World Families Forums - Paleolithic Continuity Theory

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 13, 2014, 04:40:17 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Paleolithic Continuity Theory
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Paleolithic Continuity Theory  (Read 6160 times)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2012, 05:36:57 AM »

Ok, so even if Sykes was wrong about R1b does that mean we should rule out everything he wrote in his book "Blood of the Isles?"

I was mainly struck by his view of the different maternal and paternal histories of the Isles and his suggestion that there was Neolithic continuity on the mtDNA.

My memory is not my strong point, so I'd have to re-read Blood of the Isles and make notes to tell you what still stands up. I do know that the idea of different maternal and paternal histories has been common in recent papers by authors who have recognised that R1b is not all that ancient in Europe, but who were composing their papers prior to the publication of ancient DNA papers showing the sharp break in mtDNA between Mesolithic and Neolithic.

Quote
I would say that hundreds of samples is a tiny amount when we are looking at 12,000 years of human history and the millions of people that lived in Europe during this time.

In fact the population of Europe in the Mesolithic was tiny by comparison with today. The Palaeolithic population of Europe has been estimated at 4400–5900 inhabitants before the Ice Age. That would have been reduced during the Ice Age to the status of an endangered species, hanging on in a few refugia. That is why Mesolithic Europeans are so similar to each other. They are the descendants of tiny communities, who could fan out across Europe once more as the glaciers retreated. I don't think we really need to test every single one of the few thousand of them to assure ourselves of that. The samples that we have are telling a consistent story.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 05:47:34 AM by Jean M » Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2012, 07:05:55 AM »

@ avalon

The distributions of ydna produce much more interesting maps. The mtdna looks far more diffuse... whereas for ydna its easier to see migration trails.

That is not to say that women weren't traveling with the men many times. Closer looks at mtdna reveal a lot of discontinuity of female lines in Europe around the neolithic and metal ages. But what makes ydna so interesting is that it has a greater selective pressure on it (separate from polygamy), meaning more lines disappear leaving others, even new ones, to rapidly grow within the population. As a result, groups of travelers can easily be carrying the same hg, and very different from their neighbors.

Thanks prince,

Ok, so we can discern more from Y-DNA because of the way that men behave in history - eg, killing other men over land and resources; perhaps expanding in male only groups and taking local wives; successful men outbreeding others so that their Y-DNA quickly comes to dominate a region, etc?

On mtDNA, if it is quite diffuse in Europe, then does this suggest that there is more continuity than with male lines? Patrilocality - the idea that women move short distances to live with new husbands supports a theory of a more stable female population. Is there archaeological evidence that patrilocality was practised or is this a modern assumption?
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #27 on: October 06, 2012, 07:22:06 AM »

Ok, so we can discern more from Y-DNA because of the way that men behave in history

No. It just so happens that Y-DNA haplogroups that were located mainly in one small corner of Europe in the Late Neolithic spread all over Europe in the Copper Age. By contrast most of the mtDNA haplogroups common in Europe today, and particularly the most common of all (H), had arrived over most of Europe by the end of the Neolithic. So mtDNA shows most clearly the break between Mesolithic and Neolithic, while Y-DNA shows most clearly the break between Neolithic and Copper Age.

Although violence is a fact of life, I wouldn't make too many assumptions about the way in which haplogroups spread. In some cases there is a clear break visible in the archaeology between late Neolithic and incomers in the Copper Age.    

Quote
Is there archaeological evidence that patrilocality was practised or is this a modern assumption?

Patrilocality seems pretty common and probably the norm from the Copper Age onwards. In Bell Beaker it looks as though men were travelling along Beaker networks to find marriage partners among the scattered Beaker settlements.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 07:28:56 AM by Jean M » Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #28 on: October 06, 2012, 07:28:50 AM »

Ok, so even if Sykes was wrong about R1b does that mean we should rule out everything he wrote in his book "Blood of the Isles?"

I was mainly struck by his view of the different maternal and paternal histories of the Isles and his suggestion that there was Neolithic continuity on the mtDNA.

My memory is not my strong point, so I'd have to re-read Blood of the Isles and make notes to tell you what still stands up. I do know that the idea of different maternal and paternal histories has been common in recent papers by authors who have recognised that R1b is not all that ancient in Europe, but who were composing their papers prior to the publication of ancient DNA papers showing the sharp break in mtDNA between Mesolithic and Neolithic.

Quote
I would say that hundreds of samples is a tiny amount when we are looking at 12,000 years of human history and the millions of people that lived in Europe during this time.

In fact the population of Europe in the Mesolithic was tiny by comparison with today. The Palaeolithic population of Europe has been estimated at 4400–5900 inhabitants before the Ice Age. That would have been reduced during the Ice Age to the status of an endangered species, hanging on in a few refugia. That is why Mesolithic Europeans are so similar to each other. They are the descendants of tiny communities, who could fan out across Europe once more as the glaciers retreated. I don't think we really need to test every single one of the few thousand of them to assure ourselves of that. The samples that we have are telling a consistent story.


I must admit I have only recently re-read the conclusion chapter of Blood of the Isles and although he does push for Mesolithic continuity I wonder whether there is a stronger case for mtDNA Neolilithic continuity in Britain and Ireland?

I see what you are saying about the small population during the Mesolithic but presumably the estimate of a few thousand is a static figure. If we consider that the Mesolithic lasted 5,000 years then the total number of people that were born, lived and died during that time would be far greater. If we could find their bones there would be way more than just a few thousand samples.

And of course the Neolithic population would have been bigger still.



Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #29 on: October 06, 2012, 07:31:13 AM »

I see what you are saying about the small population during the Mesolithic but presumably the estimate of a few thousand is a static figure. If we consider that the Mesolithic lasted 5,000 years then the total number of people that were born, lived and died during that time would be far greater. If we could find their bones there would be way more than just a few thousand samples.

True. But if all the men and women who scattered from the Ice Age refugia carried mtDNA U, U2, U5 and U4 and derivatives thereof, they could not have offspring of totally different lineages. : )

New lineages would have to come from outside, as they clearly did. We see a bundle of lineages new to Europe among the Neolithic arrivals. Again, we don't really need to sample thousands of them to establish that.

There was a degree of genetic continuity from Mesolithic to Neolithic on the eastern fringes of Europe.  These foragers adopting farming were few, but it just so happens that their descendants spread over Europe in the Copper Age, bringing back some of the mtDNA U5 that had died out in places in the Neolithic. In the NE mtDNA U5 continued in people who maintained the foraging lifestyle in areas unsuitable for farming. Some U5 seems to have continued through into the Neolithic in a few other places.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 07:45:49 AM by Jean M » Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #30 on: October 06, 2012, 07:44:46 AM »

Ok, so we can discern more from Y-DNA because of the way that men behave in history

No. It just so happens that Y-DNA haplogroups that were located mainly in one small corner of Europe in the Late Neolithic spread all over Europe in the Copper Age. By contrast most of the mtDNA haplogroups common in Europe today, and particularly the most common of all (H), had arrived over most of Europe by the end of the Neolithic. So mtDNA shows most clearly the break between Mesolithic and Neolithic, while Y-DNA shows most clearly the break between Neolithic and Copper Age.

Although violence is a fact of life, I wouldn't make too many assumptions about the way in which haplogroups spread. In some cases there is a clear break visible in the archaeology between late Neolithic and incomers in the Copper Age.    

Quote
Is there archaeological evidence that patrilocality was practised or is this a modern assumption?

Patrilocality seems pretty common and probably the norm from the Copper Age onwards. In Bell Beaker it looks as though men were travelling along Beaker networks to find marriage partners among the scattered Beaker settlements.

So it does appear then that some modern mtDNA in Europe goes back further than the Y-DNA , probably to the Neolithic and we are using ancient DNA to demonstrate this.

As regards to patrilocality, forgive my ignorance but what evidence does an archaeologist use to show that it was practised in prehistoric times?
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #31 on: October 06, 2012, 07:47:51 AM »

As regards to patrilocality, forgive my ignorance but what evidence does an archaeologist use to show that it was practised in prehistoric times?

There are two lines of evidence here: linguistics and isotope studies. The latter has been  used by archaeologists to show patrilocality in Bell Beaker. One linguistic study indicated the IE speakers were patrilocal.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #32 on: October 06, 2012, 07:55:51 AM »

So it does appear then that some modern mtDNA in Europe goes back further than the Y-DNA , probably to the Neolithic and we are using ancient DNA to demonstrate this.

We can show that the mtDNA haplogroups common in Europe today were in Europe by the Bronze Age in roughly modern proportions. That does not guarantee local continuity. That is the essential problem.
Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #33 on: October 06, 2012, 08:00:50 AM »

I see what you are saying about the small population during the Mesolithic but presumably the estimate of a few thousand is a static figure. If we consider that the Mesolithic lasted 5,000 years then the total number of people that were born, lived and died during that time would be far greater. If we could find their bones there would be way more than just a few thousand samples.

True. But if all the men and women who scattered from the Ice Age refugia carried mtDNA U, U2, U5 and U4 and derivatives thereof, they could not have offspring of totally different lineages. : )

New lineages would have to come from outside, as they clearly did. We see a bundle of lineages new to Europe among the Neolithic arrivals. Again, we don't really need to sample thousands of them to establish that.

There was a degree of genetic continuity from Mesolithic to Neolithic on the eastern fringes of Europe.  These foragers adopting farming were few, but it just so happens that their descendants spread over Europe in the Copper Age, bringing back some of the mtDNA U5 that had died out in places in the Neolithic. In the NE mtDNA U5 continued in people who maintained the foraging lifestyle in areas unsuitable for farming. Some U5 seems to have continued through into the Neolithic in a few other places.

Thanks for info. It is within the realms of possibility though that more ancient DNA samples could uncover different haplogroups in the Mesolithic. And not that we will find their bones but from the Ice Age to the birth of Christ, millions of people could have potentially lived in Europe so it would be nice to see more samples just to check that no stray haplogroups ventured in to prehistoric Europe.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 08:04:30 AM by avalon » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #34 on: October 06, 2012, 09:19:54 AM »

@ Avalon

We certainly would like as much ancient DNA as we can get.
Logged
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #35 on: October 06, 2012, 11:58:52 AM »

The reason I asked is because I've been having a very heated debate with someone whom seems to think that this theory has support from quite a few academics!

Who are these academics? I'm mystified.

I've no idea i did ask but he completely dodged the question!
Logged

LDJ
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #36 on: October 06, 2012, 12:17:18 PM »

@ Bren

I'm not surprised! :)
Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #37 on: October 06, 2012, 01:28:47 PM »

Quote from: avalon
Ok, so we can discern more from Y-DNA because of the way that men behave in history - eg, killing other men over land and resources; perhaps expanding in male only groups and taking local wives; successful men outbreeding others so that their Y-DNA quickly comes to dominate a region, etc?

Avalon, I have no idea how you read that because it was completely counter to what I was saying : )

I said that there is greater selection pressure on ydna APART of polygamy. Men killing other men, dominating the land/resources, etc., results in polygamy which is not what I used to explain the quicker expansions and and contractions of ydna hg as compared to mtdna hg.

There will be greater selective pressure on the ydna even when the effective (reproducing) male population is equal to women's, as a recent study has shown. And like I said, this selective pressure help to create stronger ydna distinctions between different male populations, which results is more obvious trails of migration. So even if men and women migrate, and also mate in equal numbers, the ydna will still leave a more obvious trail due to the greater selection that occures on the ydna apart from the size of the matting pool.

One hypothetical example would be that m269 made men more likely to "produce" boys instead of girls.

I actually think a lot of women did migrate and replace the populations of other women in pre history. But because women/mtdna don't have the same background selection as men/ydna, the women were already more similar to their neighbors so the replacement wasn't as obvious.

BTW, we know women migrated because of the mtdna discontinuity in the neolithic and metal ages of Europe, but also because of the massive autosomal discontinuity in Europe which surely didn't just happen by men.
Logged
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #38 on: October 06, 2012, 05:05:48 PM »

WE are the descendants of Paleolithic people or else we are all ghosts writing on this forum. The problem that some people have is the place of origin.

Very neatly put. Yes that is the case. 



If R1b originated in Europe, then perhaps R1b descended from the Paleolithic people that were here at that time.

Is it a "given" that R1b types are not western European in origin?
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #39 on: October 06, 2012, 05:08:58 PM »

WE are the descendants of Paleolithic people or else we are all ghosts writing on this forum. The problem that some people have is the place of origin.

Very neatly put. Yes that is the case. 



If R1b originated in Europe, then perhaps R1b descended from the Paleolithic people that were here at that time.

Is it a "given" that R1b types are not western European in origin?
Yes, basically, because all of the earliest forms of R1b are found in Western Eurasia and Eastern Europe.
Logged
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #40 on: October 06, 2012, 05:13:45 PM »

but what if such early people moved to Eurasia from Europe, and they now do not have our downstream markers. But they still show an early genetic connection to Western European people?

I believe Maliclavelli who posts on this forum could add more to that.

When was the Eurasian/European split?..and which way did people migrate at that time..east?..or west??
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 05:19:57 PM by OConnor » Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #41 on: October 06, 2012, 05:40:18 PM »

@ OConnor

Europe and Asia are one continent. It may seem important to people now which side of the modern boundary R1b cropped up, but it didn't matter two hoots to our ancestors way back then. I wouldn't fret over it. Your ancestors way back in the Copper Age didn't. That's for sure. They went where there was good hunting, and later good pasture.

As for where the SNP M343 first occurred - we don't know. I surmise that it could have happened among R1 men who travelled seasonally across the Caspian from winter quarters in the south (in or near what is now Iran) to summer quarters in the north on the steppe near the Urals. Iran has basal types of R1b and R1a which suggests that the split took place there or close. I surmise that some R1a men decided to settle on the steppe, while some R1b men decided to stay in the south and so got involved earlier in farming. It certainly looks as though one R1b lineage (V88) was among people who took farming to North Africa from the Levant. I surmise that another R1b lineage helped to bring dairy farming into what is now Europe and so met up once again with its distant cousin R1a in SE Europe. But this is conjecture.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 05:50:10 PM by Jean M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 06, 2012, 06:31:40 PM »

....
When was the Eurasian/European split?..and which way did people migrate at that time..east?..or west??
I'm not sure that much of the ancient genetics stuff is a "given," but as far as reading about some of the prehistoric migrations/expansions of people from east to west you might try googling some of these topics:

Neolithic Age
Impressed Wares / Cardial Wares Pottery Culture
Linear Pottery Culture / LBK
Bronze Age
Chalcolithic Age
Proto-Indo-Europeans
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 06:32:51 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #43 on: October 06, 2012, 10:44:03 PM »

there was some  neolthic stuff, axes i think found on top of mesolithic stuff found in the north sea, doggerland, on the same site. it was thought to be a sacred meso. religous site adopted by later people after it flooded. there types of fishing traps of the meso type that are used still to day. This info is acouple of years old. I think it is a case of prolonged interaction rather than genetic continuity. Pesonally I think meso fishing comunities hung on quite a while in the N sea area because they had better knowledge of the area and its changes.
Logged
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #44 on: October 07, 2012, 09:39:14 AM »

....
When was the Eurasian/European split?..and which way did people migrate at that time..east?..or west??
I'm not sure that much of the ancient genetics stuff is a "given," but as far as reading about some of the prehistoric migrations/expansions of people from east to west you might try googling some of these topics:

Neolithic Age
Impressed Wares / Cardial Wares Pottery Culture
Linear Pottery Culture / LBK
Bronze Age
Chalcolithic Age
Proto-Indo-Europeans

I am not making a great stance on the idea..it's just a question that came to my mind. I was thinking more Paleolithic and not later Neolithic and such.

Is it at all possible the list you provided have been a back-flow of people who had moved from west to east earlier?



Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #45 on: October 07, 2012, 01:29:08 PM »

Quote from: avalon
Ok, so we can discern more from Y-DNA because of the way that men behave in history - eg, killing other men over land and resources; perhaps expanding in male only groups and taking local wives; successful men outbreeding others so that their Y-DNA quickly comes to dominate a region, etc?

Avalon, I have no idea how you read that because it was completely counter to what I was saying : )

I said that there is greater selection pressure on ydna APART of polygamy. Men killing other men, dominating the land/resources, etc., results in polygamy which is not what I used to explain the quicker expansions and and contractions of ydna hg as compared to mtdna hg.

There will be greater selective pressure on the ydna even when the effective (reproducing) male population is equal to women's, as a recent study has shown. And like I said, this selective pressure help to create stronger ydna distinctions between different male populations, which results is more obvious trails of migration. So even if men and women migrate, and also mate in equal numbers, the ydna will still leave a more obvious trail due to the greater selection that occures on the ydna apart from the size of the matting pool.

One hypothetical example would be that m269 made men more likely to "produce" boys instead of girls.

I actually think a lot of women did migrate and replace the populations of other women in pre history. But because women/mtdna don't have the same background selection as men/ydna, the women were already more similar to their neighbors so the replacement wasn't as obvious.

BTW, we know women migrated because of the mtdna discontinuity in the neolithic and metal ages of Europe, but also because of the massive autosomal discontinuity in Europe which surely didn't just happen by men.

It looks like I misunderstood your earlier post - I am fairly new to this!

So are we saying that a mutation within a y-dna haplogroup made men more likely to produce male offspring? What other selective pressures are there on Y-DNA?
Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #46 on: November 19, 2012, 11:11:52 PM »

By contrast most of the mtDNA haplogroups common in Europe today, and particularly the most common of all (H), had arrived over most of Europe by the end of the Neolithic. So mtDNA shows most clearly the break between Mesolithic and Neolithic, while Y-DNA shows most clearly the break between Neolithic and Copper Age.
 

You should know that while you don’t want to include the results from Linatzeta, Deba, Guipuzcoa because according to you they haven’t been tested for contamination (which the results show clearly that there isn’t any contamination issue, unlike other remains tested in that study), well, those remains came from a site found in 2001, so I’m pretty sure, that all precautions were taken to avoid contamination, and the fact that the coding region results point clearly to H, is more than enough to show that contamination isn’t an issue here. Nonetheless, here is yet another study that proves once more that the most common of all mtDNA Haplogroups in Europe (H), had arrived over most of Europe before the Neolithic. Let’s wait and see if you include this one on your Ancient DNA Database.

Page-100 of the study:

Mesolithic Uznyi Oleni Ostrov/Popovo compared to modern-day Eurasian populations

Mesolithic Uznyi Oleni Ostrov/Popovo clearly stood out of the three main groups of populations on the haplogroup frequency PCA graph (Figure 2), falling between the ‘European’ and ‘east Siberian’ clusters due to its mixed composition of haplogroups defined as ‘European’ (73%): U4 (37%), U2e (18%), U5a (9%), H (9%) and ‘Siberian’ C (27%).


Table-1 of the study:



http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Sarkissianetal2011_Table-1.jpg

Table-S2 of the study:



http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Table-S2.jpg

So there it is fellows, UZOO-77 dating to 7500 ybp, with an HVR-I of 16311C, 16362C is yet another confirmed proof of mt-DNA H in Mesolithic Europeans.

« Last Edit: November 19, 2012, 11:13:18 PM by JeanL » Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #47 on: November 20, 2012, 12:49:36 AM »

Not only. I think having demonstrated from many years that also R0, HV (HV1a’b’c, HV4 etc) are European, and also FTDNA recognised this in its last release.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Black Taylor
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #48 on: November 20, 2012, 08:50:18 PM »

Coupled with the reports of mtDNA haplogroup H in mesolithic Iberians are early indications of higher Mediterranean autosomal DNA components in the La Brana mesolithic Iberian individuals, at more than double what was observed in the Swedish hunter-gatherers that were sequenced this year.  See:

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2012/06/mesolithic-iberians-la-brana-arintero.html
and note 45% atlantic-mediterranean value versus:

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2012/04/first-look-at-dna-of-neolithic.html
Where the hunters average <20% atlantic-mediterranean

While the Swedish hunters were "more northern" than modern north Europeans, the La Brana individuals plot (on some PC dimensions) more like modern British, who are presumably an admixed hunter-farmer population.

Evidence is mounting for pre-neolithic boat travel and trade across the mediterranean, spanning an enormous time period and significant distances:

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-anthropologist-mediterranean-islands-inhabited-earlier.html

Even simply shore-hopping on canoes, the natural consequence of this pre-neolithic movement would be gene flow across the basin, largely following trade and resource exploitation networks.  We all envision a massive population replacement across the mesolithic/neolithic divide because of contrasting population densities.  However who was replacing who?

If the mediterranean acted more like a gene exchange highway throughout prehistory, then at the mesolithic/neolithic transition in places like Iberia, Italy, Greece, northern Africa etc you would see an already mixed paleo-european with eastern mediterranean input mesolithic population being replaced and/or absorbed by another mixed population  of predominantly eastern mediterranean origin with some paleolithic european input.

The neolithic because of the higher population densities involved and incentives to migrate en masse, mostly from east to west, would accelerate this process rather than start it for the first time, and fix the final mixture with a much more eastern flavour.  I feel under this model of "long-term trickle then neolithic flood", you would actually expect things like mtDNA H (and dare we say some R1b) to be showing up in individuals all around the mediterranean from the mesolithic period.  The recent autosomal and mtDNA findings seem to support this model.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-L48
mtDNA: H
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #49 on: November 21, 2012, 09:17:05 AM »


Evidence is mounting for pre-neolithic boat travel and trade across the mediterranean, spanning an enormous time period and significant distances:

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-anthropologist-mediterranean-islands-inhabited-earlier.html

Even simply shore-hopping on canoes, the natural consequence of this pre-neolithic movement would be gene flow across the basin, largely following trade and resource exploitation networks.  We all envision a massive population replacement across the mesolithic/neolithic divide because of contrasting population densities.  However who was replacing who?

If the mediterranean acted more like a gene exchange highway throughout prehistory, then at the mesolithic/neolithic transition in places like Iberia, Italy, Greece, northern Africa etc you would see an already mixed paleo-european with eastern mediterranean input mesolithic population being replaced and/or absorbed by another mixed population  of predominantly eastern mediterranean origin with some paleolithic european input.



I agree with your analysis that the Meditteranean acted like a gene exchange highway.
This could be reflected in Cardial Ware Culture migration path and later Maritine Bell Beaker and Phoenician trading routes..

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534764248816/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534764248594/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763837988/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763179592/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763837986/


It is interesting to see the position of H in the Der Sarkessian paper, clustered with Atlantic Europe, The Isles and Iberia.

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/u7-in-rostov-scythians.html
Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.131 seconds with 18 queries.