December 15, 2013

Ancient East Asian Y-DNA maps

I'm fusing here data from two different and complementary sources:
  • Hui Li et al. Y chromosomes of prehistoric people along the Yangtze River. Human Genetics 2007. → LINK (PDF) [doi:10.1007/s00439-007-0407-2]
  • A 2012 study integrally in Chinese (so integrally that I don't even know who the authors are → LINK) but whose content was discussed in English (after synthetic translation) at Eurogenes blog. I deals with a variety of ancient Y-DNA from the Northern parts of P.R. China.

Update (Dec 25): much of the Northeastern aDNA is also discussed in an English language study (h/t Kristiina):

Yinqiu Cui et al. Y Chromosome analysis of prehistoric human populations in the West Liao River Valley, Northeast China. BMC 2013. Open access LINK [doi:10.1186/1471-2148-13-216]

    Combining the data from both sources, I produced the following maps:

    Neolithic (before ~4000 BP):

    Metal Ages (after ~4000 BP):


    I find particularly interesting the first map because it outlines what seem to be three distinct ethnic (or at the very least genetic) regions in the Neolithic period:
    • A Central-South region dominated by O3
    • An Eastern area around modern Shanghai dominated by O1
    • A Northern region dominated by N
    Later on, in the Metal Ages, a colonization of the North/NE by these O3 peoples seems apparent, followed, probably at a later time, by a colonization of the West (Taojiazhai).

    We do not have so ancient data for the West but we can still see a diversity of lineages, notably Q (largely Q1, if not all), C (most likely C3, also in the NE) and N (also in the NE). While the arrival of O3 to this area was probably late, the arrival of R1a1a is quite old, however it is still almost certainly related to the first Indoeuropean migrations eastwards, which founded the Afanasevo culture in the area of Altai.

    I find also very interesting the presence, with local dominance often, of N (including an instance of N1c) and Q in the Northern parts of P.R. China, because these lineages are now rather uncommon but are still dominant in Northern Asia, Northeastern Europe and Native America. The fact that they were still so important in the Northern Chinese frontier in the Neolithic and even in the Metal Ages should tell us something about their respective histories and, in the case of N, origins as well.

    It is also notable that no D was detected anywhere. However the regions with greatest D frequencies like Tibet, Yunnan or Japan were not studied.


    1. Han/Jiangsu, Anhui, Zhejiang, and Shanghai (Yan et al. 2011)

      2/167 O1a-M119(xP203, M110) [-0.2% from Han average]
      37/167 O1a1-P203 [+9.1%]
      1/167 O1a2-M110 [-0.2%]
      40/167 = 0.240 O1a-M119 total [+8.7%]

      8/167 O2-P31/M268(xO2a-PK4, O2b-M176) [-0.2%]
      1/167 O2a-PK4(xO2a1-M95) [-0.8%]
      3/167 O2a1-M95(xO2a1a-M88) [-0.7%]
      12/167 = 0.072 O2-P31 total [-2.0%]

      5/167 O3-M122(xO3a-M324) [+1.3%]

      5/167 O3a1-L127/KL1/KL2(xM121, M164, 002611) [+0.8%]
      2/167 O3a1a-M121 [+0.4%]
      27/167 O3a1c-002611 [-0.7%]
      34/167 = 0.204 O3a1-L127 total [+0.4%]

      3/167 O3a2-P201(xM159, M7, P164) [+0.1%]
      3/167 O3a2b-M7 [-0.1%]
      7/167 O3a2c-P164(xM134) [+0.9%]
      10/167 O3a2-P201(xM7, M134) total [+0.7%]
      18/167 O3a2c1-M134(xM117) [-0.6%]
      29/167 O3a2c1a-M117 [+1.0%]
      60/167 = 0.359 O3a2-P201 total [+1.0%]

      99/167 = 0.593 O3-M122 total [+2.8%]

      151/167 = 0.904 O-M175 total [+9.5%]
      16/167 = 0.096 Y(xO-M175) total [-9.5%]

      Han total/East China=167 + North China=129 + South China=65 (Yan et al. 2011)
      27/361 = 0.075 C-M130
      18/361 = 0.050 N-M231
      12/361 = 0.033 Q-M242
      7/361 = 0.019 D-M174
      4/361 = 0.011 R-M207
      1/361 = 0.003 G-M201
      69/361 = 0.191 Y(xO-M175) total

      5/361 O1a-M119(xO1a1-P203, O1a2-M110)
      47/361 O1a1-P203
      3/361 O1a2-M110
      55/361 = 0.152 O1a-M119 total

      18/361 O2-P31/M268(xO2a-PK4, O2b-M176)
      5/361 O2a-PK4(xO2a1-M95)
      9/361 O2a1-M95(xO2a1a-M88)
      1/361 O2b-M176
      33/361 = 0.091 O2-P31/M268 total

      6/361 O3-M122(xO3a-M324)

      8/361 O3a1-L127/KL1/KL2(xM121, M164, 002611)
      3/361 O3a1a-M121
      61/361 O3a1c-002611
      72/361 = 0.199 O3a1-L127/KL1/KL2 total

      6/361 O3a2-P201(xM159, M7, P164)
      1/361 O3a2a-M159
      7/361 O3a2b-M7
      12/361 O3a2c-P164(xM134)
      41/361 O3a2c1-M134(xM117)
      59/361 O3a2c1a-M117
      126/361 = 0.349 O3a2-P201 total

      204/361 = 0.565 O3-M122 total

      D-M174 is less common among modern Han Chinese than e.g. Q-M242, so, under an assumption of neutrality, one should expect D-M174 to be at least as peripheral as Q-M242 among human remains from ancient China.

      I note that the greatest deviation of modern Han from the lower Yangtze region (central part of the eastern coast of China) from the average for modern Han (excepting the +9.5% deviation for O-M175 total) is the deviation for O1a1-P203 [+9.1%]. I would say that the data seem to support the hypothesis of the assimilation of some descendants of the local Liangzhu Neolithic culture(s) into the incoming Han population, but the Liangzhu are almost certainly not the primary patrilineal ancestors of modern Han anywhere in China, even within the geographical limits of the Liangzhu culture(s). I think it is important for you to consider these data, Maju, since you always have vehemently opposed any hypothesis of post-Neolithic population replacement.

      1. Thanks for your interest and complementary modern Y-DNA info, Ebizur.

        "... you always have vehemently opposed any hypothesis of post-Neolithic population replacement".

        But I had to rethink my opinion already in the context of Europe, where some regions like Germany seem to have suffered repeated repopulation waves, while others like Portugal may have got less important but still significant partial post-Neolithic replacements.

        However one of my old battle horses was questioning the idea of N→S Neolithic (and post-Neolithic) replacement and to some extent this data supports rather a S→N replacement if anything. Related to this is the issue of alleged expansion of the so-called Mongoloid phenotype in Neolithic or post-Neolithic times, which, with some possible exceptions, I still regard as unlikely in general.

        It's true that in the Shanghai area there seems to have also been a W→E replacement but we can't be sure of the exact extent of the various genetic clusters, i.e. was the O1 zone limited to that pocket, extended through all the coast or what? I'd say that the rest of the data suggest it was quite limited but the certainty is slim. I bet some people will use (have already used) this datum of the ancient Shanghai area O1 as argument against the apparent expansion from the Malay archipelago of this lineage, supported by greatest basal diversity in that area, to which I have to say that it is much more likely to be an offshoot than the origin.

        In general it seems quite clear in any case that the O3 expansion began in the Southern and Central Neolithic centers. It also seems clear that O1 and O2a did not experience a similar expansion, at lest not in any obvious manner and certainly not within the boundaries of modern China (although it's plausible that O2a did something similar in Indochina and nearby areas: Austroasiatic Neolithic and such). Less clear is the issue of O2b, not yet reported as such in any ancient DNA.

        What this data offer are minimal dataset to delimit the speculation and that is in any case welcome and most useful.

      2. Ebizur, an Emperal Cao cao belong to Y Chromosome Hg O2*-P31. If you're notice a Haplogroups of a Famous Peoples around the world, ii rarely found a famous people (except an Emperal Cao Cao and Nguyen...,a Vietnamese heroes) with a Y Hg O*-M175 even though a Geneticist says when around 15 - 20% of all men in the world, are belongs to Y Hg O*-M175 including Sub Hg O1, O2 and O3. So do with an mtDNA Hg R, B and F. Some Geneticist found when their estimated around 200.000.000 a Chinese men especially a Sino Tibetan in mainland China are belongs to Y Hg O3-M134, O3-M133, O3-M117 (O-CTS5492) and O3-M7.

      3. I doubt "out of Africa", if Sapiens did interbreed with Neanderthals. Why has no mtDNA or Y of Neanderthals been found in humans if 20% of their genes are scattered in humans? The haplogroup tree is apparently not right either, if most Chinese Y are both O and Q which are in different branches of K2. Most native Americans are Q, so it makes sense that Q is proposed to have originated in Siberia and it is still around Arctic too. @Maju, North-centrists love to claim that Northern stock is superior. I believe that cooler weather would affect northern people more and some of them moved southward for survival. All kinds of centrists (mostly males) tried to claim the "superior" haplogroup. From my very limited knowledge in genetics, I doubt that phenotypes are in Y or mtDNA.

      4. @Joyce:

        Neanderthal admixture and "out of Africa" are two distinct subjects, although quite apparently connected. The out-of-Africa model is solidly supported not just by the fossil record but also by all branches of genetics: mtDNA, Y-DNA and autosomal data, all of which show unmistakable roots in Africa. You can't doubt "out of Africa" unless you know what you're talking about and, if you do know, then you know that you there is no room for doubt. But it is not influenced by Neanderthal admixture, a much more recent discovery in terms genetic.

        Re. Neanderthal admixture: the Neanderthal admixture in the "Asian" (or non-African) branch of modern Humankind is roughly the equivalent to each of us having a a great-great-great-grandparent (avg. 3.6%) or even a great-great-great-great-grandparent (avg. 1.8%) from that other human species. We do not carry the haploid lineages of the vast majority of our ancestors at that level. You will say: but in a sizable population, such as the OoA one, some people would carry Neanderthal haploid lineages. Originally yes, for sure, but that's when drift comes into action: genetic drift (whose effects are favored by small population sizes and the passage of time) tends to reduce diversity by mere randomness. Statistically the most common traits, be it neutral genes (like eye color ones) or haploid lineages, are favored. But we can't actually predict the result just the probabilities, because it is an stochastic (random) process. The probabilities, with only two Y-DNA lineages (CF and D) and two mtDNA ones (M and N) surviving the sieve process, are clearly very small for Neanderthal patrilineages to have survived drift.

        However, and this should interest you, there is one X chromosome haplotype, one that is clearly a branch apart in the human tree, that is almost certainly inherited from Neanderthals and not the early Sapiens OoA population. See:

        Another trait that may well be of Neanderthal origin is straight hair. At the very least Neanderthal keratin-related genes have been, it seems, selected for in the "Asian" branch. See:

        On the other hand, Neanderthal-inherited reproduction related genes have been selected against:

    2. Nice graphics!

      It is a pity that in that Yangtze River paper they did not test other haplogroups except O lines. It would have been interesting to know if there was any C3 or C on the coast or Q, D or N lines in Taosi or Daxi sites.

      1. So "undetermined" means that they did not test for other non-O lineages. That's interesting, thanks - I was not really aware of it. If that's correct they probably did not test for O2b (or O2) either, a lineage that I also miss in this synthesis.

      2. Kristiina, a Y Hg O*-M175 and it's subclade are an identical an East Asians and a Southeast Asians even though this O's subclade Haplogroups are found with a lower frequency in the Madagascar and a Pasific Islander especially in a Hawwaian male and a Maori male, about 15 - 30% on them.

    3. Maju,

      One problem is that the mtDNA profile of Han from the Shanghai area is just about as typically "northern" as is the mtDNA profile of e.g. Koreans from Seoul & Daejeon, South Korea. If the high frequency of Y-DNA haplogroup O1a in the Liangzhu Neolithic (and, to a lesser extent, in modern populations of the lower Yangtze region) were due to a migration from Maritime Southeast Asia, the other region of concentration of Y-DNA haplogroup O1a, we should expect the lower Yangtze region and Maritime Southeast Asia to share some affinity in mtDNA as well, barring the possibility of a sex-biased migration.

      The nearest known outgroup to Y-DNA haplogroup O1 is O2-P31. O2-P31 exhibits a distributional pattern that is quite reminiscent of a serial founder effect emanating from northern East Asia toward Southeast Asia and South Asia, with the oldest branch (O2b) found almost exclusively in the circum-Japan Sea area, O2a(xPK4) found mainly in northern China, O2a1-PK4(xM95) found with low frequency throughout China, O2a1a-M95(xM88) found mainly from southern China through Southeast Asia and South Asia, and O2a1a1-M88 found almost exclusively in Southeast Asia (with a little in some enclaves of Southwest China). If O1 is originally from Southeast Asia, one must explain why its nearest outgroup, O2, seems to be originally from northern East Asia.

      On the other hand, since the difference between the Y-DNA of modern Han of the lower Yangtze region and modern Han from other regions seems to be much less clear-cut than the difference between the ancient Liangzhu and other contemporary Neolithic cultures within what is now China, I suppose the rather small difference of modern Shanghai Han from modern Liaoning (South Manchurian) Han in regard to Y-DNA might be compatible with the observed degree of mtDNA differentiation.

      Granted, the mtDNA profile of modern Han does become much more divergent from the "northern" average as one goes further south from the Yangtze; Han populations from e.g. Guangdong or Guangxi exhibit mtDNA profiles that are much more similar to nearby Tai-Kadai or Hmong-Mien-speaking minority populations than to Han from the lower Yangtze region or further north. However, these Han populations of Guangdong/Guangxi that are divergent from northerly Han populations in regard to mtDNA are generally much less divergent from other Han populations in regard to Y-DNA (and they have even less O1a1-P203 than modern Han populations of the lower Yangtze region, by the way).

      1. A Geneticist and a Netizen who have an interest with a Human Genealogy know when a NE Chinese have a similar Paternal lineage with a SE Asians and a Southern Chinese but they're have a difference a Maternal lineage. A NE Chinese, Korean and Japanese typically belongs to mtDNA Hg M and N Type while a SE Asian and a Southern Chinese typically have an mtDNA Hg R Type and a few mtDNA N Type.

    4. I composed a detailed reply to Maju's previous comment, only to have it lost irrevocably in cyberspace when I tried to publish it. How exasperating!

      Anyway, as for O2-P31, it is a very old lineage, with the split between O2a and O2b dating back to about the time of the split between Q1a-MEH2 and Q1b-L275 or the split between O3a-M324 and O3*-M122(xM324). In all these cases, the former of the pair is a widespread and frequently occurring haplogroup with many well-defined branches, whereas the latter of the pair is an overall rare haplogroup whose internal structure has not been well clarified. However, O2b has become quite frequent in populations around the southern shores of the Sea of Japan while being practically nonexistent elsewhere, whereas Q1b and O3*-M122(xM324) are quite widespread but with low frequency in Western Eurasia and East/Southeast Asia, respectively.

      By the way, the splits of each of these three pairs are slightly older than the split between R1 and R2.

      Not too long (maybe 4,000 years) after the extremely ancient split of O2b from O2a, early O2a left a relictual branch in (now mostly northern) China. The much later (about doubly later, in fact) branch of O2a-PK4(xO2a1-M95) also has been confirmed only in China (though with a slight tendency toward the south, and I have some evidence to suspect that it is also found in at least Vietnam and Laos). All the widespread O2a in the rest of Southeast Asia and South Asia belongs to the O2a1-M95 branch (including its O2a1a-M88 subclade in Southeast Asia). It looks to me like O2a has an ancient Paleolithic (at least 20,000 YBP) origin in northern or central China, and it has spread mainly southwestward from that point of origin, possibly to a large degree within the last 10,000 years in the form of O2a1-M95 (perhaps a harbinger of the Neolithic in southern East Asia). I do not see any evidence to suspect that O2b has moved much from its point of origin in the past 25,000 ~ 50,000 years since its split from O2a. O2b is old enough to possibly have been among the earliest AMH colonizers of the circum-Sea of Japan region, though its present internal variance definitely suggests some sort of bottleneck or very limited population size followed by a more recent expansion.

      I am really tired of people trying to subsume both O2a and O2b into some singular Neolithic expansion, when all the empirical data available have demonstrated that the split between these two haplogroups is older than e.g. the split between R1 and R2 (which together contain all extant representatives of haplogroup R). People should be considering the era of Mal'ta or Tianyuan, not the era of Hemudu, Yangshao, or Hongshan.

      1. "I composed a detailed reply to Maju's previous comment, only to have it lost irrevocably in cyberspace when I tried to publish it. How exasperating!"

        Are you sure it was lost and not just awaiting moderation? There's another comment above, to which I just replied (below). Comment moderation continues active until Terry effectively renounces to spam this blog (a banishment is a banishment is a banishment is a banishment, paraphrasing the poet).

        "I am really tired of people trying to subsume both O2a and O2b into some singular Neolithic expansion"...

        Just in case, I do not think that, regardless that some secondary migrations may correspond with Neolithic dates. In fact I was wondering if the undefined "O" found in ancient Niuheliang and Hengbei could be it, but I could not find anything pointing me in that direction.

        "O2b is old enough to possibly have been among the earliest AMH colonizers of the circum-Sea of Japan region"...

        Possibly. But what happens with the presence of O2b towards the South? As I just mentioned (below) Shi Yan only found this lineage in Southern Chinese and, from memory, it's also found in Hainan, right?

    5. "... barring the possibility of a sex-biased migration".

      We don't have enough data but I would not bar this possibility in any case. We have seen that happening elsewhere, right?

      "O2-P31 exhibits a distributional pattern that is quite reminiscent of a serial founder effect emanating from northern East Asia toward Southeast Asia and South Asia"...

      As you describe it, it should be as you say... but the reality as I know it (Shi Yan 2011, reflected in Wikipedia also) it is that O2a* has been found in 4.6% of South China (Han) and only very rarely in the North (0.8%) and East (0.6%), the same can be said of all the other clades mentioned, even O2b, which was only found in Southern Han (1.5%) in that study.

      I know I'm walking on thin ice discussing Y-DNA frequencies with you, Ebizur, as it is your specialization. But that's what I know. Feel free to enrich me and Wikipedia with the details of your data, which I do not have (including Hainan and Indochina if possible).

      Re. O1a, which is the center of your argumentation, O1a1 is still much much more common in the East (22%) than in the North (1.6%), although it seems also rather frequent in the South (12%). Instead O1a* is more evenly (and quite thinly) distributed between the three regions. O1a2 is most common in the South (3%) and absent in the North.

      The high frequency of O1a (25% total of all O) in the East strongly suggests a partial continuity in that area, with a dilution (immigration) of the order of 60% or slightly more. Some 35% of the local yDNA O ancestry (151/167) seems Neolithic, with the rest probably corresponding to later arrivals (always considering only the male side of the equation).

      "Granted, the mtDNA profile of modern Han does become much more divergent from the "northern" average as one goes further south from the Yangtze"...


      "However, these Han populations of Guangdong/Guangxi that are divergent from northerly Han populations in regard to mtDNA are generally much less divergent from other Han populations in regard to Y-DNA (and they have even less O1a1-P203 than modern Han populations of the lower Yangtze region, by the way)".

      That would seem to be expected, because O3 was already dominant in the Yangtze (at least in Daxi) before Han expansion, with frequencies similar to those of modern Northern Han. In fact many of the Northern Han areas of today were then completely different in Y-DNA, much closer to Finns, Buryats of Yakuts than to any local modern population, be it Han, Altaic or Koreanic-Japanic.

      What for me these maps suggest is an expansion from the various Neolithic centers inland, rather than North→South (if anything some South→North expansion is also quite apparent).

    6. For some reason, I did not receive the usual "your comment is pending moderation" notice after trying to post that previous comment here. Anyway...

      While looking through the supplementary data of the study by Magoon et al. (2013), I noticed that their data support the finding of Yan et al. (2013) regarding former O2*-P31(xO2a-PK4, O2b-M176) Y-chromosomes: according to all cases that have been tested for the pertinent markers, O2* is not actually extant, and all cases previously labeled as O2* actually belong to either of two early branches of O2a, O2a*-F1462(xO2a1-PK4) or O2a1*-PK4(xO2a1a-M95).

      Unfortunately, Magoon et al. 2013 have only two examples of O2a1*-PK4(xO2a1a-M95) in their data set: NA18638 (a Han Chinese in Beijing, China) and HG00457 (a Han Chinese in Hunan or Fujian, China). It may be said that this confirms only that O2a1*-PK4(xO2a1a-M95) is found in Han Chinese in both northern and southern China.

      However, this study's data do expand the known distribution of O2a*-F1462(xO2a1-PK4) both toward the south (southern China and Vietnam) and toward the east (eastern Japan). They have eight cases of O2a*(xO2a1-PK4), including three Han from Beijing, two Han from Hunan or Fujian, a Kinh from Ho Chi Minh City, a Japanese from Tokyo, and a Dai from Xishuangbanna, Yunnan. If we group the individuals from Beijing and Tokyo as "northern" and the individuals from Hunan or Fujian, Ho Chi Ming City, and Xishuangbanna as "southern," then it is an equal split (4 vs. 4), and the data are equivocal regarding the question of a northern or southern origin of haplogroup O2a.

      In other words, I must revise my previous statement that O2a*(xO2a1-PK4) is a relictual branch now found mostly in northern China; it may be relatively frequent in Beijing and northern China in general, but it is distributed widely from at least southern Vietnam and Yunnan all the way to eastern Japan, and I suppose it would be prudent to say that the available data are currently insufficient to determine where this clade occurs with the greatest frequency.

      1. Basically, from Haplogroups DNA perspective, a Southern Chinese and a Southeast Asians are more related with a Western Asian (but they're definitely not a "caucasian race" from their Autosomal DNA) rather than a Mongolian, Siberian, Ainu Jomon, Tibetan people, an Australian Aborigines, Melanesians, Micronesians and a Polynesians people. Just it!

      2. But I must underline that haplogroups refer us to a time 60 or 70 Ka ago when modern "races" were not yet defined. More importantly the overall genetic affinity that is behind the idea of "race" or "stock". You can have Y-DNA R1b and be Irish, Uyghur or Central African, and you are talking about maybe double that time (K2).

        Certainly, once upon a time, there was a key population somewhere in SE Asia that would later contribute critically to the genetic makeup of East Asians, Melanesians, South Asians and West Eurasians but afterwards the floodgates were raised (so to say, demographic pressure?) and the interaction largely ceased for 50 Ka or so, producing the modern distinctive populations.

        It's not so much the haplogroup ancestry as is the regional segregation produced by natural causes (geography) and surely also human causes (consolidated demographic pressure limiting the effect of whatever minor migrations took place afterwards), what causes those "racial" differences. In very general terms autosomal DNA (remixed once and again), along with the phenotype traits we associate to "race", tells us of relatively "recent" (pre-)history, while haplogroups (especially at these phylogenetic depths) tell us of very old paleohistory, now otherwise almost invisible (even archaeology is not able to tell us much, at least at the current stage of research in Asia).

    7. Maju, you're right. But from Y DNA and mtDNA Haplogroup, i already know when a Far East Asians / Asia Pasific have a 2 extremely different (from Homo Sapiens Sapiens) migration group and DNA of Old Asians and a New Asians no matter who they're looks like today.

    8. "Han" is a culture identity (from Han dynasty), not an ethnicity. There are a few distinct dialects of Han and Mandarin is the northern dialect.

      1. While the name does come from the Han dynasty, much as Mandinka or Malinke comes from ancient Mali, French from the Frankish dynasties, and even China itself from the Qin dynasty (Chinese "q" is pronounced almost as English "ch", ergo pronounce it like "chin"). There is no doubt that Han is today an ethnonym and one chosen by themselves (endonym therefore). Most foreigners would equalize it with "ethnic Chinese", although this can also be applied arguably to the Hui, whose only distinction from the Han is their Muslim background.

        The language(s) however is called Chinese, not Han, although some may argue it's rather a family (Sinitic) than a single language.

        If you don't trust my assessment, let's see what Wikipedia says:


        The Han Chinese are an ethnic group native to East Asia. They constitute approximately 92% of the population of Mainland China, 93% of the population of Hong Kong, 92% of the population of Macau, 98% of the population of Taiwan,[citation needed] 76.2% of the citizen population of Singapore, 24.5% of the population of Malaysia, and about 19% of the entire global human population, making them the largest ethnic group in the world.


        Chinese (汉语/漢語; Hànyǔ or 中文; Zhōngwén) is a group of related but in many cases mutually unintelligible language varieties, forming a branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Chinese is spoken by the Han majority and many other ethnic groups in China. Nearly 1.2 billion people (around 16% of the world's population) speak some form of Chinese as their first language.

    9. Hi L, Just a hypothetical observation on the latest information.
      I've been reading lately that R1b and R1a are also related to Q (Native Americans)?
      is this true?
      Wikipedia say's so,

      I ran into this last week and I was really surprised by it.
      I never really paid any attention to haplogroup K, but this opened my eyes.

      So I started to search around for any information on the subject and I found this study suggesting it's true.


      We sequenced genomes from a ~7,000 year old early farmer from Stuttgart in Germany, (G2a)an ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherer from Luxembourg,(I2a)and seven ~8,000 year old huntergatherers from southern Sweden. (I2a)We analyzed these data together with other ancient genomes and 2,345 contemporary humans to show that the great majority of present-day Europeans derive from at least three highly differentiated populations: West European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), who contributed ancestry to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners; Ancient North Eurasians (ANE),(R1b/R1a) who were most closely related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians and contributed to both Europeans and Near Easterners; and Early European Farmers (EEF), who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harbored WHG-related ancestry. We model these populations’ deep relationships and show that EEF had ~44% ancestry from a “Basal Eurasian” lineage that split prior to the diversification of all other non-African lineages.


      I placed the Haplogroups in the abstract, because that's who they're talking about in the study, and by support of this website.

      So, should R1b and R1a be included in the "Basal European" lineage? They probably inherited the European genes through admixture of mtDNA, no?

      Just please try to clarify this, I'm probably totally off track.

    10. "I've been reading lately that R1b and R1a are also related to Q (Native Americans)?"

      Of course it is. R and Q together make a single haplogroup, called P1, which in turn is a subclade of P, which is a subclade of K2b (including also "Melanesian" K, incl. M and S), which is a subclade of K2 (I used to call it "MNOPS", ISOGG used K(xLT) but Karafet now has imposed her K2 nomenclature, K1=LT), that also includes "East Asian" NO (= K2a). Of course K is a subclade IJK, which is a subclade of IJKH, which is a subclade of F, which is a subclade of CF, the main Y-DNA haplogroup out-of-Africa (the other is its "nephew" D). See:
      → (for all your phylogenetic Y-DNA needs)

      The story is as follows:
      1. F is the largest haplogroup in Asia-plus, it probably coalesced in the OoA process, either in West Asia or South Asia.
      2. IJKH makes up the bulk of it (excluding G), it must have coalesced in South Asia: H headed south, IJK remained north, splitting then into IJ and K.
      3. A group of K-carriers headed East (I guess that together with C and D carriers but hard to tell), where it became K2 (probably in Sundaland), while its "brother" K1=LT remained in NW India (incl. Pakistan).
      4. NO (= K2a) headed North.
      5. P1 (= K2b1a) headed West back into India and further West. Traces are: abundant P1* in Bengal and nearby areas, abundance of Q(xQ1) in Iran and nearby areas and, R2 as Indian lineage and of course R1 as major West Eurasian lineage (with backflow to India probably only since Neolithic). This Westward migration of P1 should correspond with the early Upper Paleolithic, although maybe at that point it remained in West Asia, only expanding at later dates into Europe, hard to say with the limited current evidence). R* has been spotted in UP Siberia (Mal'ta).
      6. Q1 headed East by the Northern route, carrying with them the UP technology ("mode 4" or blade tech), which slowly spread in East Asia from the North, mostly by cultural diffusion. Some of them arrived to Beringia and then into America, soon after the LGM (Monte Verde: 18 Ka BP, North American sites 17 Ka BP).

      The expansion of K2 correlates strongly with that of mtDNA R and it represents a second internal wave in Asia (and beyond) that is ill explained but that I tentatively associate to: (a) emptying of many niches by the Toba supervolcano catastrophe (74 Ka BP) and maybe also (b) domestication of the dog, whose Paleolithic SE Asia origin has been once and again demonstrated and whose presence in Gravettian Altai, quasi-ancestral to Native American dogs, is a clear fossil evidence.

      1. ANE (Mal'ta and his Afontova Gora "cousin") were not R1a/R1b. Mal'ta is R(xR1,R2), AG I don't think was ever described in Y-DNA terms. This is the idoelogically-loaded hypothesis of Davidski (who I still call sometimes "Polako", for his old Internet handle) but I always dispute it. Similarly not all Paleoeuropeans were I2a, although the late ones in Central and North Europe were indeed, we know at least of two exceptions: R1a in Karelia and C1a in Iberia. My hunch is that, just as Central-North Paleoeuropeans carried all mtDNA U subclades (U*-CRS, U5 and U4 to be specific) but Iberian ones carried lots of mtDNA H (in addition to U5 and maybe U4 if we include Taforalt's old reports) and Karelian ones also carried H (along with other lineages), it's very possible, probable even, that Paleoeuropean populations outside the narrow field of sight of Central/North Europe also carried other Y-DNA lineages. That may include R1b, which is much older than its R1a "brother", but only further research will confirm this extreme. Alternatively R1b, as R1a, should have come from West Asia in the Neolithic (but again no direct fossil evidence supports this, not yet).

        No matter what, associating Y-DNA with autosomal categories such as "ANE" or the even more confusing "Basal Eurasian" is extremely risky. IMO "Basal Eurasian" is a conflation of categories that are not strictly "African" in the modern sense nor "(Eur-)Asian" in the narrow sense and may include leftover populations from the OoA in West Asia and North Africa and also even recent African admixture senso stricto: some trees point to Dinka admixture in Ötzi for example, La Braña's anomalous African-like or "Basal Eurasian" element is maybe NW African admixture from the time of the Solutrean-Iberomaurusian (or Oranian) interaction, which left a massive Iberian-like legacy in North Africa (mtDNA H1, H3, H4 and H7 at the very least) but should also have affected West Iberia (Portugal and from there Asturias, whose Solutrean is not directly derived from Aquitaine, like the Basque one, but from Portugal via Salamanca).

        In any case, there is an unmistakable signature of African genetic influence in Europe in the form Y-DNA lineage E1b in its various forms. At least part of the "Basal Eurasian" thingy should be related to this influence.


    Please, be reasonably respectful when making comments. I do not tolerate in particular sexism, racism nor homophobia. Personal attacks, manipulation and trolling are also very much unwelcome here.The author reserves the right to delete any abusive comment.

    Preliminary comment moderation is... OFF (keep it that way, please)