastern blood period they have about as much as most of europe but they still have the most med which was the dominate group in all types of austomnal DNA tests of neloithci farmers in europe so i still think iberians have alot of blood from those farmers we dont know exactley where those farmers came from there defintley was some west asian and southwest asian in th,e otzi in globe13 had 15% southwest asian only italy,greec,yugoslvai, and soith east europe has that much today so there was something mid eastern about them but what is wierd is they had so much med when today there is no place where med is completly dominte we know these farmers did not come from europe because their Y DNA was G2a which is from north antolia, caucus, and northenr iran but those areas have less med than europe it is a mystery i think austomnal DNA percentages are not exact according to them most people in europe are less than 50% european these austomnal tests are alot more complicated i think the best thing is look at a bunch of difernt types of tests those farmers like otzie who had over 50% med almost defintley did not orignate from europe r


You certainly know this already, then please don't mind, but I think in general a reminder is necessary from time-to-time (hoping I do not sound too teacher-like):

Haplogroups represent selected deep ancestry whereas autosomals represent the complete ancestry. It means that HG G from Ötzi could well represent a much much older "root" ancestry in Caucasus or wherever, whereas his autosomals surely represents all later migrations and admixtures from Ötzi's other ancestors until his birth. So HG G could be trace of the early but watered-down West-Asian component in Ötzi. Sardinians also have some G today and some West-Asian remnant, similar to Ötzi. It should be clear that a HG shows only one of several thousands of ancestry lines. Basically the more time passes the more become HGs and autosomals uncorrelated, they eventually become completely unrelated. A correlation can exist only within a limited time window.

----------


## Wilhelm

> scandnaviens have just about as much mtDNA H1 and H3 as spainhttp://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...requency.shtml


Those figures seem to be wrong.. here is from an actual study : 







> still have the most med which was the dominate group in all types of austomnal DNA tests of neloithci farmers in europe so i still think iberians have alot of blood from those farmers we dont know exactley where those farmers came from there defintley was some west asian and southwest asian in th,e otzi in globe13 had 15%


What are you talking about...Otzi was not a Neolithic farmer, he was from the Calcholitic era. And he was Sardinian-like genetically. Gok4 is the one neolithic famer, and she is mostly Atlanto-Med which means she already has a lot of Northern-Euro in her, meaning her ancestors were already living in Europe before the Neolithic.

----------


## Knovas

Fire Haired, you only see what you want to see, and you only read what you want to read:

- First of all, you say Scandinavians have "only" 25% Med, when the _incredibly North Euro-like_ Moroccans you checked are ONLY 6.5% North European. ¿How do both things match? LOL.

- Second, North Africans don't have more North European than any other population outside of Europe: Selkup (35%), Ket (27.7%) Jatt (18.4%), Uzbeks (16.3%), Dolgan (13.1%)...and so on.

- I specially mentioned Berbers, since they are Pre-Arab, and they also did not mate with Vandals and other similar people who probably brought minor North European component. Check the Mozabite samples and you'll see they are 0% North European in globe13.

- Take the North African samples as whole, and you'll see how low is the average North European: Mozabite (0%), Behar Moroccans (2.3%), Algerian (5.8%) and Dodecad Moroccans (6.5%) = 3.65% average.

- Of course, I am not taking into account Morocco Jews (8.9%), since Jews are always outliers compared to their host populations. However, they also probably spread some North Euro as well among the main North African population, but not in more isolated regions where Berber tribes lived.


So H was definetely responsible of the Mediterranean admixture in North Africa, since North European is rather the product of the overlap between some allele frequencies, or the result of minor migrations as I said. Completely irrelevant.


Edited:

At lower K's when the Atlantic-Baltic component is present, the program simply searches the most likely fit taking the available clusters as reference (No Med available at K=7). But Dienekes' already made another experiment proving that the West Eurasian ancestry in North Africa is overwhelmingly Sardinian-like, hence Mediterranean.

http://dodecad.blogspot.com.es/2012/...alculator.html

The Mozabite samples as expected show noisy Atlantic-Baltic figures.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Fire Haired, you only see what you want to see, and you only read what you want to read:
> 
> - First of all, you say Scandinavians have "only" 25% Med, when the _incredibly North Euro-like_ Moroccans you checked are ONLY 6.5% North European. ¿How do both things match? LOL.
> 
> - Second, North Africans don't have more North European than any other population outside of Europe: Selkup (35%), Ket (27.7%) Jatt (18.4%), Uzbeks (16.3%), Dolgan (13.1%)...and so on.
> 
> - I specially mentioned Berbers, since they are Pre-Arab, and they also did not mate with Vandals and other similar people who probably brought minor North European component. Check the Mozabite samples and you'll see they are 0% North European in globe13.
> 
> - Take the North African samples as whole, and you'll see how low is the average North European: Mozabite (0%), Behar Moroccans (2.3%), Algerian (5.8%) and Dodecad Moroccans (6.5%) = 3.65% average.
> ...


okay ur right the north euro thing in north africans is not signifcant because most mid eastern have as much but in k7b northwest africans have 27% atlantic baltic how can u say H in north africa is related to med because we have the la brana austome dnaa he had very little med as much as modern scandnvaiens he was a hunter gather spainard in the neloithci age he probably got it from otzie people and the farmer in swedans people who ha over 55% med and lived in spain at that time because they had y dn g2a and we have 3 y dna g2a samples from farmers in spain from 7,000ybp so if u went to spain 15,000ybp that is 8,000 years before la brana they would have no med or very very very little so to say all med in north africa comes from H would mean they had like 100% med what u are saying has very weak evidence okay sure otzie was chaloithic but he was apart of that farmer race with y dna g2a in europe it does not matter what age experts put him in he is the same genticalley as the Neolithic farmers so he does count as a early farmer in europe that is why his austome dna was like the farm from swedan and sure he was related to sardinens that does not help ur argument at all his people still went to spain and by the way spainish and sardinens are very related they are the only people with y dn i2a1a1 which ur so u can not deny europe would have probably had absoultly no med austomnal dna before the Neolithic and the farmers including otzie where dominated by med while hunter gathers where north euro there is no way H and med spread to north africa and all of europe has about 40% H including norway but med does not show relation to H and the source i gave is not unreliable it is real mtdna tests they took on people so those re rel results and i have heard Scandinavia has very high amount of h1 and h3 before and mtdan is just a direct linage no haplogroup has shown real connections to austome groups and since H has been in europe for about 35,000 years that is before med or north euro even existed and it has mixed with so many diff austome groups

----------


## Wilhelm

You are fighting against evidence. The only high frequency haplogorups in common between North-Africa and Europe is mtDNA H ...and the only autosomal component shared with europeans and north-africans at high frequency is Mediterranean. The 27% Atlantic-Baltic of NW-Africans on K7b is mostly West-Med, because remember that this Atlanto-Baltic component is a mixbag of Northern and West-Med alelles, that in case of North-Africans only shows the west-med side. That's why for example Basques got 72% of Atlantic-Baltic, cos besides the west-med there is northern-euro thrown in there. In the case of Lithuanians, is the other way around, mostly the northern alleles manifesting. Hope that helps.

----------


## Knovas

> The 27% Atlantic-Baltic of NW-Africans on K7b is mostly West-Med


The K10a experiment I posted was basically proving that point. Shows clearly the real affinity of the "Atlantic-Baltic"element at K=7.


To summarise, an exellent quote from Dienekes':

_the Mediterranean component here is modal in Sardinians as usual, but also projects into North Africa. Again, this is intermediate between K7 which shows a predominance of West Eurasian ancestry in North Africa + an African component, and K12 in which there are "Atlantic_Med" and "Northwest_Afican" regional components.

These are strong hints that the West Eurasian element in Africa differs between NW and E Africa. In the former region, it is most related to Sardinians, and in the latter it is most related to Arabians._

----------


## Fire Haired

> You are fighting against evidence. The only high frequency haplogorups in common between North-Africa and Europe is mtDNA H ...and the only autosomal component shared with europeans and north-africans at high frequency is Mediterranean. The 27% Atlantic-Baltic of NW-Africans on K7b is mostly West-Med, because remember that this Atlanto-Baltic component is a mixbag of Northern and West-Med alelles, that in case of North-Africans only shows the west-med side. That's why for example Basques got 72% of Atlantic-Baltic, cos besides the west-med there is northern-euro thrown in there. In the case of Lithuanians, is the other way around, mostly the northern alleles manifesting. Hope that helps.


well europeans and north Africans have about 15% mtDNA U that is another similaty so H is not the only one Europeans and north africans have mainly brown hair and all non caucasin people have black hair so what just because they have similarities does not been those similarties are connected we know that the farmers that came to europe where over 60% med and the hunter gathers where 20% or less europe was orignalley just north european in austomnal dna h1 and h3 spread to north africa from spain 15,000-10,000ybp before med ever became popular in europe so ur rgument is defeated by those facts u guys are very stubborn about the connection with mtdna h and med but mtdna h is older than any of those austpmnal groups it is about 40,000years old since we have a two 25,000 year old h17 in russia one 28,000 year old h in italy and it orignated in the mid east so it is at least 40,000 years old so the orugnal H people had a ancestor caucasin group they did not have med because it did not exist yet mtdna h1, h3, h6 and other european h subclades where born into people who where about 100% north european in austomnal dna meditreaen austomnal is also in the mid east does that mean they got it from European H no it does not maybe some europeans had med in paloithci but that is almost impossible

----------


## Knovas

North Africans are U6, while Europeans belong to U5 with very minor U6 presence. Certainly U6 seems to be a Paleolithic remnant in North Africa, but I don't see any special connection with U5. Both splitted from U, but that happened a very long time ago. The same as For example K, the main subclade of U8, has something in common with U...of course, already buried in the most remote antiquity.

So that point goes nowhere.

----------


## Wilhelm

> well europeans and north Africans have about 15% mtDNA U that is another similaty


No, it's not a similary, like Knovas says they belong to the "berber" clade U6..




> so H is not the only one Europeans and north africans have mainly brown hair and all non caucasin people have black hair so what just because they have similarities does not been those similarties are connected we know that the farmers that came to europe where over 60% med


No, there is no evidence, since Otzi is not a neolithic migrant, he is Calcholitic, and his ancestors, or part of them could have been in Europe in pre-Neolithic times. 




> and the hunter gathers where 20% or less europe was orignalley just north european in austomnal dna


La Braña shows non-trivial levels of mediterranean, up to 45% in some calculators. And even if it was 25%, it's still high, and evidence of being Mesolithic. 




> yet mtdna h1, h3, h6 and other european h subclades where born into people who where about 100% north european in austomnal dna


Prove it. La Braña was far from being 100% North-Euro.

----------


## Fire Haired

not all north africans have U6 that is just their unque subclade and La Brana had only 20% med in globe13 that is lower than anyone in europe today not counting scandnaviens so no way can u say med was nearlly as popular in spain or anywhere in europe in mesloithci and paloithic age and sure otzie is chaltoithic age he decends from neloithic migrants he has y dna g2a so do 26 of 31 y dna samples in western europe from 7,000-4,700ybp even a 7,000 year old NELOITHIC farmer from germany he was in tehwestern european neloithci race

sure la bran is up to 40% med in some calculators but u cant say med percentage in k7b is same as med in globe13 sure in those calcultaors la brana had 40 med that is much lower than almost all modern europeans only north europeans have 40% med in those calculators it is a fact la brana was most related to finnish and sami and northern europeans peruiod he was not a meditreaen person in austomnal dna some with all pre Neolithic Europeans there is no way 15,000ybp when h1 and h3 spread to north africa from spain that those people had alot or any med so right there your argument is defeated but what confuses me is that otzie had he same white skin genes as modern europeans even though he technically was less than 20% european and modern sardinen people who have as much med as those farmers and have the highest amount of g2a in europe and and te closest modern relatives to early european farmers they are also white bit are also like only 20% european and G2a rignated in north antolia or iran but in those areas med is lower than in europe and west asian is the majority then why dident the farmers have alot of west asian they had tons of med and they had white skin his makes me think they had to be mainly european and maybe the med is european but besides that there is no good evidence and it almost defintley was not in spain before neloithic

----------


## Knovas

What the calculators show is La Braña had non trivial amounts of Mediterranean, so that is telling us indeed something.

And again, obviously North Africans have other maternal lines, but the U ones are almost exclusively U6. Well, and K, but that's all. There's no U5.

Oh, and the West Asian component isn't significant in both Sardinians and Neolithic individuals. Still getting nowhere.

----------


## Wilhelm

> not all north africans have U6 that is just their unque subclade and La Brana had only 20% med in globe13 that is lower than anyone in europe today not counting scandnaviens so no way can u say med was nearlly as popular in spain or anywhere in europe in mesloithci and paloithic age and sure otzie is chaltoithic age he decends from neloithic migrants he has y dna g2a so do 26 of 31 y dna samples in western europe from 7,000-4,700ybp even a 7,000 year old NELOITHIC farmer from germany he was in tehwestern european neloithci race
> 
> sure la bran is up to 40% med in some calculators but u cant say med percentage in k7b is same as med in globe13 sure in those calcultaors la brana had 40 med that is much lower than almost all modern europeans only north europeans have 40% med in those calculators it is a fact la brana was most related to finnish and sami and northern europeans peruiod he was not a meditreaen person in austomnal dna some with all pre Neolithic Europeans there is no way 15,000ybp when h1 and h3 spread to north africa from spain that those people had alot or any med so right there your argument is defeated but what confuses me is that otzie had he same white skin genes as modern europeans even though he technically was less than 20% european and modern sardinen people who have as much med as those farmers and have the highest amount of g2a in europe and and te closest modern relatives to early european farmers they are also white bit are also like only 20% european and G2a rignated in north antolia or iran but in those areas med is lower than in europe and west asian is the majority then why dident the farmers have alot of west asian they had tons of med and they had white skin his makes me think they had to be mainly european and maybe the med is european but besides that there is no good evidence and it almost defintley was not in spain before neloithic


Where do you get that Sardinians are only 20% european ? How can they be only 20% european when their mtDNA haplogropus are typical european, and their y-DNA also, except for 15% G2 , which is not that behind the Alpine region like Switzerland which has 8%..

----------


## Knovas

We don't know yet for sure how old is G2/G2a in Europe. It seems pretty old, at least, in the Caucasus region. I suspect a very long time ago the Caucasus could have been dominant in Mediterranean, and at some point was mostly replaced by the West Asian admixture. It is interesting to note that Georgians and Abkhazians retained their Non Indo-European languages, and they still possess substantial Med component shared with Sardinians and other Southern European populations.

----------


## Fire Haired

in glbe13 armanians med is 29.2%, for georgians it is 25.3%, in adygie it is 21.8% https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...tUE9kaUE#gid=2

all of thes are caucus people vnow here are european examples

dutch in globe13 have 33.3% med, bulgaran have 34.1% serb have 31.2%, french have 40.1%, swedish 26.1%, finnish who have 9.8% 

finnish have been proven to be closet reltives to la bran hunter gather sapain hunter gather and to two hunter gathers from swedan 5,000ybp http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...13725450115847

so la brana and the two hunter gathers from swedan are most related to sami and finnish who have the least amount of med in europe so in my opion that proves la bran was not a major med person like iberians and lot of europeans today so that defeats your argment and ur argument is aginst what all austomnal dna experts say and the people that aculley tested la bran europe before he neloithic had almost no if any med in any type of austomnal dna test europe was orignalley almost only north european in austomnl dna and only sami and finnish ho have been genetically isolated from the rest of europe for about 10,000 years hve kept those austomnal genes and super high north european also people around parts of russi have to but ur argument abot med bieng major in europeans 10,000ybp or before is almost defintley not true

europeans unlike mid easterns and north africans have are their own ethnic group they europeans ancestors 10,000's ybp only inter married with each other they devloped the north europen austomnal group and developed unque features that is why all europeans are all white while other caucasins are rar;ey white skinned that is why Europeans have unque hair colors that only they have since europeans are a unque ethnic group that did not inter marry till 10,000ybp it makes sense they only had one austomnal dna group which is north european before 10,000ybp so that is another strong point that i think defeats ur argument

----------


## Fire Haired

i disagree with saying sardinens are only 20% european but according to austomnal dna north europen is the only europen austomnal group and they and some other south europens have about 20% and most europens have round 40-50% which suprises me because u know europeans are more than half european

also the farmer otzie who had over 55% med and less than 20% north european in globe13 also had the genes for european white skin his closest mdern relatives are sardinens who also have white skin and are most likley the last true neloithic western europeans so these super med people who spread y dna g2a and technically should not be european actulley would have not looked phiscalley any differnt from modern europeans or the hunter gathers they conquered they would have been white but if they are not european then why are they white so somehow there is a europen thing about them u cant find in austomnal dna or i dont really know how to explain it and where did the med farmers come from y dna g2a is from caucus turkey iran area but those areas have very little med most med is in europe but europe over 10,000ybp probably had almost no med so where the heck did these farmers come from and if they where not native to europe why where they white just like the native hunter gathers this is very confusing i defintley think u guys have some good points that maybe these med farmers where european maybe there was some med in europe before 10,000ybp it is not a bad idea to investigate it

----------


## ElHorsto

> so la brana and the two hunter gathers from swedan are most related to sami and finnish who have the least amount of med in europe so in my opion that proves la bran was not a major med person like iberians and lot of europeans today so that defeats your argment


It think you unwillingly deviated from the original question into some strawman argument. No one here denies that Saami/Fennobaltic North_european component is clearly dominant in La Brana and Gotland hunter-gatherers and no one claims that they are mediterranean. The main question was why has La Brana so much more mediterranean in some calculators (45% in K12b) than the two hunter-gatherers from Gotland (<15%)? There must be a reason for this difference.

I'm just describing with words here again what the numbers of the calculators say, actually the numbers speak for themselves.

----------


## Wilhelm

> i
> finnish have been proven to be closet reltives to la bran hunter gather sapain hunter gather and to two hunter gathers from swedan 5,000ybp http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...13725450115847


That plot is not from the original study, it's this one, where La Brana is close to CEU Utah-Americans than to Finns :

----------


## Fire Haired

so what those utah americans are from either england or somewhere in teh uk germany or norway they are still north europeans and those where random people la bran eriod was by far mainly north european in austomnal dna he most likley got his austomnal dna med from incoming farmers it still defends my point that he did not have alot of med alot less than any modern europeans and that in mesloithic and paloithic europe north euro was probably the only austomnal group and med came longer but i still thin there is a chance med was there but most modern med was not

and made a very string point earlier europeans are a ethnic group unlike mid easterns, south asians, and sub cahren aafricams europeans are all from one big family europeans where isolated and devloped unque traitss minly their own hair colors light skin in europeans and blue and green eyes orignalley caame frm teh mi8d east about 50,000ybo then became dominet in europeans ancestors when they migrted to europe or when they where in the mid east but ssince europeans are from one familyu that one family like 30,000 or more years ago would have had a unque austomnal group which is north euro all of europe would haave had north euro before neloithic

mid easterns have no unque group they share their groups with many diffenrt people and they have inter married but europeans where isolated like native americans all none european mtdna, y dn haplogroups, and non north euro austomnal dna cme to europe in probably the last 10,00 years

----------


## Knovas

Again, there's still no definite proof that North European is the "only" European cluster, since both were maybe living side by side and we don't know it yet. On the other hand, I see a bunch of contradictions, but let's start:




> It think you unwillingly deviated from the original question into some strawman argument. No one here denies that Saami/Fennobaltic North_european component is clearly dominant in La Brana and Gotland hunter-gatherers and no one claims that they are mediterranean. The main question was why has La Brana so much more mediterranean in some calculators (45% in K12b) than the two hunter-gatherers from Gotland (<15%)? There must be a reason for this difference.
> 
> I'm just describing with words here again what the numbers of the calculators say, actually the numbers speak for themselves.


ElHorsto got the point, if I were you I would take good note.




> so what those utah americans are from either england or somewhere in teh uk germany or norway they are still north europeans


They carry A LOT of Mediterranean alleles, so the shift towards them is definetely telling us something. For instance, ¿do you know why Basques don't cluster people from the UK? it's not because they don't have as much "Atlantic-Baltic" in some calculators, but simply because they lack the West Asian admixture. Just for you to see...




> europeans are all from one big family europeans where isolated and devloped unque traitss minly their own hair colors light skin in europeans and blue and green eyes


Europeans as whole are ALL quite homogenous, both Southern and Northern Europeans. And we are not dealing with traits, don't know why do you mention this now. Anyways, I'm afraid you would be surprised seeing how light Med people can be.




> mid easterns have no unque group they share their groups with many diffenrt people and they have inter married but europeans where isolated like native americans all none european mtdna, y dn haplogroups, and non north euro austomnal dna cme to europe in probably the last 10,00 years


Don't know why do you talk about Middle Easterns, since it's pretty clear that if the Med component has something in common with them, it's because THEY carry the Med admixture diluted with something else (SW Asian), not the other way around as I already explained above.

Concerning the allele sharing and isolation arguments, in short, both are plain false:

- I posted figures showing that North European is indeed present deep in Asia at non trivial amounts (and according to you even in North Africa LOL), so the component looks widely shared in my book.

- If there's an isolated component in West Eurasia, that is NOT North European, but Mediterranean. I think it's more or less the 4th time we're dealing with this. Check the Fst distances and the PCA plot, and you'll see that North European has more non-European affinities than the Med admixture. So it didn't remain unaltered as you think, no way.

----------


## ElHorsto

> so what those utah americans are from either england or somewhere in teh uk germany or norway they are still north europeans


They are as much "north european" as CEU. That's why the La Brana sample clusters more with them and less with Saami and Finns. Even the authors of the La Brana paper claim La Brana to be similar to Britons. That's not because of north-europeanness, else La Brana would be closest to Finns and Saami. La Brana is obviously closer to contemporary average europeans than the Ajv52 and Ajv70 samples from Gotland are.




> la bran eriod was by far mainly north european in austomnal dna he most likley got his austomnal dna med from incoming farmers it still defends my point that he did not have alot of med alot less than any modern europeans and that in mesloithic and paloithic europe north euro was probably the only austomnal group and med came longer but i still thin there is a chance med was there but most modern med was not


That's possible. And I agree that most farmers were autosomally mostly atlantic_med, but by this it is not clear yet where the origin of the Atlantic_med component was. 
Regarding paleolithic: I personally don't believe that european and near-eastern hunter-gatheres were completely isolated from each other all the time, because there is evidence of exchange between european and siberian hunter-gatherers (amerindian component, globe13). I see no reason why near-eastern hunter-gatherers should be an exception. Europe is adjacent to both, Asia and the Mediterranean.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Again, there's still no definite proof that North European is the "only" European cluster, since both were maybe living side by side and we don't know it yet. On the other hand, I see a bunch of contradictions, but let's start:
> 
> 
> ElHorsto got the point, if I were you I would take good note.


i think there is tons of proof mesloithic hunter gather who lived with farmers in Spain was dominated by north euro more than almost all europeans same with hunter gather in swedan from 5,000ybp and farmer austomnal dna was dominated by med even one that lived near swedish hunter gather and at same time this means med almost defintley came with farming to europe at least most of it and the some med in la brana and Swedish hunter gathers came from farmer inter marrage and the fact sami and finnish have been shown to be extremly relted to them and that they have almost no med and their ancestors where seperated from the rest of europe in neloithic and wherehunter gathers till at earliest 4,000ybp they are like the last mesloithic europeans in austomnal dna but same with far eastern europeans like volga russians so i think all med is non european inter marraige all europeans trace most of their ancetry to onne group that created north euro





> They carry A LOT of Mediterranean alleles, so the shift towards them is definetely telling us something. For instance, ¿do you know why Basques don't cluster people from the UK? it's not because they don't have as much "Atlantic-Baltic" in some calculators, but simply because they lack the West Asian admixture. Just for you to see...


in those calculators atlantic baltic includes some med like what u said before and basque have alot of neloithic anestry that is why they have 60% med in globe13 like early european farmers that is why they are differnt from british





> Europeans as whole are ALL quite homogenous, both Southern and Northern Europeans. And we are not dealing with traits, don't know why do you mention this now. Anyways, I'm afraid you would be surprised seeing how light Med people can be.


we are dealing with traits all Europeans are dominated by genes that create pale skin all Caucasians except Indians also have these genes but they are more popular in european people ad most caucasins are brownish skinned while white is a small minority but with europeans white skin is the only skin color sone europeas including many members of my family have brownish skin but that is from noneuropean inter marriage and about 40% of western and eastern europeans have blue or green eyes blue ad green eyes orignated in the mid east about 50,000ybp but they became extremly popular in europeans blonde hair is very popular in europeas it exsits at aleast 30% in almost all of europe blonde hair originated in europe and is a european trait red hair is extremly rare and only found i western europe and parts of volga russia and in some indo europeans in asia but europeansare defintley connected by traits that is why they are know as white people and i dont think ever said med people are not pale they are darker than the rest of europe in hair and eye color but they are much paler than non europeans 





> Don't know why do you talk about Middle Easterns, since it's pretty clear that if the Med component has something in common with them, it's because THEY carry the Med admixture diluted with something else (SW Asian), not the other way around as I already explained above.


yes med is in the mid east at about 20-30% i globe13 austomnal dna but u cant say it is diluted by SW asian because that group originated i SW asia so if anything med dilutes SW asian and since europeans where orignalley one family withone austomnal group and native americans where two that means they are all one family but mid easterns and indians have many groups and many y dna and mtdna haplogroups they are a mix of many differnt families there is no such thing as the mid eastern race they are a results of mixing also it is hard to say where med orignated[/QUOTE]

Concerning the allele sharing and isolation arguments, in short, both are plain false:




> - I posted figures showing that North European is indeed present deep in Asia at non trivial amounts (and according to you even in North Africa LOL), so the component looks widely shared in my book.


yes north euro isin asia but it is mainly in areas know is history for european inter marraige in iraq, turkey, and syria the ancien indo european indo iranien cimmerians conquered most of that area 2,800-2,600ybphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians remains of early indo irnians show they where mainly north euro in austomnal dna and about 70% light eyes ad 60% blonde with some red hair http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...-and-eye-color moder kurds are really cimmerians they have about 20% easter European I2a1b ad 20% indo European R1b M73, R1a1a1b2 and light hair and eyes pop up commonly and even red hair they also still speak a indo iranien language and have spread north euro in the mid east

also indo Iranians also migrated acroos most of the mid east and south asia that is why most in india iran area speak a indo Iranian language they spread north europe in those areas also near caucus they inter married with ethnic groups in russia who in russia who have over 70% north euro in globe13 and greeks inter married with turks and in central asia there is a long history of europeans in central asia the sythiens and other indo iraniens dominated that area from 5,000-2,000ybp then where conquered by east asian and other non european people also we have remains of european mtdna u5 and east asian mtdna c in central asia from over 7,000ybp so u can defintley explain north euro in most of asia easily just like u can explain west asin in almost allof europe

- If there's an isolated component in West Eurasia, that is NOT North European, but Mediterranean. I think it's more or less the 4th time we're dealing with this. Check the Fast distances and the PCA plot, and you'll see that North European has more non-European affinities than the Med admixture. So it didn't remain unaltered as you think, no way.[/QUOTE]

----------


## Knovas

Your ability to twist things really amazes me:

- First, those tons of proofs don't exist. You can keep ignoring the fact La Braña shows quite a lot of Med, and that the individual was actually closer to CEU than any other population.

- The calculators you mention basically hide Med because the Ks are low, but when Med appears it also shows up at very high levels among people from the UK (not only the Basques). So the main difference is their West Asian admixture, the lack of it is what mostly isolates Basques from standard Europeans. It is safe to say that if they wouldn't cluster perfectly, they would do it extremely close. So the argument works.

This random West Eurasian map shows they are not that distant, and we see some Kent samples pulling towards Basques: http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5977/weunov011.png

Sardinians on the other hand are more distant because their North European is much lower in that case, but Basques still have enough to be close.

- We don't know which hair colour was present first in Europe. Your blond hair theory is just that, a theory, not to mention your idea concerning eye colour. Still no data my friend, and I don't see any particular reason to not find dark hair or eyes during the Paleolithic. Maybe you possess information labeled top secret lol.

- The SW Asian component, as I explained three times, is a blend of MED + something else. The program reads the alleles as Med or SW depending on the samples used and the distances employed. On the other hand, Med is the most remote component, so it does not come from the SW Asian one, rather the opposite.

- Search the populations I posted having North European outside of Europe, because some of them are no way geographically close to Turks and the others you mention.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Your ability to twist things really amazes me:
> 
> - First, those tons of proofs don't exist. You can keep ignoring the fact La Braña shows quite a lot of Med, and that the individual was actually closer to CEU than any other population.


i am not ignoring that fact what i am saying is he is extremly related to finnish and sami who have almost no med and their ancestors where isolated from the neloithic age and are the last true Mesolithic europeans in austomnal dna also i am not ignoring that there where already farmers all over spain and france and germany 7,000ybp who where full of med in austomnal dna we have 3 y dna g2a samples in spain from 7,000ybp just like otzie who had 55% globe13 med so that is almost defintley where he got his med all europeans technicalley should be from hunter gathers but we have alot of med so our ancestors inter married with farmers like otzie so did a brana it had to happen at somepoint basque and iberians are a results of l brana and otzie people breding together why dont basque have tons of north european because their ancestors inter married with farmers and la brana still had very little med compared to most europeans even in the test where he had 45% the only europeans in that test with that little atlantcic med are fr northern europeans like norwiegan and british so he alines with far northern europeans in all tests the same thing happened with the some med in the two hunte rgathers in swedan from 5,000ybp they lived right next to a farmer in that area who had 64% mmed u know they are going to inter marry at somepoint so that is another easy explination and the fact that finnish only have 9.8% med while most of europe has over 30% and that their ancestors where pretty much isolted from teh Neolithic age but not completely it is obvious just about all med austomnal dna in europe is from neloithic it is so obvisous to me there is a very small chance any existed in europe before Neolithic and the fact europeans have unque traits and all europeans come from one big family that family was unque and would have had one austomnal group which is north euro i have very good evidence north euro was orignalley the only European austomnal group and from what i have heard all experts agree 




> - The calculators you mention basically hide Med because the Ks are low, but when Med appears it also shows up at very high levels among people from the UK (not only the Basques). So the main difference is their West Asian admixture, the lack of it is what mostly isolates Basques from standard Europeans. It is safe to say that if they wouldn't cluster perfectly, they would do it extremely close. So the argument works.


the fact is that basque have about highest med in europe okay maybe ur right more med would show if the hide the k's even though i dont know what that is then the k's are hiding med that is in basque to either ay basque have tons of med like those early farmers and not like british and the fact the basuqe have less than 20% blonde hair while british have over 35% at least and british have 10-15% red hair while basque only have 1-3% and it came from gaulic inter marraige all that shows basque are a diffenrt people from british their only similarity is their european the R1b thing means nothing basque also get R1b from gauls

med was almost defintley not in pre Neolithic europe orignalley at some point all europeans had north euro or the ancestral type of north euro u keep trying to say med is more popular in Europe tody than tests show and that it was in Mesolithic and Paleolithic europe when there really is not alot of evidence and i think austomnal tests dont tell exact percentages and are complicated it seems u know more about how it works than me but i know those percentages are off because according to them europeans are less than 50% european we all know this is not true




> This random West Eurasian map shows they are not that distant, and we see some Kent samples pulling towards Basques: http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5977/weunov011.png
> 
> Sardinians on the other hand are more distant because their North European is much lower in that case, but Basques still have enough to be close.


i dont really trust that basque are close to british they have very differnt hair color percentages and basque do have alot more med than British the hair color eye color differnce convinces me they are two diffenrt groups because if they where so close they would have sme hair and eye color percentages british are mainly from R1b indo europeans they probably are mainly decended of indo europeans who came from around the are of russia and ukriane and migrted to western europe about 5,000ybp basque are probably mainly decended of farmers like otzie who are a mix of probably mainly la barna people but also alot of incoming farmers from somewhere that is not europe but they also had white skin like europens because we can see otzie skin color in his dna so i dont know they had some european blood to it is so confusing where they came from




> - We don't know which hair colour was present first in Europe. Your blond hair theory is just that, a theory, not to mention your idea concerning eye colour. Still no data my friend, and I don't see any particular reason to not find dark hair or eyes during the Paleolithic. Maybe you possess information labeled top secret lol.


blonde hair is totally european it only exsits in european people at average it is about 30-40% in europe it would hve been higher 6,000-10,000ybp because greeks who are in teh same family as polish and ukraines would have had mainly y dna i2a1b and theyw ould not have 24% west asian and 18% swouthwest asian in globe13 they would also have about 30-40% blonde hair yugoslvaiens who have 40% i1a1b still have 15% west asian and over 10% southwest asian in austomnal dna but most prts have pver 20% blonde hair orignalley they would have had 30-40% scandnaviens and baltic people their main non Indo European, uralic y dna is i1 and they hve over 60% blonde hair blonde hair is very european and was probably been there since paloithic defintley over 20,000ybp there is some blonde hair in urdish people in mid east because tehy partly decend from european indo iranien speaking cimmerians and some other indo iranien speakers like kalsah in asia have blonde hair from what we know only europeans have blonde hair it is totalley a european trit same with red hair and blue eyes which are almost as popular as brown eyes in europe and would have been more popular 10,000ybp than today most likly orignated in teh mid east with the common ancestor family of Europeans, north Africans, west Asians, and iraniens and pakistania about 60,000ybp http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...ogeny-and.html 
because mid easterns and pakistni people have the blue eye genes but they have the ancestral type at a higher percentage than any Europeans an mid eastern groups that have inter married with Europeans like kalash people have they have more of the non ancestral alle like Europeans so it is constant this means mid easterns who actulley have lot of the blue eye genes could not have gotten it from European inter marriage because they have different alle percentages also it has been proven all the genes identified to create pale skin in Europeans exist at almost the same rate in the mid east, north Africa, and pakistan area http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...48572450,d.dmg



> - The SW Asian component, as I explained three times, is a blend of MED + something else. The program reads the alleles as Med or SW depending on the samples used and the distances employed. On the other hand, Med is the most remote component, so it does not come from the SW Asian one, rather the opposite.


i never said med came from SW asian and since med and SW asian are most related to each other and that from what u say SW asian is mix of med and something else then that probably meansmed orignated in southwest asian and north african people in globe13 and other tests have almost no west asian they are almost all southwest asian and med i think this also shows north africans are most relted to arabs, jews, all sw asians and they would have migrated there 30,000-50,000ybp and southwest asia is the place to look for the origin of the med austomnal dna 




> - Search the populations I posted having North European outside of Europe, because some of them are no way geographically close to Turks and the others you mention.


i dont know about that since north euro is so centered in europe and from what i know only exists in areas with known european contact and seems to have been the only group in europe before neloithic makes me think and ll the experts there is no doubt north euro originated in europe and any one who is not European and has it got it from european inter marraige i would like to see these populations u are talking about and where did u post it and not everything is recorded mainly in anceint history so there may have been europen inter marraige in places like 10,000ybp but from what i know north euro that is not in europe only exsist in mid east, north africa, south asia, and central asia and some areas of china because tocherians and other indo iraniens who came there like sythiens from 4,500-1,500ybp there are still some white people that pop up in china

----------


## Knovas

My last post, some things become really boring after many clarifications.

- Of course you ignore the facts, I'll show you again and maybe (I highly doubt it) you realise what I'm saying: La Braña, for the third or fourth time, is NOT extremely related to Finns, but to CEU or Northwestern Europeans, who carry A LOT of Med alleles. Deal with it. La Braña is a valuable piece of evidence that Southern Europe and Northern Europe could have been substantially different during the Mesolithic or even the Paleolithic. My point since the begining was that maybe Med was more restricted, and the finding (the only one from Southern Europe, don't forget) supports the point. If this one shows quite a lot of Med, ¿how do you know others would not be the same or even more? You simply don't know it, but you still keep saying it's obvious when you're not even able to see how obvious is that MtDNA H was responsible of the Med admixture in North Africa. The more one analyses the available data, the clearer it is. 

- Then you continue twisting things basing your argument on pigmentation observations, completely ignoring that, first of all, pigmentation SNPs represent a very small fraction of our full genome heritage. No one talked about who is lighter or darker, the issue were genetic similarities (overall), and I basically said the main difference between the UK and the Basques is the West Asian component. Imagine what would happen in the map I posted if we remove the West Asian element from the Kent samples: they would be placed down very close to the Basques. 

- We lack ancient pigmentation data, so you can speculate what's "most European" all night and day if you feel like. Nothing will change, at the moment there's no particular reason to assume dark traits are not enough old in Europe to be considered native as well. However, it's true that blond hair and blue eyes are found mostly in Europe, the question is when those traits became significant.

- You didn't understand anything regarding Med and SW asian: I said Med people mated in the Near East with someone else creating the SW Asian element. By no means this points that the Med admixture originated there, but only expanded. If Med was better preserved in Southern Europe than elsewhere, that is what really speaks for itself if you want to look for its origins. That simple.

- North Euro is so centered according to you. The numbers say it's quite present in Asia as well, and I don't think all North European there is the result of relatively recent conquests. Don't forget North European is Asian shifted compared to the Med admixture (did you check the Fst distances? ¬¬) so that is showing us some kind of connection, likely Siberian or Amerindian-like as some experiments already showed.

----------


## ElHorsto

> I basically said the main difference between the UK and the Basques is the West Asian component. Imagine what would happen in the map I posted if we remove the West Asian element from the Kent samples: they would be placed down very close to the Basques.


The West Asian admixture in Britain still seems very low to me. The main difference between Britons and Basques is actually the Med/North ratio, which can be seen also in your map where the UK is half-way distant between Finns and Basque - part Northern part Mediterranean. West-asian admixture would cause a shift more to the right towards the Caucasus peoples. Not?
Else I agree.

----------


## Knovas

Well, I don't pretend to be right about everything I say. Maybe my point is more an impression than a fact, and it's quite uncertain how the Kent samples would behave without West Asian. I tend to think they would be placed closer to Basques than the French or even some Iberians do, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyways, it made no sense to mention traits.

----------


## Fire Haired

> - Of course you ignore the facts, I'll show you again and maybe (I highly doubt it) you realise what I'm saying: La Braña, for the third or fourth time, is NOT extremely related to Finns, but to CEU or Northwestern Europeans, who carry A LOT of Med alleles. Deal with it. La Braña is a valuable piece of evidence that Southern Europe and Northern Europe could have been substantially different during the Mesolithic or even the Paleolithic. My point since the begining was that maybe Med was more restricted, and the finding (the only one from Southern Europe, don't forget) supports the point. If this one shows quite a lot of Med, ¿how do you know others would not be the same or even more? You simply don't know it, but you still keep saying it's obvious when you're not even able to see how obvious is that MtDNA H was responsible of the Med admixture in North Africa. The more one analyses the available data, the clearer it is.


yes la brana had 24% med well most of europe today has at leatst 30% ma rana has lower med than almost all europeans he probably got his med from farmer inte rmarraige he is kind off evidence there may have been med in mesloithic and paloithic but not really obvisouly he had way less than modern iberians and less than modern europeans period this means that med in modern europeans comes from those farmers who had 59% and 64% and since la brana lived near these farmers he most likley got the med from inter marraige and at somepoint hunter gather farmer inte rmarraige happened and i dont see teh connection with med and mtdna h lets just say some how la brana did not get his med fro farmers and his people where th H1 and H3 that spread to north africa he only had 24% he would need like 80% to give so much to north africans he had mainly north euro north africans have more than 4 times more med than north euro so i dont think it is possible they got that med from another source and if they had so much european blood they would be white u do see some ones with red hair and other strictley european features and those ones live in the atlas mountains and have the highest amount of H1, H3, V, and U5b1 in north africa but who knows if they got it from that migration 




> - Then you continue twisting things basing your argument on pigmentation observations, completely ignoring that, first of all, pigmentation SNPs represent a very small fraction of our full genome heritage. No one talked about who is lighter or darker, the issue were genetic similarities (overall), and I basically said the main difference between the UK and the Basques is the West Asian component. Imagine what would happen in the map I posted if we remove the West Asian element from the Kent samples: they would be placed down very close to the Basques.


pigmentation is very important it is one of the best ways to identfy differnt ethnic groups and it is true basque have majority brown eyes british have majority light eyes basque have vast majority brown hair british have vast majority light hair basque have at most 1-3% red hair but it is from Gauls and british have 10-15% that is very important it shows they are two differnt people groups sure pigmentation is is small in our genome but there is a reason why europeans are white it is in their dna it is a huge part of genetics the pigmentation of a people group is in their dna if british and basque where so related they wpuld have teh same pigmentation which they dont and it is not just teh west asian compont that makes them differnt it seems u ignore the extremly high amount of meditreaen in basque people
_british glob13 are 58.2% north euro, 34.8% med, and 6% west asian
french globe13 basque are 39% north euro, 59.5% med, 0.2% west asian 
_in my opionon it is the med that is teh biggest differncve for sure the west asian is important but the biggest is for sure the med basque have the highest tied with sardine in all of teh world they have just as much as those farmers otzie and the one in swedan they defintley did not get this from la brana they got the north euro from his people




> - We lack ancient pigmentation data, so you can speculate what's "most European" all night and day if you feel like. Nothing will change, at the moment there's no particular reason to assume dark traits are not enough old in Europe to be considered native as well. However, it's true that blond hair and blue eyes are found mostly in Europe, the question is when those traits became significant.


we so far have pigmentation from peopel who where apart of some of teh earliest indo european cultures bout 6,000 years ago in teh north pontic steppe(central Russia) they said they havd teh same phenotype as modern europeans whatever that means and they had the same pale pigmentation genes as modern europeans and they had by far mainly brown eyes just like the people in that area today and this could mean that p[eople in that area today come from some of the earliest indo europeans so pigmentation is important and that they where definable a European population not a surprise since they lived in europe
we also have pigmentation from adronovo culture in south siberia from 3,800ybp they where also indo europeans they where Indo Iraniens they spread the language in asia they also had the same pale skin genes as modern europeans and had mainly blonde hair and light eyes we also have a ton of pigmentation genes from later Indo Iraniens in russia and central Asia over all about 60% had blonde hair and 70% had light eyes these high amounts are only found in modern scandviens which tells something about indo iranien ancestry maybe they have a northwest russian ancestry since people in that area also have that high amount of light hair and eyes and later ones in tagar russia from 3,400-3,00ybp have been proven to be very unrelated to the brown eyed people who where apart of teh ancestral culture and teh fact the 6,000 year old ones had brown eyes and the 3,800 year old ones had blue eyes i would have guessed they where diffenrt people groups anyways that shows again how pigmentation is important i got all this onfo athttp://dienekes.blogspot.no/2013/06/...-hints-of.html, and http://www.buildinghistory.org/dista...cientdna.shtml i almost forgit otzie teh oceman 5,300 year old meditreaen farmer in alps italy also had the white skin genes modern europeans do so we actulley have alot of pigmentation from anceint remains and there are many new dna projects that claim they will have pigmentation not just for skin color but also hair and eye color from mesloithic europeans like from 7,000ybp ain scandvai and from 100-150 scandviens and central europeans in early bronze age from 4,000-5,000ybp in the next 5 years we will know how pale cro magnon man was 30,000ybp

i think it is common sense that europeans are white skinned and that is apart of who they are and it is the european pigmentation i me u would have to be crazy to think that is not true i have no idea what evidence u have probably none and those few people in far southern europe like greece who have tannish skin that is from mid eastern and north African inter marraige the white skin genes that dominte europeans also exsist in mid easterns and north africans but are not as popular but eurpopeans ancestors at somepoint probably at least 25,000ybp became dominated by those genes also peopel in the caucus mountains like geogians even though we assume they are eastern europeans according to austomnal dna they have almost no european blood they have the highest amount of west asian in all austomnal test west asian is the closet realtives to north european which really represents all europeans this could mean the common ancestors of north european and west asian had white skin i noticed that west asian is centered in caucus mountains, turkey, northern iraq, and western iran these are the areas where amny experts belive european Y DNA I originated and these areas have just about as pale skin as europeans i dont know but i think there is a connection and since in the graph they made for globe13 north european and west asian where tuching each pother almost as if theyw here teh same group they where closer than any other austomnal group this makes me think they split very early and since europe would have been dominated by y dna I from at least 20,000-10,000ybp and west asians where dominated by i brother J and both trace to a common ancestor around the Caucus Iran area about 40,000ybp europeans split from these people not that long ago and that Europeans are from a late migration that came just 30,000ybp from the caucus mountains i dont know that is just a guess i am not even going to argue about the pigmentation thing we europeans are white fact u cant argue that




> - You didn't understand anything regarding Med and SW asian: I said Med people mated in the Near East with someone else creating the SW Asian element. By no means this points that the Med admixture originated there, but only expanded. If Med was better preserved in Southern Europe than elsewhere, that is what really speaks for itself if you want to look for its origins. That simple.


i defntley dont think it started in southern europe because of la brana he had only 24% in globe13 scandviens have 28% he has less than almost all modern europeans but teh incoming invading farmers who conquered europe had 59% and 64% i mean come on it is obvious it was the farmers with Y DNA G2a and who probably came from antolia who brought med the native european hunter gathers where full of north euro and i know u keep arguing well la brana still had some med but he deifntley got that from inter marraige with farmers we have G2a farmer samlples in spain from 7,000ybp they already dominted spain when la brana was around modern europeans are a results of farmer hunter gather inter marriage so at some point it happened and la brana was at the early stage so that is a very good explination for why he had some med but it is still very little and the fact that all europeans come from ne big familt one biog family cant have two austomnal dna groups and there is defintley no way med orignated in southern europe one bug family creates one austomnal group at somepoint all austomnal groups where created by one family whp had 100% of that group and the one group for europeans is north euro and why do u think med is more popular in soutrh europe it is non european inter marraige why would it be in south europe but north europeans who come from the same family only have north european 

- North Euro is so centered according to you. The numbers say it's quite present in Asia as well, and I don't think all North European there is the result of relatively recent conquests. Don't forget North European is Asian shifted compared to the Med admixture (did you check the Fst distances? ¬¬) so that is showing us some kind of connection, likely Siberian or Amerindian-like as some experiments already showed.[/QUOTE]
north euro originated in europe at teh most it reachs 5-10% in asia that is nothing u cant just say it is quite present in asia u need to put numbers words can give many differnt ideas it is not that popular out of europe and u can explian it through european inter marraige ost of it is in history but other parts could have been in pre history but all of it is defintley european inter marraige now u are trying to say north euro is not European but med is i dont understand that it is the other way around and from what i know all experts agree and when u say north euro is asian shifted do u mean west asian and i dont understand what you mean by the siberian connection are u saying there is a mix of siberian in north euro and that austomnal groups are really just mixes of a bunch of groups

----------


## ElHorsto

> yes la brana had 24% med well most of europe today has at leatst 30% ma rana has lower med than almost all europeans


One tiny remark only:

Almost all europeans is a bit exaggerated since there are today many european peoples with less Mediterranean than La Brana (24%):

- Finns: 10%
- Mordovians: 13%
- Balts: ca. 13%
- Slavs (non-Balkan): ca. 17%

It is about half of Europe (ca. 150-200 million people).

----------


## Fire Haired

Finnsih and sami people are really the last mesloithic europeans left their ancestors where not really affected by the neloithic age like western europe was that is why they have almost all north european austomnal dna so in my opinon finns dont count 

i was only looking at western europe in non balken eastern europe med is around 20% so your right this probably means eastern europeans kept more hunter gather ancestry at least the ones north of bulgairia like polish, russian, ukrainean in Y DNA if u take away all Indo European R1b M73, R1b L23 decendants, R1a1a1b anf if u take away all recent mi8d eastern Y DNA in eastern europe like J1,J2, E1b1b V13 eastern europeans would have almost only mesloithic european Y DNA I2a1b i made a thread where i showed all of the non Indo European and non recent mid eastern Y DNA In europe eastern europeans and scandnaviens where teh only ones that had almost only European y DNA I western Europe was mainly G2a http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...136#post411136

so that makes sense to me that eastern Europeans have alot less Mediterranean which came from G2a and other Neloithic people who where more popular in western Europe but still La Brana is good evidence europe orignalley was only north european in austomnal DNA modern iberians have about 50-60% med in globe13 La Brana had only 24% and for somereason the G2a farmers like Otzie had 59% and 64% meditreaen i mean come on where do u think the med in europe comes from it is not from the hunter gathers

It seems u people forget that La Brana lived in teh Neloithic age he was one of teh last hunter gathers in western EUrope most of spain was already conquered by Mediterranean G2a farmers we have 3 Y DNA G2a samples from farmers in southern Spain from 7,000ybp when La Brana was alive La Brana's people where conquered in probably teh next few 100 years he would have already had some farmer blood that is why he had some meditreaen

and from 21 Y DNA samples in trellis southern France (near northern Spain where La Brana came from) from 5,000ybp that is 2,000 years after La Brana 19 had Mediterranean farmer Y DNA G2a only two had Y DNA from La brana people which is I2a1a1 they had the special subclade only found in modern Iberians and sardinens it seems very simple to me the native hunter gathers in Spain, France, and Italy who had Y DNA I2a1a and almost only north European austomnal DNA where conquered by Y DNA G2a farmers who had mainly Mediterranean austomnal DNA from 10,000-6,000ybp it was not a peaceful exchange of idea to me it seem the hunter gathers and farmers saw each other as two differnt people groups and the farmers killed many of the hunter gathers off otzie a framer from alps italy 5,300ybp in globe13 had 59.5% med a farmer in south swedan from 5,000ybp had 64% med to me it seems it doesnt matter where they traveled they kept to themselves and did not inter marry because they knew they where different because they where farmers

and in modern iberians u can see they have mainly meditreaen at about 50-60% which means they probably have mainly farmer ancestry which means they farmers nearlly killed of the hunter gathers also in sardine meditreaen is just as popular in sitaly it is only 40% because tehy have 20-24% west asian and 15-18% southwest asian they inter married with mid easterns in greco roman age but like 4,000ybp they had 50-60% like iberians

the reason why french, germans, british do not have 50-60% med is because after teh farmers conquered teh Y DNA I2a1a people in france the I2a2 people in Germany, Britian, and ireland teh Indo Europeans came from russia and ukriane and killed off alot of the farmers about 5,000-4,000ybp we have some DNA froms ome of teh earliest Indo Europeans in north pontic steppe(central Russia) from 6,000ybp they had pale skin genes like modern europeans not a suprise but the important [art os they had by far mainly brown eyes way more than most modern europeans teh reason why this is important is because peopel in that area today have 80-90% brown eyes most of Europe has 70% or less and these ethnic groups in that area today like Udmurts and Bashkirs are not slavic russian we dont know really where they come from just they have lived there for thousands of years this means they almost defintley come straight from some of the earliest Indo Europeans their austomnal DNA is almost completely north european at about 70-80% in globe13 that means the Idno Europeans where mainly north European in austomnal DNA so they conquered the farmers in Germany, France, Britain, and Ireland that is why north European is more popular in those pales than Iberia

also there is a huge connection with red hair and proto Italo Celtic, proto Germanic Y DNA R1b L11 which takes up 50% of western European Y DNA the only area in Europe red hair exists is in the terriotory of these languages and of R1b L11 except for Udmurts in central Russia the more R1b the more red hair in Europe this link kind of explains it http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/orig...red_hair.shtml so what i am thinking is the Indo European brought red hair to western Europe and more north European austomanl DNA and i think the Udmurts who have the highest amount f red hair in the world at 15-20% and they live in the proto Indo European heartland are good evidence that is where red hair period might come from also teh Indo Iranien Indo Europeans who went to asia rom central Russia about 5,000-4,000ybp we have remains of redheads from them that are over 3,000 years old and many indo iraniens in central asia where known for red hair like sythiens and still today u find red hair in indo iranien speaking Kurds in Iraq, syria, turkey in Indo Iranien Kalash in Pakistan so that is more evidence R1b Indo Europeans that went to western Europe had alot of red hair 

so modern Iberians are a mix between La Brana's people( from before 10,000ybp) and incoming farmers from Otzie's people(10,000-6,000ybp) but they come mainly from Otzie's people, modern Italiens are a mix between La Brana peopel or who ever the hunter gasome of later mid eastern ancestry from greco roman age (3,500-1,500ybp) modern French, Germans, British, and Irish come from a mix between La Brana people(from before 10,000ybp) and invading farmers from otzie people (10,000-6,000ybo) but mainly from Otzie's people then they also have a pretty big sized chunk of ancestry from invading Indo Europeans who came from central Russia(5,000-4,000ybp)

modern Scandinavians are also from a mix of LA Brana people(from before 10,000ybp) and invading farmers from otzie people(10,000-6,000ybp) but they come mainly from native hunter gathers then they also have a big sized chunk of inavading Germanic speakers (4,000ybp) modern non Balken eastern Europeans come from a mix between native hunter gathers(before 10,000ybp) and invading farmers (10,000-6,000ybp) but mainlyf rom teh natuve hunter gathers then they also have some invading Baltoc Slavic Indo European ancestry(6,000-5,000ybp) but it is hard to measure how much Yugoslaviens come from a mix of native hunter gather (before 10,000ybp) invading farmer (6,000-10,000ybp) butmore from hunter gathers then tehy also have some from mid easterns in grecop roman age (3,500-1,500ybp) Greeks and Bulgairens come from a mix of native hunter gathers(before10,000ybp) and ivading farmer(6,000-10,000ybp) but more from hunter gather then tehy have a pretty big and signifcant chunk from mid easterns in greco roman age (3,500-1,500ybp)

so u can simplify almost all europeans ancestry into hunter gather, farmer, indo european, and mid eastern in greco roman age what surprised me is i heard the estimate age for blonde hair is one person who lived 11,000ybp i think that is way to young of a date because non balken eastern Europeans have uslley 40% or more blonde hair but are unrelated to Scandinavians who have over 60% and it has been proven Scandinavians settled Scandinavia over 10,000ybp they are from the first settlers Finnish speak a language that is unrelated to German and came from siberia 8,000ybp so i mean from what we know non balken eastern Europeans are very unrelated to Scandinavians maybe they had common ancestry like 12,000-20,000ybp but both have almost half blonde hair then Germans, french, British, and Irish get their blonde hair which ranges from 30-50% from hunter gathers that had lived there for over 10,000 years and from what we know teh only europpeans over 10,000ybo that may have had no blond ehair are la branas people in spain and italy and again from what we know are very unrelated to eastern Europeans and Scandinavians so dates they give i think for DNA haplogroups are also way to young

----------


## ElHorsto

I don't deny that the majority of Atlantic_med spread in the neolithic, although it is not clear from where. There was already slight admixture before, possibly in the epipaleolithic or mesolithic, as can be seen in 6%-10% in Gotland hunter gatherers and today Saami and Finns. That means that paleolithic north-europeans had more contact to peoples of the Mediterranean component rather than others. It is possible as you say that Mediterranean component came 100% only by neolithic farmers, but I don't think it was 100% but rather 70%-80% because Mediterranean component is very very widespread in Europe. I think this is a hint for a very old age. I think there were already med. like hunter-gatherers in Cyprus, Greece or even Italy or Tunisia at least during epipaleolithic.

----------


## Fire Haired

i dont think tha fact that hunter gathers in gotland had about 10% med in globe13 is good evidence it was in Europe before the nelooithic age because they lived right next to that farmer who had 64% med they defintley could have inter married and aventulley the hunter gathers and farmers did inter marry that is why modern Scandinavians have 20-30% med both LA Brana nd the hunter gathers in swedan lived right next to meditreaen farmers so it is easy to explian why they had some med and same with finnish and sami because they live right next to other scandnaviens who have 20-30% med

and yes the reason med is so spread out in Europe is because it is old it goes all the way back to the begging of the Neolithic age 10,000ybp i think the Neolithic age is far enough back for med to spread in Europe because it spread with farming which we know eventually all of Europe became farmers if not al med in europe comes from neloithic maybe some does but very very little i doubt if any the only thing that will prove that it was already in europe is 15,000 year old remains that have med also something that stunned me sardne people have 70% med in globe13 and very little west asian compared to other italiens and they have about 7% southwest asian like farmer in swedan from 5,000ybp theiur austomnal dna is like identical to Otzie and the farmer from swedan and they have 40% Y DNA I2a1a and 15% G2a both of these Y DNA haplogroups have been found in Neolithic Europe also Sardine did not become Indo European till Rome conquered them and they have almost no modern Italian ancestry they are like the last completely true Neolithic western Europeans they have been isolated in the sardine island that is why they are otzie and the farmer from Sweden's closet modern relative and Finnish and Sami are the last Mesolithic or Paloithic Europeans left

it seems there was a major north european migration into western europe after the neloithic age after 5,000ybpi think it is the Indo Europeans the timming is exactley when teh Indo European began and like i said about 6,000 year old indo europeans had mainly brown eyes like teh people who live there today which coudl mean teh modern people in that area decend froms ome of teh earliest inod euopeans and the modern people in that area have over 70% north european so teh Indo Europeans would have had over 70% north europeans nd that the Indo Europeans that went to asia even though they where a different ethnic group than the ones in russia 6,000ybp they where still by far mainly north european and the ones that went to western europe brought red hair which is not exactly Mediterranean but maybe it was not the indo europeans

----------


## ElHorsto

> i dont think tha fact that hunter gathers in gotland had about 10% med in globe13 is good evidence it was in Europe before the nelooithic age because they lived right next to that farmer who had 64% med they defintley could have inter married and aventulley the hunter gathers and farmers did inter marry that is why modern Scandinavians have 20-30% med both LA Brana nd the hunter gathers in swedan lived right next to meditreaen farmers so it is easy to explian why they had some med and same with finnish and sami because they live right next to other scandnaviens who have 20-30% med


Ok, let's wait for more evidence to come.




> it seems there was a major north european migration into western europe after the neloithic age after 5,000ybpi think it is the Indo Europeans the timming is exactley when teh Indo European began and like i said about 6,000 year old indo europeans had mainly brown eyes like teh people who live there today which coudl mean teh modern people in that area decend froms ome of teh earliest inod euopeans and the modern people in that area have over 70% north european so teh Indo Europeans would have had over 70% north europeans nd that the Indo Europeans that went to asia even though they where a different ethnic group than the ones in russia 6,000ybp they where still by far mainly north european and the ones that went to western europe brought red hair which is not exactly Mediterranean but maybe it was not the indo europeans


Yes, many IE tribes were probably mostly North-european and paleolithic themselves, but they were not all equal. The reported brown-eyed ones are likely not the only IEans. There is also evidence of part-mongoloid IEans in some other places and I'd not be surprised to find also some IEans to be very similar to Balts or Scandos in the steppes or even southern like Italians or Anatolians. We should not rely too much on one single burial site only.

----------


## Fire Haired

i know i said teh 4,000 and 3,800 year old early Indo Iranien Indo Europeans in south siberia had mainly light hair and eyes and some had red hair also they have many indo iraniens like sythiens in asia from 3,000-2,000ybp they ad about 60% light hair and 70% light eyes tehy tested early sythiens from tagar russia who had light eyes to the dar eyed indo europeans in central russia from 6,000ybp and they said teh two groups where very unrelated so the tagar russians reprsent all indo iraniens but the indo iraniens came from teh same source as those 6,000 year old indo europeans this means that the early indo Europeans 6,000ybp who took up almost all of Ukriane and central Russia where many differnt ethnic groups who where united by culture, religion, and Y DNA R1b M73, R1b L23, and R1a1a1b and since the Indo Iraneins liek Sythiens where known for red hair u still see red hair in indo iranien speaking ethnic groups in areas like pakistan, syria, and tukey some of the earliest indo irnien remains had red hair it seems red hair was popular for Indo Iraniens and since R1b L11 and its subclades in Europe are teh only areas red hair exist and they seem connected it would make sense teh IdnoE uropeans that went to western europe also had red hair and since the Uralic non Indo European Udmurt people have 15-20% red hair and they live near where indo Europeans orignated that means there is even a better chance the indo europeans that went to western europe had red hair so that also means tehy where from a relted ethnic group to indo Iranians and who knows what ethnic group went to eastern europe and spread Balto Slavic languages or who went to Yugoslavia and spread Iyllian languages or who went to greece to sprea Greek language or who went to Bulgaria to spread Thracian and Dacien languages the Indo Europeans 6,000ybp where not one ethnic group but i still think that those mysterious non slavic non indo european tribes like bashkirs and udmurts come straight from some of those proto Indo Europeans just they where conqyered by Uralics and Turks in the last 6,000 years

----------


## Judith

Firehaired could you please post the reference for the 26000 old H result from wales?
Thanks very much.

----------


## halfalp

In recent Mathiesen et al paper, one of the iron gates HG sample wich is R1b has an mt haplogroup H13, wich is the same than the georgian Kotias Klde HG J2a with H13c. Both are dated from the same period of 7000 BC. Wathever the origin of H and more precisely her subclades, after the LGM, a lot of gene flow and exchange with populations had to be appened. I'm definitely less and less focus on y-dna haplogroups for trying to prove any admixture correlations.

----------


## Jenny1973

I strongly disagree with the initial poster that all H wintered over in Iberia. 23andme has a map showing H moving directly north into Finland and Scandinavia from the ME. I've completed a full sequence and all my EXACT matches are in those countries. Not even a genetic difference of 1or 2 in Britain

----------

