New map of mtDNA haplogroup L

Very interesting possibilities...
I've also read that most of Ligurians allied with Carthaginians against the Romans


True ...a very bad decision as things turned out. However, mtDNA can only be passed by women. I doubt that the Carthaginians would have made very many of their own women trudge over the Alps on campaign. Even most of the troops were either Spaniards or men from Gaul.

Since you don't seem to have been turned off from this site, I just want to clear up what are, in my opinion, some incorrect assertions that have been made on this thread.

Neither Doug McDonald nor anyone else can tell you when your particular branch of mtDNA "L" arrived in Italy or Europe as the case may be. If you were very lucky indeed, and some geneticist found it in some archaeologically datable area, and then some much more detailed analysis of it was done, you might get a reasonably accurate idea.

Absent that kind of data, one way to get something of a handle on the more reasonable speculations is to look at the date assigned to your particular mutation. Now, something may be published tomorrow about mutation rates for mtDNA which would change all this, but until then, I think the best source for dating for mtDNA is Doron Behar's A Copernican Reassessment of the Human Mitochondrial DNA Tree from its Root.

It can be found here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3322232/

The ages by mtdna mutation can be found in the Supplement. On page 30 of the supplement I found your particular mtDNA clade. It is dated to 11,358 years ago with a Standard Deviation of 3274.

That puts it right around the pre-Neolithic or Neolithic. Many mtDNA lineages expanded around that time, and these expansions are probably related to the agricultural revolution.

Given that the agricultural revolution didn't reach East Africa until quite a bit later, I think it's probably a good guess that the mutation did not occur there, but rather might have occurred in the Near East or North Africa at that time.

Now, there are many possibilities for when the various "L" lineages might have arrived:

During the latter part of the Mesolithic.

During the Neolithic with the Cardial peoples who first brought agriculture to the Ligurian coast.

Later Neolithic peoples from LBK derived groups.

Bronze Age people by way of Greek colonists, although the most that I can find for Genova is a small trading post. Of course, they had a much bigger presence, an actual colony, in Massalia, and as you know the border there in western Liguria/Provence has always been very fluid, and people could have migrated down the coast.

Then there is the possibility that a slave, or wife, for that matter, from the Near East or North Africa brought it to Liguria during the Roman era. I think this is slightly less likely because as you also know this was hardly a place that was suitable for the latifundia system. A house slave might have brought it, of course, and have had a number of very healthy and lucky descendents.

The early Middle Ages, when Saracens from Spain settled the area from Provence all the way into the Alps of Switzerland, is also a possibility, especially given that they were not just raiders...there are actually some attested settlements.

In the later Middle Ages Genova played an extremely important role in the Crusades, as you know. Eastern rite Christian women might have been brought home as wives, Muslim women in bondage etc. Also, the Knights of St. John, as well as battling the infidel in the Mediterranean, engaged in a very profitable slave trade of their own, and a slave woman from North Africa might have wound up in Liguria.

So, you're spoilt for choice here...take your pick.

Just a word about all the studies thrown against the wall on this thread to see what would stick. Not all studies are equal. Just as an example, two studies on Italian DNA were bandied about, Brisighelli et al and Boattini et al. There is no comparison in terms of quality in my opinion. The university group that produced the Brisighelli paper is notoriously sloppy in its work, as was proved once again when they had to revise the paper long after publication (you might well ask what peer review is supposed to be about) and aeons behind the times in terms of their methodology. (the level of resolution is shamefully low, and they are actually, in an era where others are using 500,000 snps to do autosomal analysis, they are using a few AIMS!) Boattini et al is a level above, in terms of resolution, but also in terms of their sampling technique. Every researcher of Italian DNA should use it, in my opinion. So, each study has to be evaluated for its reliability, and not for whether it supports or doesn't support any pet theory.
 
So, you're spoilt for choice here...take your pick.

Just a word about all the studies thrown against the wall on this thread to see what would stick. Not all studies are equal. Just as an example, two studies on Italian DNA were bandied about, Brisighelli et al and Boattini et al. There is no comparison in terms of quality in my opinion. The university group that produced the Brisighelli paper is notoriously sloppy in its work, as was proved once again when they had to revise the paper long after publication (you might well ask what peer review is supposed to be about) and aeons behind the times in terms of their methodology. (the level of resolution is shamefully low, and they are actually, in an era where others are using 500,000 snps to do autosomal analysis, they are using a few AIMS!) Boattini et al is a level above, in terms of resolution, but also in terms of their sampling technique. Every researcher of Italian DNA should use it, in my opinion. So, each study has to be evaluated for its reliability, and not for whether it supports or doesn't support any pet theory.

I agree with you on the quality of papers, and I find it astonishing that the Spanish and Italian testers from the Uni of Oxford, England has again withdrawn their Brisighelli paper after PLOS people failed to make all the changes.
But the Boattini paper lacks some elements, for one, the lack of ydna testing from Aviano, Friuli when mtdna was tested there and the lack of any testing from the Trentino and alto-adige areas.......we have to rely on Cioa 2013 two test papers for any information on these areas ...............and those papers showed some "exotic" markers which IMO, Boattini would have failed to "fit" in their paper.

As for Fla88, BGA and 23andme has noted her 100% European, so her mothers, mothers, mothers etc etc would have been somewhere in Europe from over 2000 years ago. And yes her line could have been a Greek descent from the greek town of Marseilles or others in the area...........we will never know.
 
Thank you all for your comments.. there are all plausible options and it's not easy to pick one :)
Is there any test that can help you discover more about mtDNA?
 
Boattini's study found ZERO mtDNA L anywhere in Italy.
 
Last edited:
Wrong map under many aspects. Some correction for Italy.

Italy, Campania
0.32% L
Italy, Apula-Calabria 0% L
Italy, Piedmont 0% L

Source Ottoni et al. 2011
 
L3 mtDna accompanied E yDna. y Dna Haplogroups C, I, G and E were in Europe before Ria and R1b. When Rib conquered France and Spain these indigenous Europeans I, G, and E either escaped to the mountainous areas or towards the Mediterranean Coasts. Your ancestors were from mountains so you could be from those ancient mountain refugees.
 
what's wrong with L mtDNA anyway?

There's nothing wrong with haplogroup L if you are of African decent.

However, for YOU, haplogroup L is a mismatch in several ways such as...

1 It does not match your autosomal DNA!
2 It does not match your physical appearance!
3 It does not match your nationality!
4 It does not match your genealogy!
5 It does not match your race!

It bothers me to read about a good looking White woman with 99 to 100% European autosomal DNA being labeled with an alien mt haplogroup to which there is NO explanation for. My opinion is that there should be a statute of limitations on alien mt DNA that does not match at all, (like 0%) the autosomal DNA of that person.

It cases like this that reinforce my opposition to interracial unions. more specifically, the assimilation of the half non-White children who are of the same gender of the non-White parent.

Sorry for the rant.
 
There's nothing wrong with haplogroup L if you are of African decent.

However, for YOU, haplogroup L is a mismatch in several ways such as...

1 It does not match your autosomal DNA!
2 It does not match your physical appearance!
3 It does not match your nationality!
4 It does not match your genealogy!
5 It does not match your race!

It bothers me to read about a good looking White woman with 99 to 100% European autosomal DNA being labeled with an alien mt haplogroup to which there is NO explanation for. My opinion is that there should be a statute of limitations on alien mt DNA that does not match at all, (like 0%) the autosomal DNA of that person.

It cases like this that reinforce my opposition to interracial unions. more specifically, the assimilation of the half non-White children who are of the same gender of the non-White parent.

Sorry for the rant.

Sorry, but there's no excuse for racist ideology or racist rants.
 
One study cannot stand as the last word on the distribution of any haplotype anywhere. Has anyone ever heard of the novel concept of "averaging"?
 
I'm the only one then :/

We have family links between ourselves ( if you are one of these ) via marriages between the Cemin-Corso and Pelzer families...............period close to 1700
 
L3 mtDna accompanied E yDna. y Dna Haplogroups C, I, G and E were in Europe before Ria and R1b. When Rib conquered France and Spain these indigenous Europeans I, G, and E either escaped to the mountainous areas or towards the Mediterranean Coasts. Your ancestors were from mountains so you could be from those ancient mountain refugees.

Y haplogroups I, G and 1b1b (NOT E1b1a) are European, But Y haplogroup C??? Y haplogoup C is native to Asia and the Americas, not Europe. Your suggesting that haplogroup more native to Europe than R1b????

Were did R1b originate from according to you, outer space????? My BS detector is going off here.
 
Y haplogroups I, G and 1b1b (NOT E1b1a) are European, But Y haplogroup C??? Y haplogoup C is native to Asia and the Americas, not Europe. Your suggesting that haplogroup more native to Europe than R1b????

Were did R1b originate from according to you, outer space????? My BS detector is going off here.

as per Karafet june 2014 paper, basal R-M207 is south-east asia along with its parent P

If we need to note what R is european then note a subclade and not just R1a or R1b
 
The Tuscans samples used for this map come from 3 single villages from a study about Etruscan DNA. Boattini et al. found 0 mtdna L in Tuscany.

Sarno et al. found 0.64% of L, 0% for mainland South Italy (Calabria, Apulia and Lucania) and 1.1% for Sicily.

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc...ri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0096074.s005

The same study found 1.53% of E-M81 for South Italy+Sicily, 0.91% for South Italy and 1.27% for Sicily.

The only E-M81 found in South Italy out of 110 samples comes from Cosenza, Calabria.
 
Indeed even the deep south Italy have very few genetic links with north Africa and the only L founded in Sicily is from Trapani and it is nonexistent in the rest of the island in this study.
 
However JoeyC notice the percentage of mtDNA U6 typical for berber women but pratically just two cases in 313 tested southern italians.
 
Not all U6 is of North African origin though. Most of it is of Iberian mesolitich origin. A remnant of La Brana like people who dominated Southern Europe before the Neolitich revolution.

BTW no M1 has been found in mainland South Italy either. There are only two U6 out of 115 samples, one from Lecce and one from Cosenza.
 
And again M1 is existent in Trapani (and one case in Agrigento) and not founded in the center and the east of the island.
 

This thread has been viewed 222289 times.

Back
Top