tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post5775824900334294542..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Balloux in Heredity on Mitochondrial PhylogeographyDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-18614992277790502842009-09-28T06:56:55.712+03:002009-09-28T06:56:55.712+03:00Ok, I'm through looking for 7025 AluI referenc...Ok, I'm through looking for 7025 AluI references: it does seem a lot of people has been using it, instead of the "official" markers for determining haplogroup H, including as recently as <a href="http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/2/436" rel="nofollow">Roostalu 2007</a> (hg H in Caucasus and Near East - btw, worth checking the age estimates in that paper, which are generally quite old: H11 for instance could be from 48,000 BP). <br /><br />However it may be worth noticing that <a href="http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/TESIS_UAB/AVAILABLE/TDX-1026105-130246//cmps1de1.pdf" rel="nofollow">Pereira dos Santos 2005</a> (Cape Verdean mtDNA) mentions (p. 428) that some control measures are needed to make sure that there are no errors in testing for such kind of unique markers, which could lead to a high number of false results (can't copy the text, you'll have to browse).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85265566518883408082009-09-28T05:49:30.563+03:002009-09-28T05:49:30.563+03:00Addendum: While trying to find more on this indel ...Addendum: While trying to find more on this indel marker, I did find one example of CRS U* in Asturias (<a href="http://grupos.unican.es/acanto/aep/BolPas/Ann-Hum-Genet.pdf" rel="nofollow">Maca-Mayer 2003</a>) but has a mutation at the site 12308 that defines this haplogroup, while Paglicci 25 has this site defined as in CRS. So guess it can't be U* either for this individual.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-77809500039516570212009-09-28T05:22:34.921+03:002009-09-28T05:22:34.921+03:00Wouldn't it's status be defined relative t...<i>Wouldn't it's status be defined relative to the CRS sample, as per the usual method? I'd personally ditch the current CRS tree and rebuild everything from a root at L0</i>. <br /><br />Well, guess it can be said that way. But strictly speaking it'd be a deletion anyhow. <br /><br /><i>The supplementary DOC file has lots of 7025AluI data</i>.<br /><br />Well, not really: it has a lot of -7025AluI mentioned apparently as marker to determine H but is of about the same date, so guess it was usual to do that way back then. I'd like to know why is it not used anymore.<br /><br />What is clear in this paper too (and I see that repeated in all studies) is that the CRS haplotype in fact means H (and mostly H1 in fact). I have not yet seen a single CRS, being U, HV or R0, even if some authors seem to think it is a possibility and don't like to take risks.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56152337135086230622009-09-27T20:25:40.930+03:002009-09-27T20:25:40.930+03:00Don't know what to do with that 7025 Alu inser...<i>Don't know what to do with that 7025 Alu insertion that is "default" for all the mtDNA tree. If it's truly that default, then it should not be considered an insertion but a deletion at the root of H and nothing else.</i><br /><br />Wouldn't it's status be defined relative to the CRS sample, as per the usual method? I'd personally ditch the current CRS tree and rebuild everything from a root at L0.<br /><br />Here's a study that tested extensively for 7025AluI:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v12/n4/suppinfo/5201145s1.html?url=/ejhg/journal/v12/n4/full/5201145a.html" title="additional information" rel="nofollow">mtDNA polymorphisms in five French groups (Dubut, 2003)</a><br /><br />The supplementary DOC file has lots of 7025AluI data.argiedudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11512295756932222613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-609730146275697962009-09-27T06:05:49.691+03:002009-09-27T06:05:49.691+03:00Don't know what to do with that 7025 Alu inser...Don't know what to do with that 7025 Alu insertion that is "default" for all the mtDNA tree. If it's truly that default, then it should not be considered an insertion but a <b>deletion</b> at the root of H and nothing else. <br /><br />So far, apart of the claim by Caramelli in 2003, I have not seen any other evidence that this insertion/deletion is really informative. Sometimes a mutation that once was believed to be informative is found to behave chaotically and be irrelevant for lineage mapping. I wonder if it is the case with this one.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54720385700921558722009-09-26T21:49:16.356+03:002009-09-26T21:49:16.356+03:00Paglicci 25, the HV fossil, has 4 mutations: 0073A...Paglicci 25, the HV fossil, has 4 mutations: 0073A, 11719G, 12308A, +7025 AluI.<br /><br />0073A and 11719G define haplogroup R0:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_R0.htm" rel="nofollow">www.phylotree.org</a><br /><br /><br />12308A is present in the CRS sequence, so I presume it's common to all of R0. So far, we can't place Paglicci 25 specifically into HV, only into R0.<br /><br />But the last mutation, +7025 AluI, excludes H. But there seems to be a crucial point here. +7025 AluI wasn't gained by HV, it was lost by H. In other words, +7025 is the default state in the mtdna tree, meaning the sample is technically R0(xH), not HV. So while the sample could still very well be HV, it could also just as well be pre-HV/H, and this would actually <b>bolster</b> the argument in favor of the ancient presence <b>and development</b> of H inside Europe.<br /><br />Here's a link to a rootsweb post showing a Norwegian K with +7025AluI, as an example:<br /><br /><a href="http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2005-11/1132134628" rel="nofollow">mtdna K +7025AluI</a>argiedudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11512295756932222613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24166981039075791132009-09-26T21:10:52.669+03:002009-09-26T21:10:52.669+03:00Maju, thank you very, very much for all this info ...Maju, thank you very, very much for all this info and analysis. :)argiedudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11512295756932222613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35038823594839482352009-09-26T04:28:24.561+03:002009-09-26T04:28:24.561+03:00I thought there were just 2 fossils tested from th...<i>I thought there were just 2 fossils tested from the Paglicci cave?</i> -<br /><br />No. Caramelli 2005 (link above) analyzed another one: Paglicci 23 and proclaimed that it was a clearly uncontaminated CRS haplotype. They did not analyze the coding region though. <br /><br />Unlike you I was only really aware about Paglicci 23 and had totally forgotten about the other two (Caramelli 2003), so thanks for refreshing my memory on this fact.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-77978553055654854932009-09-25T05:56:49.334+03:002009-09-25T05:56:49.334+03:00Argiedude: just noticed that, according to PhyloTr...<i>Argiedude: just noticed that, according to PhyloTree, mtDNA H is not defined by any mutation at locus 7025 as you said but at 7028 and 2706. In all the R0 (pre-HV) tree page I could not find any 7025 locus defining mutation. In fact I could not find it in all the human mtDNA tree.</i><br /><br />Perhaps the problem is because 7025 isn't an SNP but rather an insertion, and maybe these charts don't list insertions/deletions. Thanks for that chart you linked, it's very detailed, up to date and easy to read.<br /><br /><i>However after thinking for a moment on all that, you must be right that Paglicci 12 was some sort of N1 and that Paglicci 25 was surely HV and not yet H. It is possible that this also applies to Paglicci 23, that is the one I was talking about - can't say.</i><br /><br />I thought there were just 2 fossils tested from the Paglicci cave?argiedudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11512295756932222613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-66229500183505634362009-09-24T13:47:51.413+03:002009-09-24T13:47:51.413+03:00Plus, if you look at Chandler's paper just for...Plus, if you look at <a href="http://www.bristol.ac.uk/archanth/staff/zilhao/dna2005.pdf" rel="nofollow">Chandler's paper</a> just for reference (fig. 4), you realize that modernly all shown European populations have that pattern of dominant H and relevant but secondary U5 (and often other U) that we find in both Epipaleolithic and Neolithic Portugal. Instead West Asia ("Middle East") is significatively weaker in H and stronger in other clades like J or the "other" group (including N1), but not in some of the other Danubian lineages: T or K. <br /><br />So it does look like a good deal of the Danubian gene pool could be of European origins, even if distinct from the gene pool of the northern continental rim back then. It's not really that impossible that Ahrensburgian could imply some sort of founder effect affecting only to that area, I figure. <br /><br />For me anyhow it is much more intriguing the matter of why the Danubian mtDNA pool got so much diluted upon Chalcolithic or whenever that happened. And why it was diluted in the direction it was: towards a much higher apportion of H in particular. This is a very pressing mystery, IMO.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-27491338922909833282009-09-24T13:32:28.251+03:002009-09-24T13:32:28.251+03:00Second, assuming the Portuguese results are real a...<i>Second, assuming the Portuguese results are real ancient DNA </i>...<br /><br />I'm only going to consider this part. The other you can discuss with Chandler, Sykes and Zilhao. <br /><br /><i>... they are still from a time frame that postdates the Neolithic colonization of Europe</i>.<br /><br />For sure not to that part of Europe nor to anywhere outside some Balcanic areas. <br /><br />Actually you could well say the same about the Epipaleolithic samples of Bramanti, which are of a very late date, contemporary of regional Neolithic and might (hypothetically) be different than earlier local UP as well.<br /><br />Furthermore, you still have the Taforalt samples (also high in H, which should be of Iberian origin for what we know) of a much earlier date (12,000 BP) and then the two CRS sequences of Paglicci. So it's kind of beating a dead horse, I feel. <br /><br /><i>While it is possible that non-U mtDNA arrived in Europe shortly before rather than during the Neolithic colonization (as I have stated above), its long-term presence in Europe is problematic for the reasons I enumerated</i>.<br /><br />I have ennumerated much stronger reasons, I believe.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-50788240154923280212009-09-24T12:25:44.526+03:002009-09-24T12:25:44.526+03:00Dienekes: beats me a bit, admittedly. But the case...<i>Dienekes: beats me a bit, admittedly. But the case is that we do have now epi-Magdalenian in one place with 60% H and epi-Magdalenian in another with 100% U(xK). </i><br /><br />First, I don't exactly take a paper in <i>Science</i> and an Iberian conference presentation with few details and no apparent followup to carry equivalent weight as evidence.<br /><br />Second, assuming the Portuguese results are real ancient DNA, they are still from a time frame that postdates the Neolithic colonization of Europe. While it is possible that non-U mtDNA arrived in Europe shortly before rather than during the Neolithic colonization (as I have stated above), its long-term presence in Europe is problematic for the reasons I enumerated.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-13803912901061488332009-09-24T11:07:08.763+03:002009-09-24T11:07:08.763+03:00Argiedude: just noticed that, according to PhyloTr...Argiedude: just noticed that, according to <a href="http://www.phylotree.org/tree/main.htm" rel="nofollow">PhyloTree</a>, mtDNA H is not defined by any mutation at locus 7025 as you said but at 7028 and 2706. In all the R0 (pre-HV) tree page I could not find any 7025 locus defining mutation. In fact I could not find it in all the human mtDNA tree. <br /><br />So I'm guessing it's either a typo or it could still be H.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-91523713418938553242009-09-24T10:59:45.431+03:002009-09-24T10:59:45.431+03:00Dienekes: beats me a bit, admittedly. But the case...Dienekes: beats me a bit, admittedly. But the case is that we do have now epi-Magdalenian in one place with 60% H and epi-Magdalenian in another with 100% U(xK). <br /><br />Why? Maybe because the genesis of both Magdalenians was somewhat different in ways we can't percieve clearly only on cultural elements. Sometimes different ethnicities share most of their material culture, for instance in the early Middle Ages it's virtually impossible discern Basque from Frankish or Visigothic: they all used the same kind of gear and stuff. <br /><br />I know it's a different age but the case is that many questions stand on what do cultures (or maybe just technologies?) mean in the Upper Paleolithic. Some differences do exist anyhow since the beginning: Central European Magdalenians did not paint any cave... though arguably this is because there are not many caves over there. On the other hand Adriatic Epigravettians did. <br /><br />I'm trying to figure out but really don't have any good answer beyond that, sincerely.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64595722813975818832009-09-24T10:49:24.226+03:002009-09-24T10:49:24.226+03:00Argiedude: that's another study that was famou...Argiedude: that's another study that was famous in its day because it demonstrated that Neanderthal mtDNA was very distant from both modern and Paleolithic H. sapiens one. I had even forgotten which the sequences were in that one but for what I read now they were also extremely close to modern European types with one being also CRS and the other a veriation of it with a single nucleotide mutation.<br /><br />However after thinking for a moment on all that, you must be right that Paglicci 12 was some sort of N1 and that Paglicci 25 was surely HV and not yet H. It is possible that this also applies to Paglicci 23, that is the one I was talking about - can't say.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-73951915111637584562009-09-24T09:14:56.581+03:002009-09-24T09:14:56.581+03:00Or maybe there was no such radical recolonization ...<i>Or maybe there was no such radical recolonization of Northern Europe </i><br /><br />Distinct gene pools are maintained by either geographical or cultural barriers, or by recent immigrants that have not had enough time to be assimilated by/assimilate the locals. <br /><br />What possible barrier could have been in Europe for tens of thousands of years, so that an LBK-like gene pool would dominate the south and a U-dominated gene pool would dominate the north? You are talking about maintaining Eurasian-level genetic contrasts across a thousand kilometers.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85612298223692364762009-09-24T05:59:14.482+03:002009-09-24T05:59:14.482+03:00Maju, here's where I read about the Paglicci s...Maju, here's where I read about the Paglicci study:<br /><br />http://www.pnas.org/content/100/11/6593.full.pdf<br /><br />...........................<br /><br />Another question. Did the ancient mtdna studies of Tuscans and Taforalt perform 2 separate extractions of dna from different sections of each skeleton and tested each independently?argiedudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11512295756932222613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55288031503776246152009-09-24T03:51:24.738+03:002009-09-24T03:51:24.738+03:00Ops, it's 16274 and only appears in about 50% ...Ops, it's 16274 and only appears in about 50% of the clones (27/56). This is normal and may be due to DNA damage or whatever.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-29260259943518970712009-09-24T03:43:24.826+03:002009-09-24T03:43:24.826+03:00Are we talking of the same study, Argiedude? I sea...Are we talking of the same study, Argiedude? I searched for the several keywords of the paragraphs you quote in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002700" rel="nofollow">Caramelli 2008</a> and could not find any one of them. <br /><br />They insist that the sequence is a CRS haplotype and, while I feel a little unsure looking at the detail of the mutations, it seems that the only consistenly replicated difference to the CRS HVS is a C>T mutation at locus 16294 (table S1). Unsure of what that may mean. <br /><br />CRS is H2a2 but the same HVS motif is often found in H1 and may also exist in other H and U, for what I've read.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54723222174887246132009-09-24T03:03:25.185+03:002009-09-24T03:03:25.185+03:00Maju, I don't understand why you think the Pag...Maju, I don't understand why you think the Paglicci sample could be H. The study says:<br /><br /><i>+7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV</i><br /><br />H is defined by -7,025 AluI. HV is defined by +7,025 AluI.<br /><br />I don't understand the study's conclusion about the other sample:<br /><br /><i>Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroup N , containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*</i><br /><br />10873 defines macrogroup N, but 10238 restricts it specifically to just N1, which includes N1a, N1b, N1c, and I, but not W or X. Maybe the tree chart I'm looking at is incorrect, or maybe there's been a rearrangement of the tree since this study was published?<br /><br />They then say the single mutation 16223 in this sample suggests a classification in haplogroup N*. But in Richards (2000), which listed thousands of haplotypes, it seems clear that 16223 is very common in all the haplogroups listed: W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*. So 16223 doesn't support N* specifically, it just reenforces the conclusion from the coding region that the sample belongs to the group {W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, N*}. Also, the only samples in Richards' that had exclusively the mutation 16223 were an I and several L3*/N*/W, but no N* specifically, so I don't see how they reached the conclusion it was specifically N*. [16223 is also very common in A, B, C, D, L1, L2, L3, M, and extremely rare in all other haplogroups]<br /><br />Dienekes, I read the Iberian study/presentation about Portuguese ancient mtdna and I don't see why it's controversial. Can you explain that? You only said that you hadn't heard anything of it since, which I agree is a little odd, but then again, I've been waiting for the publication of a huge 2006 study that tested almost 1000 y-dna and mtdna samples from a crucial country, Mali, and it has never resurfaced. I think some, but not all, of the y-dna samples only, have been put up in smgf, but no publication.<br /><br />If this Paglicci sample is effectively N1 (it could well be I), then this would take the count of N1 samples in ancient dna studies up to 5, very remarkable. Here's the list, correct me if I'm wrong:<br /><br />N1 from Paglicci cave.<br />N1a from Haak study of Neolithic Europe.<br />N1a from 1000 year old Hungary site.<br />N1a from 2500 year old Scythian skeleton in Altai region of Russia.<br />N1 from 4500 year old Eulau site in Germany.argiedudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11512295756932222613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55346287672328882302009-09-23T17:57:50.939+03:002009-09-23T17:57:50.939+03:00It's much simple to think that the LBK-like el...<i>It's much simple to think that the LBK-like elements arrived in Europe in the Neolithic or just before it. If they had been present before the last glaciation, then they would have participated in the recolonization of northern Europe, and the sharp divide would not be evident at all</i>. <br /><br />Or maybe there was no such radical recolonization of Northern Europe (it's clear now that some pockets of populations must have survived the LGM, even maybe influencing the origin of Magdalenian, which is nothing but evolved Aurignacian) or maybe this recolonization was a process with various centers and various founder effects too. Hard to judge, really.<br /><br />At least Mellars proposes that Aurignacian (that for him includes Bachokirian as precursor and proto-Aurignacian as southern vanguard) was two waves, one by the south (Northern Italy) and another by the north (Central Europe). I can't really judge but if this would be true it could explain some things.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36834651686602936482009-09-23T17:47:12.631+03:002009-09-23T17:47:12.631+03:00Yes, but as I have pointed out, a European origin ...<i>Yes, but as I have pointed out, a European origin of the mtDNA of the Danubians would require that people who lived in Europe during Paleolithic times would be partitioned into two groups (U-dominated north and LBK-like south) with an Fst between them of more than 0.15. It is very hard to imagine why such a sharp divide would persist over a long time in Europe</i>.<br /><br />I rather agree in this with you: the difference is quite shocking and rises many questions. But the case is that you do have that unexpected difference between Portuguese and Mainland-North European Epipaleolithic peoples, so the issue remains open. <br /><br />What we have is that:<br /><br />1. H existed and was dominant among Epipaleolithic Iberians but not among those of the northern rim of mainland Europe, where U5 and U4 were dominant almost to exclusion of anything else, it seems. <br /><br />2. U5 (and other U) was present among both populations so we can safely agree that U or at least some subclades of it is of Paleolithic origin in Europe. <br /><br /><br />3. Danubian Neolithics had an array of lineages of which:<br />3.1. H would look of southern European origin attending to its presence in Portugal and other aDNA samples (Italy, Morocco). <br />3.2. K could be West Asian or, as Gioello suggests in the other thread, European (related U8b has been found in Jordan and Italy, while more distantly related U8a is rare but Western European and almost exclusively Basque). Whatever the case, it has a subalpine main distribution, which does suggest it might have spread in association with Danubian Neolithic and associated processes.<br />3.3. T2 (specifically T2e but this subclade only appears as "proposed" in PhyloTree and is only defined by HVS mutations, so not sure how strictly it should be considered). T2 has an specifically European distribution that has been suggested to be Neolithic and derived from West Asian T since long - though someone could well argue for it to be old in Europe as well.<br />3.4. N1a. Well, weird lineage but surely of West Asian origin. <br />3.5. Some J, also typically considered Neolithic of West Asian origin, almost without doubt. <br /><br />So IMO the Danubian mtDNA could well have two constitutive components almost 50/50: H and K could be ancestrally European and N1a, T2 and J could be West Asian. This is arguable of course but it's my tentative opinion anyhow. The relative aboundance of H and K among Danubians could well be a matter of founder effect and the absence of them further North (among Epipaleolithic Northerners) of founder effects/drift as well. <br /><br />It seems to suggest that U was for whatever reasons more important in the North and that Neolithic (not in all Europe but certainly in that area of Central Europe) would have carried southern lineages northwards, both European and West Asian. It would imply a "mediterraneization" of Northern Europe. <br /><br />But the real issue is maybe what happened to those lineages that appear to have been frequent in Danubian Neolithic but are not more (N1a specially but also T2 and even K up to a point). Does it mean that another population with more H in its genetic pool partly replaced these agriculturalists? Or is what we see a matter of mere drift? Or selection if you wish but I see the evidence in favor of that as very weak. <br /><br />A real possibility is that Danubians were not only culturally and politically "sandwiched" between Western Megalithic and Eastern Idoeuropean cultures but that such cultures also partly replaced their populations. But so far we can only speculate: we'd need much more aDNA to be reasonably sure. And we'd certainly need some aDNA from Neolithic Eastern Europe, where the main post-Danubian wave originated.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6125669621499332382009-09-23T17:19:02.712+03:002009-09-23T17:19:02.712+03:00According to your own source there is no continuit...<i>According to your own source there is no continuity between the Epipaleolithic and Neolithic in Portugal. Also, the authors' rejection of an extra-European origin for the Portuguese Neolithic is based only on the absence of mtDNA haplogroup J, which is very weak</i>. <br /><br />Do you only read the conclusions or forge your own opinions on the data? I try to do the second. <br /><br />The presence of Zilhao among the triad of authors, who is opposed to Paleolithic continuity specifically in Portugal on his own reasons, pre-defined the conclusions, but the data shows clearly a great deal of continuity:<br /><br />1. H is clearly dominant before and after Neolithic (though it may increase its presence somewhat in the later period)<br /><br />2. U, including about a half of it being U5 (the other U* could well be U6) keeps the apportions more or less between the two samples. <br /><br />3. There is no J, T, K, I, W or X in either sample.<br /><br />So the main differences are some 18% "exotic" L(xR,I,X,W) among Epipaleolithic and some increase of H, accompanied by a small amount of novel V. The differences are small and could even be attributed to mere randomness between any two samples, though they may also be interpreted as sign of some limited demic change too. <br /><br />The basic structure is mostly H with some U5 and some U(xU5,K) and that persists, not only between the two samples but also when compared with modern nearby populations.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-18292670511846232552009-09-23T13:22:22.329+03:002009-09-23T13:22:22.329+03:00You don't find that extreme difference in Port...<i>You don't find that extreme difference in Portugal or Morocco</i><br /><br />According to your own source there is no continuity between the Epipaleolithic and Neolithic in Portugal. Also, the authors' rejection of an extra-European origin for the Portuguese Neolithic is based only on the absence of mtDNA haplogroup J, which is very weak.<br /><br /><i>But it is perfectly possible that the mtDNA of Danubians could have been picked in other less northernly areas, like the Balcans (Balcan Neolithic) or the middle Danubian Basin</i><br /><br />Yes, but as I have pointed out, a European origin of the mtDNA of the Danubians would require that people who lived in Europe during Paleolithic times would be partitioned into two groups (U-dominated north and LBK-like south) with an Fst between them of more than 0.15. It is very hard to imagine why such a sharp divide would persist over a long time in Europe. It's much simple to think that the LBK-like elements arrived in Europe in the Neolithic or just before it. If they had been present before the last glaciation, then they would have participated in the recolonization of northern Europe, and the sharp divide would not be evident at all.<br /><br /><i> but this is not as clear cut as the migration northwards in the Balcans and later in Central Europe</i><br /><br />Craniometrically it is, as the recent study by Pinhasi et al has shown. The LBK shows clear affinities with the Balkans and Anatolia (and Near East) and not with the Mesolithic Europeans.<br /><br />The Balkan Neolithic shows clear affinities with that of West Asia both archaeologically and anthropologically. If the Central European Neolithic was not derived from SEE immigrants, then this would require something extraordinary: a genetic separation between CE farmers from both CE hunter-gatherers and SEE farmers: LBK would be a true genetic isolate right in the middle of Europe.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-13454213688837719852009-09-23T06:01:51.728+03:002009-09-23T06:01:51.728+03:00For me, from a purely archaeological viewpoint, th...<i>For me, from a purely archaeological viewpoint, the genetic pool of Danubians should have been original mostly from Hungary/Austria/Moravia, with whatever apportion coming from further south (the Balcans) and maybe ultimately from Anatolia.</i><br /><br />This is basically what I tried to argue in the other recent thread.<br /><br />Important cultural differences to the north where in existence already (just) before the advent of agriculture, and the 500 years or so it took this region to develop its own agricultural model and culture, quite distinct from the Balkans, may have skewed their MtDNA pool even further.<br /><br />Given the fact that several major lineages occur with substantial percentages, and others in small but non-negligible rates, a lot more ancient MtDNA needs to be evaluated before jumping to any conclusions outside of the in this case relatively clear picture archaeology paints.<br /><br />From a European viewpoint, if most of the origin is middle Danubian, it is local - at least local central European, and not "foreign." That the Northern tribes may have largely lost out in the eventual gene pool is not a surprise, given the very low population density of hunter gatherers the forest could support.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.com