tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post8801257620969852725..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Ancient mtDNA from Cardial culture (early Neolithic Iberia)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45456614680913477472012-01-14T20:03:02.403+02:002012-01-14T20:03:02.403+02:00Haplogroup X has been studied from the angle of th...Haplogroup X has been studied from the angle of the Ainu marriage and ascendency structure and linked to the Nilotic Horites.<br /><br />http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2012/01/kindling-of-ancient-memory.htmlAlice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-66102502350882042232011-12-02T13:42:13.734+02:002011-12-02T13:42:13.734+02:00Anyway, in this specific study, it doesn't sup...Anyway, in this specific study, it doesn't support very well the theory of all the mtDNA hgs H coming from west Asia with neolithic populations, IMO. <br /><br />Here we have a mtDNA H20a (*) haplotype which is not found in Europe (<i>I've read that less than 1% of the Iberian population is H20 but I couldn't find any source to confirm it and anyway it wouldn't change much</i>) but only in the Caucasus (mostly) and in Asia minor and the near East area (Especially in Georgians and the west Caucasus having also the highest diversity there) it goes well with G2a I guess and with the neolithic process as well) while in other north Spanish/Provençal Cardial-derived aDNA, it was dominated by Y-DNA G2a (but there were also some likely European y-DNA hgs) and it also had several mtDNA H3, an haplogroup which is more frequent in south-western Europe and is absent in west Asia and Caucasus (and almost absent of south-eastern Europe). <br />It doesn't seem quite right to associate originally H3 with this specific neolithic (mostly, so far) G2a population in which we found so clear (but rare) tracks of modern haplogroups' subclade so specific to west Asia/Caucasus (like H20a).<br /><br />It seems unlikely that these H20a and H3 were originally from the same set of population at this time, haplogroups with respective directions of expansion (obviously not much left tracks by H20a in Europe) seemingly going in the opposite direction. <br /><br /><br />(*) <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-keGzWiR3ivs/TtKpmfhw7XI/AAAAAAAAArY/FxIeW3aZd08/s1600/CatalanNeolithicmtDNA.png" rel="nofollow">http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-keGzWiR3ivs/TtKpmfhw7XI/AAAAAAAAArY/FxIeW3aZd08/s1600/CatalanNeolithicmtDNA.png </a> <br /><br />and <br /><br /><a href="http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Haplogroup_H_%28mtDNA%29" rel="nofollow">http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Haplogroup_H_%28mtDNA%29</a> <br /><br /><br />PS : More generally, if H1 was neolithic in west Eurasia, i'm not sure we would find it in the Guanches' aDNA (the autochthonous population of the Canaries islands) or even probably this much in E1b Tuaregs from the depth of Sahel, IMHO.Waggghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07290153600827942469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45755204569850984082011-11-30T01:24:28.813+02:002011-11-30T01:24:28.813+02:00"Lots of H in 10,000 year old nearby Morocco...."Lots of H in 10,000 year old nearby Morocco."<br /><br />Annie Mouse is quite on point here. There is H and V in pre-Neolithic North Africa, probably Near Eastern sourced, and if it is there, attributing H to Epipaleolithic repopulation of Europe along a Southern European coastal route following the LGM from the Near East is a plausible possibility. <br /><br />IIRC, the North African remains are in association with fish remains, a defining characteristic of Southern European coastal Epipaleolithic sites as well, again suggesting that they are part of the same population movement.<br /><br />Indeed, I think we slight ourselves by trying to reduce food production complexes into merely hunter-gatherer and food producer.<br /><br />A big game hunter like Neanderthals, is not an omnivore who gathers berries-nuts-hunts small game-hunts big game-eats insects-collects shellfish-goes fishing (like modern human hunter gathers). And, hunting and gathering rooted in predominantly fishing from rich fisheries produces a more sedentary and materially affluent society than a nomadic terrestrial hunting and gathering society. Fishing from rich fisheries is really intermediate between hunting and gathering and farming/herding. Likewise, horticulture and herding are very different lifestyles and herding itself comes in variants (nomadic, sedentary, transhumance) that have different cultural implications.<br /><br />It isn't implausible even, to think that reliable sedentary fishing societies (along with better weather) may have been important in making farming into a viable means of survival in the transition period during which the domestication of crops process was underway.<br /><br />This slight variant on a source for H exclusively from early Neolithic populations really isn't deeply at odds with any data anyway. Pre-LGM Upper Paleolithic remains, and interior European Upper Paleolithic remains may be all U4 and U5 (perhaps with trace frequencies of other hgs in the contact period where some bride swapping may have taken place).<br /><br />Of course, if the Near East was rich in mtDNA H during the Epipaleolithic from ca. 13000 BCE to 6000 BCE, it probably remained similar in genetic makeup when it started becoming a source of emigrating farmers and herders instead of fishermen, so there is probably no way to know, from the genetics alone, is mtDNA H in a population has a Near Eastern Epipaleolithic source or a Near Eastern early Neolithic source. Perhaps population U4/U5 replacement/dilution in Europe was first driven by a better fishhook, not wheat or sheep.<br /><br />Conversely, even if pre-farming and herding populations of Europe were rich in mtDNA haplogroup H in the late Epipaleolithic, that doesn't mean that farmers couldn't have replaced the pre-existing population, because the genetics alone wouldn't tell us.<br /><br />While Dienkes is right in not trusting unpublished papers, sooner or later we will have published research on ancient DNA which we know from conference papers is out there to be tested, and we will know.Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-74766707135729837132011-11-29T21:57:18.481+02:002011-11-29T21:57:18.481+02:00Let me rephrase: it MUST be H, unless it is homopl...<i>Let me rephrase: it MUST be H, unless it is homoplasy, a very remote possibility, an extremely conjectural hypothesis you launch to reject the natural conclusion. </i><br /><br />Lol, a remote possibility that has happened 3 times in the R0 subtree alone. Extremely conjectural indeed.<br /><br />You don't know what homoplasy is. Go read up on it before posting here again.<br /><br /><i>Alone it occurs only in two branches of H. In the previous build it was just one (or I and the search feature committed an error). <br /></i><br /><br />"Alone" is meaningless. The point is that the site in question has mutated independently multiple times all over the tree. Since the CRS in HVSI does not indicate anyo particular haplogroup, and the mutation in question has occurred multipled times independently, its occurrence does not prove any particular haplogroup.<br /><br />In fact, you've proven my case by noting that the mutation has popped up in a new branch of the tree between two builds. <br /><br /><i>it is not the case for the Portuguese sequences at all, where the lineage is defined by not one but three markers at sites 16189, 16356 and 16362. </i><br /><br />There are no Portuguese sequences, there's a 2005 unpublished Iberian conference paper that isn't cited by anyone.<br /><br /><i>Whatever the case, we are stuck in this difference of opinions, and we won't be able to advance until proper testing, including coding region markers, becomes more common.</i><br /><br />This isn't a difference of opinions, you are arguing for pre-Neolithic H in Europe on the basis of flawed data and logic.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83985220802730370752011-11-29T19:48:05.881+02:002011-11-29T19:48:05.881+02:00If it "must be" H, then it "might n...<i>If it "must be" H, then it "might not be" homoplasy</i>. <br /><br />Let me rephrase: it MUST be H, unless it is homoplasy, a very remote possibility, an extremely conjectural hypothesis you launch to reject the natural conclusion. <br /><br />Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence, Dienekes and there is just NO EVIDENCE that we are before not one but two cases of homoplasy. <br /><br />Of course, in the end each one will choose to favor this or the other possibility. That is our option until definite evidence arrives but I am not saying nonsense: just pointing out to very striking data. <br /><br />"Actually, it _is_ homoplasy, since it occurs in multiple spots on the tree. Even yourself can't decide on which branch to put it on _because of homoplasy_".<br /><br />Alone it occurs only in two branches of H. In the previous build it was just one (or I and the search feature committed an error). <br /><br />But even if that would be homoplasy, it is not the case for the Portuguese sequences at all, where the lineage is defined by not one but three markers at sites 16189, 16356 and 16362. This can't be homeoplasy. <br /><br />Whatever the case, we are stuck in this difference of opinions, and we won't be able to advance until proper testing, including coding region markers, becomes more common.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-79663871669176481052011-11-29T19:23:38.008+02:002011-11-29T19:23:38.008+02:00U5 is old, yes, and I think that K is also. I thin...U5 is old, yes, and I think that K is also. I think U5 and K wandered in the same hunting bands.Samequeenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15344182280277856345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-41145565604063908422011-11-29T19:18:29.625+02:002011-11-29T19:18:29.625+02:00Maju wrote:
"But we have at least two distin...Maju wrote:<br /><br />"But we have at least two distinct HVS-I sequences from (Epi-)Paleolithic peoples widely separated in space and time that must be H"<br /><br />and then he wrote:<br /><br />"It might be homoplasy of course but that is just a possibility, a quite remote one in my opinion, and not a fact in any case."<br /><br />If it "must be" H, then it "might not be" homoplasy. <br /><br />Actually, it _is_ homoplasy, since it occurs in multiple spots on the tree. Even yourself can't decide on which branch to put it on _because of homoplasy_. And since you don't know which branch to put it on, and there is no magic tendency of H mtDNA to mutate in that spot, your overconfidence that it is H is unwarranted.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28831853880453248042011-11-29T17:48:36.838+02:002011-11-29T17:48:36.838+02:00So far it looks like any presence of mtDNA haplogr...So far it looks like any presence of mtDNA haplogroup H in pre-Neolithic Europe is rather weak.jackson_montgomery_devonihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17553257488930856466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-79493650015333394242011-11-29T15:39:23.164+02:002011-11-29T15:39:23.164+02:00It might be homoplasy of course but that is just a...It might be homoplasy of course but that is just a possibility, a quite remote one in my opinion, and not a fact in any case.<br /><br />We still have to account for the 80% of R* (with and without CRS) in Late UP Europe (and Morocco). Just claiming "U" (specially when not all U is the same, not even closely related in fact) is no satisfactory answer: there is a U5+U4 blooming in the Epipaleolithic of Central and Eastern Europe indeed but that is only one piece of the puzzle.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14528226796346847552011-11-29T15:34:53.156+02:002011-11-29T15:34:53.156+02:00"but what I don't understand is the ideol..."but what I don't understand is the ideological commitment that some people have to wanting to believe it was there in spite of the lack of evidence"<br /><br />LOL. That is the crux of the matter. Everyone thinks the other guy is the blind ideologue who cannot see the "TRUTH". Each of us beleives we are completely unbiased.<br /><br />Evidence = <br />(1) Multiple authors identifying multiple Southern European samples as most probably H.<br /><br />(2) Lots of H in 10,000 year old nearby Morocco. If it was in Morocco it stands to reason that it would most likely also be in Iberia from the long term population flows.<br /><br />http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/nafricaadna.shtml<br /><br />(3) Sister clade V is also found in 10,000 year old Morocco. No way is that U5. If V is in Morocco why would the more prolific H be absent?<br /><br />If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck. Most probably, it's a duck.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7993711038991040692011-11-29T14:29:14.863+02:002011-11-29T14:29:14.863+02:00It is not facts, it is your ignorant misinterpreta...It is not facts, it is your ignorant misinterpretation of homoplasy as signifying something it does not.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54237775141924578292011-11-29T14:16:57.910+02:002011-11-29T14:16:57.910+02:00It is not 'misinformation': it is facts, f...It is not 'misinformation': it is facts, facts that you have dismissed but not discussed. <br /><br />Censorship will be adequately denounced in any case: this blog's free discussion quality has dropped a lot in the last years.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-73939826762947343602011-11-29T14:07:55.796+02:002011-11-29T14:07:55.796+02:00But we have at least two distinct HVS-I sequences ...<i>But we have at least two distinct HVS-I sequences from (Epi-)Paleolithic peoples widely separated in space and time that must be H: one is H1b and the other H1j or H17'27.</i><br /><br />They must not. Any further posts of misinformation will be deleted.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64334078510012273372011-11-29T13:42:16.549+02:002011-11-29T13:42:16.549+02:00"U5b2a1a is frequently CRS, and with an estim..."U5b2a1a is frequently CRS, and with an estimated age of 16,000 years, and given the preponderance of U5 among European hunter-gathers, any CRS could well be U5b2a1a". <br /><br />It is more precisely the case of U5b2a1a2 (three back-mutations in CRS direction!), although I guess private branches in other lineages may also produce that. Good finding!<br /><br />Still it'd be very odd that all the CRS would be that lineage precisely. I mean: it is not that dominant even within U5 and probably never was; it'd be a very curious and unlikely anomaly. So far the two cases where other markers was checked with CRS sequences ended up being R0(xH) [tested the AluI marker, unsure how credible it is] and U* [coding region test: 100% certain].<br /><br />And then what about the other (often reported as H) R* lineages, which maybe fit H-whatever for one or two of the reported HVS-I? The hard fact is that we do not know and that they could all hypothetically end up being R-other lineages very rare or even extinct today. I wish somebody did the coding region tests to clarify the matter once for all.<br /><br />But we have at least two distinct HVS-I sequences from (Epi-)Paleolithic peoples widely separated in space and time that <b>must be</b> H: one is H1b and the other H1j or H17'27. We also have, as Jackson notices, an Early Neolithic H5 (but not H1) in Syria by the same logic (HVS-I) - others were reported maybe but the HVS-I are actually not clarifying enough.<br /><br />"If R0 and JT were present along with U in ice age refugia, it seems like we should have seen more R0, HV and JT among hunter-gathers". <br /><br />Agreed... in theory. I have not spotted what seems to be JT* but in Nerja's Solutrean and then not again until Neolithic (as J and T separatedly). RO* (or HV*) was reported once prior to Neolithic (Italy) and I am very certain that there are two definite cases of H (Russia and Portugal) in Paleolithic Europe. But there is still "loads" of R* (with or without CRS) which by modern likelihoods should be H1 in >95% of cases (but that have shown not to be in 100% of tested cases, that is: two, hence the controversy). <br /><br />On May 9th, <a href="http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/ancient-mtdna-maps-of-europe.html" rel="nofollow">I listed</a>:<br /><br />Early/Middle UP (n=9): 1 U5, 1 U2, 1 H (same sequence), 1 R0(xH)-CRS, 2 R*-CRS (one is dubious), 1 JT.<br /><br />Late UP (n=6, Europe only): 2 U*-CRS (same sequence), 2 R*-CRS and 2 R* (other). [In addition 24 people from Morocco were: 1 U4, 13 R*-CRS and 10 R* (other)]. <br /><br />Epipaleolithic (n=16, Europe only): 6 U5, 3 U4, 2 R*-CRS, 3 R* (other), 2 L3* (N?, one probably L3d2 in fact, suggesting some African flow into Iberia prior to Neolithic). [In addition 11 Neolithic Syrians of same period were: 3 K, 1 H5, 5 R* (not CRS) and 2 L3* (N?).<br /><br />This gives a lot of European R* (often reported as "H") to be explained: 25% in the early/middle UP, 80% in the late UP (plus 95% in Morocco) and more than 30% in the Epipaleolithic (when the Northern European U5/U4 numbers swell) (plus 45% in contemporary Neolithic Syria). <br /><br />The swelling of U5/U4 in the Epipaleolithic is intriguing but even more is the swelling of R* (H?) in the late UP, don't you think?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-80741770737404077432011-11-29T12:42:33.923+02:002011-11-29T12:42:33.923+02:00>> Hey Dienekes how is this for a proof that...>> Hey Dienekes how is this for a proof that mt-DNA H was in Europe in pre-Neolithic times?<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/09/some-mtdna-links-between-europe-and.html?showComment=1255123152513#c1096550931772735638" rel="nofollow">Weak</a>Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7629097194328923332011-11-29T05:53:51.351+02:002011-11-29T05:53:51.351+02:00U5b2a1a is frequently CRS, and with an estimated a...U5b2a1a is frequently CRS, and with an estimated age of 16,000 years, and given the preponderance of U5 among European hunter-gathers, any CRS could well be U5b2a1a. <br /><br />There is limited evidence, if any, for H in Paleolithic Europe. Until we get more ancient DNA, I don't see any point in speculating about whether HV or JT were there. New results might show that it was, but what I don't understand is the ideological commitment that some people have to wanting to believe it was there in spite of the lack of evidence. <br /><br />If R0 and JT were present along with U in ice age refugia, it seems like we should have seen more R0, HV and JT among hunter-gathers. Occam's razor would suggest they weren't there, but it's also premature to reach that conclusion. I'm not invested in one answer or the other, I'm just anxious to see more ancient DNA so that finally have something to argue about.GailThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00971924422676678998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36471549579880549612011-11-29T05:33:52.776+02:002011-11-29T05:33:52.776+02:00I would like to point out that some haplogroup H h...I would like to point out that some haplogroup H has also been found in early Neolithic Syria and possibly also in Neolithic Turkey. In contrast so far no U5 has been found anywhere in the Neolithic Near East.jackson_montgomery_devonihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17553257488930856466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12156795750088163332011-11-29T05:15:26.982+02:002011-11-29T05:15:26.982+02:00Hey Dienekes how is this for a proof that mt-DNA H...Hey Dienekes how is this for a proof that mt-DNA H was in Europe in pre-Neolithic times?<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v8/n9/pdf/5200514a.pdf<br /><br /><i>Other workers have designated mtDNA haplogroups (clusters<br />of related mtDNA types) based on HVR I sequences4 or on<br />restriction site polymorphisms of the entire mitochondrial<br />genome,31,32 and used these to classify European mtDNAs.<br />Since the substitutions we observed in HVR I have been<br />shown to be associated with specific restriction patterns,7,31<br />we can assign the prehistoric sequences to haplogroups with<br />a good degree of confidence. The Mezzocorona sequence,<br />with substitutions at 16126 and 16294, falls into haplogroup<br />T, <b>whereas the Borgo Nuovo and Villabruna sequences fall<br />into haplogroup H, and the ‘ice man’ sequence belongs to<br />haplogroup K.</b> Thus, each neolithic sequence falls into a<br />different haplogroup, further testifying to the high level of<br />mtDNA diversity in the Alps at the beginning of the neolithic<br />period.</i><br /><br />The Villabruna is dated to 13831–14267 ybp according to Table-2.jeanlohizunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00216848866144458976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24710847543385036722011-11-29T02:36:56.625+02:002011-11-29T02:36:56.625+02:00Not in solitary, Dienekes. Alone with no other HVS...<i>Not in solitary, Dienekes. Alone with no other HVS-I changes is found only in H (the two sublineages mentioned above). </i><br /><br />The fact that it occurs multiple times throughout the tree means that it does not define any particular lineage. Even you ought to be able to understand that.<br /><br />The inference 16129 => H is unsound, and you are free to continue deluding yourself that it is proof that haplogroup H existed in Gravettian Europe.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-72525944579502501222011-11-29T01:08:20.012+02:002011-11-29T01:08:20.012+02:00Not in solitary, Dienekes. Alone with no other HVS...Not in solitary, Dienekes. Alone with no other HVS-I changes is found only in H (the two sublineages mentioned above). <br /><br />Also H1b in Portugal has a different HVS-1 sequence. <br /><br />You can keep in the "no" stubborn stand but there is nothing saying that such findings are wrong or that most of the other R-CRS or R* lineages are not H (what is clear is that they are not U5 nor U4 in any case). You either appeal to the failed "molecular clock" to claim alleged "impossibility" or you accept that it is at least possible and we should demand further research. <br /><br />I'm for the second option.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83271177467951826032011-11-28T21:14:46.770+02:002011-11-28T21:14:46.770+02:00It is always much more difficult to discern H in a...<i>It is always much more difficult to discern H in any case when using HVS-I but even with that major issue it has been found in Paleolithic Europe at least twice.</i><br /><br />No, it hasn't.<br />You don't understand basic phylogenetics. 16129 occurs in at least three different branches of the present-day R0 subtree alone, as well as in numerous other places of the tree. It's called <b>hypervariable</b> for a reason.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-39693317820785019522011-11-28T20:43:31.102+02:002011-11-28T20:43:31.102+02:00Jean does report as "H" the Chandler 200...Jean does report as "H" the Chandler 2005 Epipaleolithic and Neolithic Portuguese, as does with the Moroccans from Taforalt - and she does because they report it that way. <br /><br />In the case of the lineage of Sunghir, it was not reported as any haplogroup in the source: just the HVS-I sequence: 16129A. However if you check that HVS-I sequence it can only be H17'27. <br /><br />Well, I must correct: according to the last build of <a href="http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_R0.htm" rel="nofollow">PhyloTree</a> it can also be H1j (but no other possible modern lineage). While this news may cast doubt on it being H17'21 specifically, they reinforce the idea of H1 (or at least H) being extremely old in Europe.<br /><br />Of course all these discussions and ways to nowhere could be avoided if academic researchers were not such cheapskates and would test for the coding region as well... but we have to work with what is given to us, and that says that H existed in Europe probably since Gravettian (or older) times. <br /><br />"Kostenki was U2".<br /><br />But U2 (or U*) are as related to U5 or U4 as R0a or HV4 are to H. (Let ourselves not be self-deceived by nomenclature issues: U is sister of R0, the former pre-HV, in the phylogenetic hierarchy, not of H, which is two nodes downstream, exactly as U2 is). <br /><br />"There is also U4 in Mesolithic samples from Central/Northern Europe"...<br /><br />Yes but that is Epipaleolithic ("Mesolithic") which is almost as recent as Neolithic (in some cases, those of the Pitted Ware retrograde Neolithic peoples, it is even more recent in fact). The only true Paleolithic U4 is from Taforalt (Morocco) and is not that old either (12,000 years ago). <br /><br />If you ask me (that you won't, rhetorical only) what conclusions can we reach from this data, I'd say that it's best to remain most cautious but that both sisters U and R0 (and probably JT as well, albeit only located at one instance) have been in Europe since very early on and that we can detect some key descendants as follows: H since Gravettian (Russia, later Portugal as well), U5 since Solutrean (Spain, later in Northern Europe), U4 since the late Upper Paleolithic (Morocco, later in Northern Europe). These are ante quam (latest possible) dates.<br /><br />It is always much more difficult to discern H in any case when using HVS-I but even with that major issue it has been found in Paleolithic Europe at least twice.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-79379314656892389662011-11-28T20:27:09.610+02:002011-11-28T20:27:09.610+02:00Yes the non-U types present among the Pitted Ware ...Yes the non-U types present among the Pitted Ware people is probably due to admixture with farmers I should think.jackson_montgomery_devonihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17553257488930856466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70286590047781463272011-11-28T20:00:01.801+02:002011-11-28T20:00:01.801+02:00I do not know where Jean got her labels for the do...<i>I do not know where Jean got her labels for the double Sunghir haplotype but I do know that she is at least as reluctant as you are, D., of accepting a pre-Neolithic H. Like you, she is trapped in a labyrinth of misleading molecular clock hunches and the belief of the "Zilhao school" of total demic replacement, which is contested by most other prehistorians I know of (and even the data of the only incursion Zilhao himself made into ancient population genetics, linked above). </i><br /><br />No, she is trapped in the school of "I won't say there was haplogroup H in pre-Neolithic Europe when no evidence for it has appeared, and it is absent in the vast majority (if not all) pre-Neolithic individuals whose haplogroup has been accurately determined".<br /><br />You may want to believe in Iberian exceptionalism, i.e., that Iberia has been an island of genetic continuity since the Paleolithic, even though every other sample point in Europe points to population discontinuity even since the Neolithic (with the exception of Sardinia), but your blind faith in an unpublished and uncited Iberian conference paper from 2005 is not sufficient evidence.<br /><br /><i>So would you say it is true that within Europe mtDNA haplogroups U4 and U5 are the only pre-Neolithic or Mesolithic origin haplogroups found among modern Europeans?</i><br /><br />Kostenki was U2. There is also U4 in Mesolithic samples from Central/Northern Europe, as well as non-U from the Pitted Ware culture, although those are from a time period long after the introduction of agriculture into the continent.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21862841127338652242011-11-28T19:30:03.572+02:002011-11-28T19:30:03.572+02:00So would you say it is true that within Europe mtD...So would you say it is true that within Europe mtDNA haplogroups U4 and U5 are the only pre-Neolithic or Mesolithic origin haplogroups found among modern Europeans?jackson_montgomery_devonihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17553257488930856466noreply@blogger.com