TMRCA Hg V in MTree

[Capsian20]

Thanks for this and I'm still pondering away. It's intriguing to think my direct maternal line was quite possibly EEF then Beaker then IA Celt and/or Germanic before ending up where I can trace it to in Wales. The other V78 tester will have their own story of course that may well involve a Beaker heritage shared with me and potentially other cultures too after the earlier EEF. I've just realised I've been calling the tester Tunisian in recent posts when they're actually Algerian. Very sloppy of me.

The really interesting thing is the date of our split. I guess that only aDNA might help although coming across V78 would be like finding the proverbial needle in a haystack and I'm still concerned that the current studies wouldn't even identify the subclade if they found it. It's possible the two of us went our separate ways on our V78 lines in any of the EEF, Beaker or Vandal/Germanic cultures as you say, or even perhaps with the Normans as I mentioned earlier, although I seriously doubt the date was anywhere near that late. 

I like your theory for V25 and I'm fascinated about that Serbian sample of North African heritage. I just took a look on YFull and was impressed by the number of samples. Based on what I see there, I'd say it's a sure bet that the real dates for V25 are far older than those that YFull has assigned. I'm sadly ignorant on the level of Beaker activity in North Africa and need to read up on it.

Yes this sample V78 North Africa from Algeria , berber Auras this subclade in North Africa V78 is very complicated history because isn't there any cluster North African under this subclade maybe EEF maybe Bell-Beaker maybe Roman maybe Vandals
for you i think is more clear because you from Europe
my subclade V25 at least has cluster North Africa and sample Serbia its confirmed this subclade is ancient in North Africa

That was incredibly good luck with the ancient V25 sample Capsian. So good that you have confirmation of an early North African connection. It seems to me that it's rare to get something that rigorous with ancient mtDNA. It's all so much more straightforward with Y although both are equally important for many of us here. I'm just a little frustrated by the massive difference in the evidence I have for my uniparental markers. In the Y case I have a very clear likely path through time. The best I can say about my V side is that my foremothers will have once been early farmers and then members of European successor cultures of whatever kind.

Yes Im lucky there also sample from Italy back a 300 B.C V25 , there alo sample Viking ID this sample VK65
Unfortunately history of mtDNA very complicated but we trying to know about history mtDNA

[JonikW]

I've had a reply from FTDNA about my request to be bumped up from V to V78. Sadly it's not what I hoped for although perhaps there's a chance they'll remedy the situation in future based on this:

"While currently, V is the deepest mtDNA haplogroup we can provide for you, based on the 3 regions of the mitochondrial cell we test and the mutations therein, I do want to mention that our entire company is working on a complete overhaul of the mtDNA system, expected to release later this year."

They also said they understood my frustration and that they "don't have info yet" on what the update will include. I remember the update has been mentioned elsewhere at GA.

[Capsian20]

I've had a reply from FTDNA about my request to be bumped up from V to V78. Sadly it's not what I hoped for although perhaps there's a chance they'll remedy the situation in future based on this:

"While currently, V is the deepest mtDNA haplogroup we can provide for you, based on the 3 regions of the mitochondrial cell we test and the mutations therein, I do want to mention that our entire company is working on a complete overhaul of the mtDNA system, expected to release later this year."

They also said they understood my frustration and that they "don't have info yet" on what the update will include. I remember the update has been mentioned elsewhere at GA.

I wish soon added subclades mtDNA V in FTDNA , mtDNA it's as well important same Y-DNA but i think this is according orders , mostly are orders Y-DNA

[JonikW]

I've had a reply from FTDNA about my request to be bumped up from V to V78. Sadly it's not what I hoped for although perhaps there's a chance they'll remedy the situation in future based on this:

"While currently, V is the deepest mtDNA haplogroup we can provide for you, based on the 3 regions of the mitochondrial cell we test and the mutations therein, I do want to mention that our entire company is working on a complete overhaul of the mtDNA system, expected to release later this year."

They also said they understood my frustration and that they "don't have info yet" on what the update will include. I remember the update has been mentioned elsewhere at GA.

I wish soon added subclades mtDNA V in FTDNA , mtDNA it's as well important same Y-DNA but i think this is according orders , mostly are orders Y-DNA

It certainly makes me feel thankful that we have YFull. I was on the YFull mtDNA tree twice under two different YF numbers so I asked them to remove one (I was reluctant to mess something up). The TMRCA has now become even younger as of today.

I now have: formed CI 95% 2700<->2300 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 4500<->75 ybp

I assume the 4500 is a typo given the 2700 formed boundary, unless I'm missing something. For V itself they have: formed CI 95% 4400<->2700 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 2700<->2300 ybp

While that's surely wrong, as we've been discussing, what they're doing is so much more valuable than the service provided by FTDNA that I can hardly be unhappy about it. :-)

[Capsian20]

I've had a reply from FTDNA about my request to be bumped up from V to V78. Sadly it's not what I hoped for although perhaps there's a chance they'll remedy the situation in future based on this:

"While currently, V is the deepest mtDNA haplogroup we can provide for you, based on the 3 regions of the mitochondrial cell we test and the mutations therein, I do want to mention that our entire company is working on a complete overhaul of the mtDNA system, expected to release later this year."

They also said they understood my frustration and that they "don't have info yet" on what the update will include. I remember the update has been mentioned elsewhere at GA.

I wish soon added subclades mtDNA V in FTDNA , mtDNA it's as well important same Y-DNA but i think this is according orders , mostly are orders Y-DNA

It certainly makes me feel thankful that we have YFull. I was on the YFull mtDNA tree twice under two different YF numbers so I asked them to remove one (I was reluctant to mess something up). The TMRCA has now become even younger as of today.

I now have: formed CI 95% 2700<->2300 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 4500<->75 ybp

I assume the 4500 is a typo given the 2700 formed boundary, unless I'm missing something. For V itself they have: formed CI 95% 4400<->2700 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 2700<->2300 ybp

While that's surely wrong, as we've been discussing, what they're doing is so much more valuable than the service provided by FTDNA that I can hardly be unhappy about it. :-)

Of course this TMRCA isnt accurate , we wish team Yfull to fix this problem TMRCA soon

[Capsian20]

Thanks Capsian. I'm probably just being stupid but I can't see how you get a list of ancient samples from that link.

No problem here you will find samples ancient Hg V

I enjoyed looking through these ancient samples and they certainly seem to connect the spread of V with the Neolithic, as so many people have observed over the years. My principal reason for bucking the trend and suspecting an additional WHG involvement has long been the Brace et al sample from Cnog Coig who looks like this autosomally:



This is the only really solid evidence connecting V with WHG that I know of, although as far as I’m aware it's gone unremarked in the field of V beyond my own amateur posts that this sample is V but also classed as “late Mesolithic” in the paper.

Revisiting the paper to see whether Cnoc Coig might actually have a Neolithic maternal ancestor like other V samples, I see this passage:

Cnog_Coig_1/SB514B/I3065/CC 18143: 4256-3803 cal. BCE (5492±36 BP, SUERC-69249):

“When calibrated for the marine reservoir effect, radiocarbon dates of human remains from Cnoc Coig date from 4370-3800 BCE, overlapping with the earliest Neolithic radiocarbon dates from Britain and western Scotland specifically, suggesting that Mesolithic hunter-fisher-gatherers and Britain’s earliest farmers may have lived side-by-side for a century or more.”

There's also this information on the introduction of farming into the Argyll area around Cnoc Coig, on the Scottish Archaeological Research Framework website. It cites evidence for two strands of Neolithisation: one from the northward movement up the Atlantic facade of settlers from Brittany, and the other movement up from the Pas de Calais. The first movement is the earlier one (likely to date to between 6300 BP and c 5900 BP). 

For the Cnog Coig V sample (CnocCoig_1) it looks to me that they only have 22,224 SNPs in the Brace et al study, with depth of coverage given as “1,02x”. I think they've made an error with that number and don't understand the use of a comma there but it seems to me the coverage must be well below the acceptable level of 1x when comparing those two columns with others in the spreadsheet. Any views from anyone more competent than me much appreciated.

So in short Cnoc Coig doesn't necessarily seem to support my long-held idea of an additional Mesolithic presence of V in parts of Europe including Britain before a separate and much more extensive spread via farmers. If the sample is pretty low coverage and potentially from a good number of generations after the introduction of farming in the broader local area, we could just be seeing the descendant of a Neolithic woman whose lineage had long become WHG like by lack of further farmer input over a couple of hundred years.

The other strands of evidence I'd noticed potentially linking V with WHG groups always appeared shakier than Cnoc Coig to me. The number of Neolithic V aDNA samples that we now have in 2024 including Starčevo etc has made me reconsider my view at this point and I no longer see any strong grounds to suspect anything beyond an initial Neolithic spread of the haplogroup. So that's where I stand right now although of course I'll revise my view again if evidence emerges to contradict it.

Oh i not add this sample you can please give me info about this sample ( date and location and subclade )
Thanks

[JonikW]

Here you go Capsian (the sample is a V with no subclade given):

Sample: Cnog_Coig_1

Date: 4370-3800 BCE

Location: Oronsay, Inner Hebrides

GPS: Latitude: 56.011625N Longitude: 6.240016W

The study the sample is from is “Ancient genomes indicate population replacement in Early Neolithic Britain,” Brace et al, 2019. The date I've given above is calibrated for the marine reservoir effect, which is what we need.

[Capsian20]

Here you go Capsian (the sample is a V with no subclade given):

Sample: Cnog_Coig_1

Date: 4370-3800 BCE

Location: Oronsay, Inner Hebrides

GPS: Latitude: 56.011625N Longitude: 6.240016W

The study the sample is from is “Ancient genomes indicate population replacement in Early Neolithic Britain,” Brace et al, 2019. The date I've given above is calibrated for the marine reservoir effect, which is what we need.

Thanks you i added this sample now

[JonikW]

Here you go Capsian (the sample is a V with no subclade given):

Sample: Cnog_Coig_1

Date: 4370-3800 BCE

Location: Oronsay, Inner Hebrides

GPS: Latitude: 56.011625N Longitude: 6.240016W

The study the sample is from is “Ancient genomes indicate population replacement in Early Neolithic Britain,” Brace et al, 2019. The date I've given above is calibrated for the marine reservoir effect, which is what we need.

Thanks you i added this sample now

I think this is your latest map and I can see Cnoc Coig there.Nice work Capsian. You seem to have a really good number of ancient V samples now. That must be most of the total available. Are you aware of any that you still want to add?

[Capsian20]

Here you go Capsian (the sample is a V with no subclade given):

Sample: Cnog_Coig_1

Date: 4370-3800 BCE

Location: Oronsay, Inner Hebrides

GPS: Latitude: 56.011625N Longitude: 6.240016W

The study the sample is from is “Ancient genomes indicate population replacement in Early Neolithic Britain,” Brace et al, 2019. The date I've given above is calibrated for the marine reservoir effect, which is what we need.

Thanks you i added this sample now

I think this is your latest map and I can see Cnoc Coig there.Nice work Capsian. You seem to have a really good number of ancient V samples now. That must be most of the total available. Are you aware of any that you still want to add?

Thank you if there any samples isnt in this Map of Hg V please give to me info and i will added samples