December 2, 2013

The Mal'ta aDNA findings

The recent sequencing of ancient DNA from the remains of a Central Siberian young boy, corresponding to the Gravettian site of Mal'ta, West of Lake Baikal, dated to c. 24,000 years calBP, has caught the interest of many anthropology enthusiasts. During my hiatus of more than two months, most people who asked me to retake blogging with an specific request, talked of these findings. Let's see:

Maanasa Raghavan et al., Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans. Nature 2013. Pay per viewLINK [doi:10.1038/nature12736]

Abstract

The origins of the First Americans remain contentious. Although Native Americans seem to be genetically most closely related to east Asians1, 2, 3, there is no consensus with regard to which specific Old World populations they are closest to4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Here we sequence the draft genome of an approximately 24,000-year-old individual (MA-1), from Mal’ta in south-central Siberia9, to an average depth of 1×. To our knowledge this is the oldest anatomically modern human genome reported to date. The MA-1 mitochondrial genome belongs to haplogroup U, which has also been found at high frequency among Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers10, 11, 12, and the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages5. Similarly, we find autosomal evidence that MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Native Americans, with no close affinity to east Asians. This suggests that populations related to contemporary western Eurasians had a more north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought. Furthermore, we estimate that 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from this ancient population. This is likely to have occurred after the divergence of Native American ancestors from east Asian ancestors, but before the diversification of Native American populations in the New World. Gene flow from the MA-1 lineage into Native American ancestors could explain why several crania from the First Americans have been reported as bearing morphological characteristics that do not resemble those of east Asians2, 13. Sequencing of another south-central Siberian, Afontova Gora-2 dating to approximately 17,000 years ago14, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures as MA-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum. Our findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans.


Haploid lineages

The Mal'ta boy, MA-1, carried distinct yDNA R* and mtDNA U* lineages. While both are clearly related to those dominant in Europe and parts of Asia (West, South) nowadays, they are also distinct from any specific dominant lineage today.

R* (yDNA) is neither R1 nor R2 but another distinct branch of R. This kind of R(xR1, R2) is most rare today and found mostly in and around NW South Asia. Following Wikipedia, this "other R" is found in:
  • 10.3% among the Burusho
  • 6.8% among the Kalash
  • 3.4% among the Gujarati
However I must say that I recall from old discussions that some R(xR1) is also found among Mongols and some North American Natives. I would have to find the relevant studies though (maybe in an update).

U* (mtDNA) is also quite rare today but has been found in Swabian Magdalenian hunter-gatherers, as well as in some Neolithic samples, although it may well be a totally different kind of U* (I could not discern the specific markers in the paper nor the supplementary materials and it must be reminded that the asterisk only means "others").


Autosomal DNA

The study also shows some statistical inferences from the autosomal (or nuclear) DNA of the Mal'ta boy:


Figure 1 [b & c]
b, PCA (PC1 versus PC2) of MA-1 and worldwide human populations for which genomic tracts from recent European admixture in American and Siberian populations have been excluded19.
c, Heat map of the statistic f3(Yoruba; MA-1, X) where X is one of 147 worldwide non-African populations (standard errors shown in Supplementary Fig. 21). The graded heat key represents the magnitude of the computed f3 statistics.


Here we can appreciate that MA-1 is closest to Native Americans but still rather intermediate between them and South and West Eurasians. Interestingly East Asians are quite distant instead, suggesting that MA-1 was still not too much admixed with that continental population, unlike what happens with Native Americans, who are essentially East Asian in the autosomal and mtDNA aspects. So this kid appears to be some sort of a "missing link" in the Paleolithic ethnogenesis of Native Americans.



Figure 2 | Admixture graph for MA-1 and 16 complete genomes. An admixture graph with two migration edges (depicted by arrows) was fitted using TreeMix21 to relate MA-1 to 11 modern genomes from worldwide populations22, 4 modern genomes produced in this study (Avar, Mari, Indian and Tajik), and the Denisova genome22. Trees without migration, graphs with different number of migration edges, and residual matrices are shown in Supplementary Information, section 11. The drift parameter is proportional to 2Ne generations, whereNe is the effective population size. The migration weight represents the fraction of ancestry derived from the migration edge. The scale bar shows ten times the average standard error (s.e.) of the entries in the sample covariance matrix. Note that the length of the branch leading toMA-1 is affected by this ancient genome being represented by haploid genotypes.

Even if I am not too keen of TreeMix, in this case the results seem consistent.

We can appreciate here that a sample of Native Americans (the Karitiana, maybe not as "pure" as the Xavantes but still very much so) show up in a different branch from MA-1, reflecting their overwhelmingly East Asian ancestry, mostly by the maternal side (mtDNA). MA-1 instead hangs from the South-West Eurasian branch, soon after the split between South Asians and West Eurasians. Both have extremely drifted branches, surely indicating the small size of their founder populations, typical of the Far North. 

In addition to this basic tree, two admixture events are signaled: one is the already known Denisovan (H. erectus?) weak one into Australasian Natives (represented by Papuans) and the other one, quite more intense, is the one hanging from upstream of MA-1 to Native Americans (Karitiana), reflecting the partial South-West Eurasian ancestry of Native Americans (noticeable also in their dominant paternal ancestry: haplogroup Q). 

The fact that the admixture signal stems from quite upstream of MA-1 indicates that this boy (or rather his relatives) were not direct ancestors of Native Americans in any significant way but rather a different branch from the same trunk. Probably proto-Amerindians were already in this period at the North Pacific coasts, not sure if in Beringia or around Okhotsk or what but certainly they had already separated from the Mal'ta population.


What did we know of Native American genesis before this finding?

There are three principal lines of evidence:
  1. Y-DNA, which among Native Americans is essentially haplogroup Q (plus some C3, which is from NE Asia). By phylogenetically hierarchical diversity, haplogroup Q must have coalesced in West or Central Asia (or maybe South Asia?), very possibly in or near Iran. The NE Asian and Native American branches are clearly derived, even if more important numerically today.
  2. mtDNA, which among Native Americans is essentially from NE Asia (A, C, D), middle East Asia (B) but also in a small amount from West Asia (X2). 
  3. Archaeology: we can track, more or less directly, the proto-NAs by means of following the Upper Paleolithic sequence in Siberia and nearby areas. 
    1. C. 47,000 years ago (calBP) H. sapiens with Aurignacoid technology (i.e. linked to West Eurasian earliest Upper Paleolithic) reached Altai, displacing the Neanderthals to the Northern fringes of the district.
    2. C. 30,000 years ago, Upper Paleolithic ("mode 4") technology with roots in Altai reached other parts of Siberia, Mongolia and North China, from where it expanded eastwards and southwards gradually in a process of, probably, cultural diffusion. 
    3. By c. 17,000 years ago they were already in North America and c. 15,000 years ago in South America. In the LGM they were probably in Beringia already (but this is only indirectly attested so far). 
So we already had a good idea about the origins of Native Americans: their ultimate roots, at least patrilineally, seem to be in Altai (where they were part of the wider West Eurasian colonization at the expense of Neanderthals with Aurignacian-like technology and dogs). Then, probably around 30,000 years ago they expanded eastwards through Siberia and maybe nearby areas, entering in intense and intimate contact with the already existent East Asian populations, with whom they admixed once and again, mostly by the female side. 

It would seem therefore that their society was already patrilocal because otherwise their patrilineages would have just got dissolved among the locals and would have never reached Beringia nor America in such dominant position.

Overall this is the quite clear notion that I have on Native American earliest genesis and for me there is no reasonable doubt about this narrative (except maybe in the fine details). However I must reckon that some individuals have reacted very negatively against it. But no matter how much they yell, I fail to see their arguments. 


How does this new finding affects this narrative?

It simply confirms it with further evidence. By 24,000 calBP the proto-NAs were surely already, as I said before, in NE Asia close to the Pacific coasts, so this Mal'ta population is a branch left behind in their migration (plus whatever new inflows from the West, which we can't evaluate). The very low affinity level with East Asians, in spite of its quite Eastern location, shows that early East Asians had not yet reached, at least in significant numbers, so far North. If they had, they probably did only at more eastern longitudes, probably near the sea, where resources were more plentiful.

In other words: the first Central Siberians were of South+West Eurasian stock and the current East Asian genetic and phenotype hegemony in that area reflects post-LGM flows, mostly lead by yDNA N1. 

Early Native Americans were the product of admixture of these earliest Siberians with NE Asians, admixture that surely happened East of Lake Baikal, although the exact details are still unclear. 


What does MA-1 say about the West?

His mtDNA is generally consistent with other common U-derived lineages found in West Eurasian Upper Paleolithic, so not much other than he was somehow related, what is confirmed by autosomal analysis. 

His yDNA is more interesting maybe, nonetheless because it is probably the oldest sequence of this kind but also because it belongs to haplogroup R. It certainly discards whatever "molecular clock" guesstimates for R that are shorter than this site's age but on its own it is not able to set a real age other than a bare minimum. 

So for example Eupedia's estimate of 29 Ka for R as such could still be valid, although I would say that extremely unlikely. 

Indirectly however it does say something by confirming the overall narrative of Native American origins as above and that means that Eupedia's estimate of a mere 24 Ka age for haplogroup Q is almost certainly wrong by a lot. 

Using that tree, we would have to at least double the age of Q in order to fit with the Altai narrative (which begins at c. 47 Ka ago), what, extrapolating, implies an age for R of at least 58 Ka. I have estimated some 48 Ka of age for R1 and 68 Ka for P, so it makes good sense after these so necessary corrections. The exact ages we may never know but the approximate ages should be something like these. 


And that's about all I can say. More in comments (and/or updates) if need be.



Update (Dec 6): R* and P* (and other rare clades) among Central Asians

A reader sent me copy of the study by Wei-Hua Shou et al. (2010) titled Y-chromosome distributions among populations in Northwest China identify significant contribution from Central Asian pastoralists and lesser influence of western Eurasians, published by Nature (doi:10.1038/jhg.2010.30).

While it is not the bit of info I was recalling above, it does add some information about unmistakable R(xR1,R2) and P(xQ,R) among Central Asian populations (from P.R. China territory). In detail:
  • R* is found in 5/31 Tayiks, 1/41 Kazakhs and 1/50 Uyghurs.
  • P* is found in 1/31 Tayiks and 1/43 Kirgizes. 
Also of interest should be the presence of:
  • Q(xQ1) in  8/35 Dongxiang (a Mongol ethnicity), 1/45 Kirgizes and 1/50 Tu (another Mongol ethnicity).
  • F(xG,H,I,J,K) in 2/32 Yugu (Yugurs, a distinct Uyghur sub-ethnicity), 2/41 Kazakh, 1/31 Tayiks and 1/50 Tu.
  • K(xN,O,P) in  32/533 total (i.e. 6% in Easternmost Central Asia), among which are most notable: 9/50 Uyghurs, 6/23 Uzbeks, 6/27 Bao'an (another small Mongol ethnicity), 3/32 Xibo (a Tungusic ethnicity), 2/32 Yugu and 2/5 Mongols. I guess that it is possible that this is a distinct K subclade, although it can well be either part of MNOPS (NO*?) or also belong to LT (L?).
  • R2 in 1/31 Tayiks and 2/27 Bao'an.

84 comments:

  1. A few observations:

    * mtDNA X2 is exclusive to North America and present at higher frequencies in Native American ethnicities like the Na-Dene that may have been late arrivals in subsequent minor circumpolar waves of migration to North American rather than being among the First Americans, although this distinction could simply be a product of serial founder effects that reduced diversity in mtDNA as one moves South.

    * This sample makes it even more remarkable that no mtDNA U ended up in the Native American gene pool.

    * The assumption of strong population genetic continuity and cultural diffusion of technology between the 47kya population and the 30kya population seems like a relatively weak link in the analysis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually most X2 among Native Americans is found among Algonquians, who are not Na-Dene but Amerinds (if you follow Greenberg's classification) or just Algic (more mainstream ones). Their NW distribution was actually the main argument in favor of the far-fetched "Solutrean hypothesis" (but see: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/34275/10106_ftp.pdf)

      "This sample makes it even more remarkable that no mtDNA U ended up in the Native American gene pool".

      I decided not to dwell in this aspect in the main article because of its additional complexity and lack of information but let's not forget that Mal'ta is generally understood to be part of Gravettian, which seems to be a second wave of West Eurasian expansion (again from West Asia). It's possible (but uncertain) that some of the elements we see here belong to this second Gravettian wave rather than to the primary Aurignacoid one.

      If so, it's almost certain that the (proto-) Native American population, already further East, did not participate in this second Gravettian macro-culture, and therefore they did not carry any (mt) U nor (y) R, if these lineages are to be associated primarily with Gravettian (what is possible).

      As we so far lack of any Aurignacoid archaeo-genetic data whatsoever (very few human remains) this issue is impossible to discern.

      "The assumption of strong population genetic continuity and cultural diffusion of technology between the 47kya population and the 30kya population seems like a relatively weak link in the analysis".

      The assumption I make of continuity is between early Aurignacoid Altai peoples and proto-NAs (or, after heavy oriental admixture, NAs as such. There are reasons to believe so: Gravettian arrival to the area is of later date than 30 Ka and the 33 Ka old dog is clearly ancestral to NA dogs, while the NE Asian earliest Upper Paleolithic (mode 4) is clearly of Altaian origin. I don't have so clear if this MA-1 population strictly belongs to the original proto-NA one of Aurignacian roots or is a mixture and these and a later West Asian wave (Gravettian) but this does not affect the NA origins narrative as such.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, those explanations esp. re mtDNA U make quite a bit of sense.

      Delete
  2. Thanks for coming back, Maju!
    When do you reckon truly East-Eurasian-like N carrier started coming into Siberia? Could it be that the neolithic revolution in the Chinese river basins pushed them away to the north, where they adopted Reindeer husbandry, leading to their success at these latitudes (perhaps they already had some knowledge of animal husbandry as they were displaced and applied it to reindeers once in the north)? Is there any archeological data to back up that narrative? Or did it all happen much earlier?

    Also, you mention that the Denisova signal in Melanesian might be actually Erectus, mind saying more about that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re. Denisovan/erectus I have written about that in several entries but maybe most important is the following one because it's based on a scholarly paper and not just my personal interpretation:

      → http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2012/01/denisovan-admixture-may-actually-be.html

      As I see it, the issue is that, while Denisovans are autosomally somewhat close to Neanderthals (not much, very high in the tree, a trait typical of admixed populations), their mtDNA is quite more distant than the Neanderthal-Sapiens common ancestor, strongly suggesting H. erectus asiaticus. We lack by the moment a H. erectus sequence to compare with but the logical interpretation would be, I understand, to consider Denisovans a 50-50 mix Neanderthal-Erectus.

      There is evidence of colonization by H. erectus asiaticus of Altai in any case, older than Neanderthal arrival (from memory there were two erectus waves to that region), the latter one can well be partial ancestor of the Denisova women.

      One of the issues is that certain Anglosaxon schools (Trinkaus, etc.) argue that the Neanderthal-Sapiens split is very recent, maybe 500 or less Ka ago, while a more archaeologically sound understanding (more prominent in continental Europe, I guess) would rather support almost double that age, in agreement with the H. ergaster expansion with Acheulean (mode 2) technology around 1 Ma ago.

      Molecular-clock-o-logy has added much confusion here, again with systemic errors, judging the Pan-Homo split to be 7-5 Ma ago, when it's actually 8-13 Ma old. I have once and again discussed these matters in this blog, so I would suggest you to make searches with keywords like "Denisovan", "erectus", "Pan-Homo", etc. in order to look for further references.

      Delete
    2. PS- notice that this means that the Erectus admixture in Australasian natives would be about half of the reported figure because the Neanderthal admixture is counted twice.

      Delete
    3. "When do you reckon truly East-Eurasian-like N carrier started coming into Siberia? Could it be that the neolithic revolution in the Chinese river basins pushed them away to the north"...

      It seems quite older, from the LGM on. In fact many Neolithic sites of North China were still very rich in Y-DNA N (North-central and NE especially, NW was more dominated by Q):

      → http://eurogenes.blogspot.tw/2013/01/lots-of-ancient-y-dna-from-china.html

      A recent paper proposed that the Siberian expansion of N1 is of c. 12 Ka ago:

      → http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-review-of-haplogroup-n-y-dna.html

      (Considering the usual systemic errors of molecular-clock-o-logy, I would not be surprised if it was in fact quite older anyhow, from soon after the LGM).

      ... " where they adopted Reindeer husbandry"...

      The Nganasan (Taymyr peninsula) were never pastoralist but hunter-gatherers, so I understand that Uralic peoples adopted pastoralism only upon the expansion of Neolithic into Europe and Central Asia. They were surely first hunter-gatherers specialized in the coldest climate strip and only later adopted their peculiar form of pastoralism.

      Delete
  3. "R* (yDNA) is neither R1 nor R2 but another distinct branch of R. This kind of R(xR1, R2) is most rare today and found mostly in and around NW South Asia."

    I really doubt that. These results aren't being corroborated by more comprehensive modern SNP tests. So they're either lab errors or due to poor interpretation of the data.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, David, that comment of yours was sitting unnoticed in the "comments awaiting moderation" list.

      Well, whatever the case, I find that your skepticism sounds like wishful thinking of the kind: "I was not expecting this so it must be wrong somehow".

      R* is known in South and Central Asia, so I do not find this so surprising. Also, as I mentioned before (but have not yet been able to document - my search failed although I'm certain of having read and discussed about it in the past, around 2006-2008) I know of some odd R(xR1) among both Mongols and NW Native Americans (apparently related among both pops.), which would be most odd to end up being R2. So for me at least this result makes all sense.

      Delete
  4. Glad to read you again, Maju.

    Gui S: "They were surely first hunter-gatherers specialized in the coldest climate strip and only later adopted their peculiar form of pastoralism."

    Old Uralic (which we probably can originally associate with Y-DNA N1c and mtDNA Z1a and D5) has borrowed words such as milk, udder, bag/bucket, briddle, cow, etc... to Indo-iranian so I would assumed they get acquainted with pastoralism late enough... at best bronze age, and near the Urals.

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    Maju, a few points I need to be explained:

    a/ Did I understand correctly? Do you associate 47 kyo Aurignacoid in the Altai with (at least) Y-DNA Q1a3 and mtDNA X2?
    The link between R and Q1a3 (still present in the Altai today) is Y-DNA P, thus P should be the origin of the amerindian "autosomal" sequences (quite possibly partly the west Eurasian element too with mtDNA U and whatever other hypothetical Hgs might have existed in this population)), so they couldn't have separated too long before (a few millenia), right?
    Thus aurignacoid Altaian Q1 might be out of question, otherwise they might have diverged "autsomally" too much, no (I mean... about 20 kyo!...)?

    b/ Is the Y-DNA R* of Mal'ta, a stage directly before R1 and R2 or could it possibly be labelled R3?
    If it's just an early R, how comes Q1a (or Q1) could be in the Altai 17 kyo before?
    Is this mtDNA U (apparently quite derived) could be rightfully labelled U10 hypothetically (just wondering if it's basically an unknown new mtDNA U and not just a simple basic U with few mutations)?

    c/ Is the South Asian autosomal element only indicating that they didn't drift fully from the south Asian population they were/left originally, and that they were genetically a kind of intermediate prehistorical population - or does it simply signal an admixture event with a genetically south Asian group?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Do you associate 47 kyo Aurignacoid in the Altai with (at least) Y-DNA Q1a3 and mtDNA X2?"

      Almost yes. Not sure what is Q1a3 for you (not listed anymore at ISOGG) but I'd say that the Y-DNA Q subclade of that migration should be Q-MEH2, which nowadays is called Q1a. This one is found, it seems, among:
      → Koryaks and the (extinct) Dorset culture (Q1a*)
      → Various East Asians, as well as Hazaras (Q1a1a1 -M120)
      → West Asia (Q1a1b-M25)
      → West Asia, South Asia, East Asia and Native Americans (Q1a2-L56). The NA subclade is Q1a2a1a1-M3.

      Q1b and Q* are only found in West and South Asia, determining the ultimate origin of Q as a whole.

      As for mtDNA X2, it seems even more straightforward, as X2 is West-Central Asian and X1 almost only Egyptian (the Druze one must be of Egyptian origin, as Druzes are supposed to be partly from Anatolia and partly from Egypt, according to their own traditions). There's very little X outside of the Western Eurasian macro-region and all of it seems related to this proto-NA migration.

      "P should be the origin of the amerindian "autosomal" sequences"...

      Better do not mix Y-DNA with autosomal genetics, they often have no or very slim correlation, especially when we consider such ancient histories.

      What P or Q illustrate in this case is that there is a partial, essentially patrilineal, Western ultimate origin to Amerindians. This Western ancestry is not easily detectable in autosomal data: if you compare Native Americans, East Asians and Europeans (or Iranians or whatever) at K=2 you get NAs and East Asians in one bloc and Europeans or West Asians in the other, quite neatly. This is surely because they admixed heavily with East Asians (or vice versa if you wish to take a female point of view) before marching to Beringia and America. This admixture history is clear in the mtDNA (almost exclusively East Asian).

      However at K=3 NAs and East Asians diverge completely, what shows that their connection, even if strong is very old.

      Unlike autosomal DNA, which is subject to continuous re-admixture and drift, haploid DNA remains neatly separated: the lineage does never mix in an individual (it can mutate, evolve, but never mix). Therefore the genealogy is more clear in haploid DNA. Autosomal DNA is not too useful for the long term and is subject to many confounding factors.

      For example some Europeans and Central Africans share R1b but autosomally you would not detect any relation or almost. The relation does exist but is very remote in time, too thin to remain visible in autosomal data, especially after heavy, old and repeated admixture with the locals. The R1b-V88 Chadic peoples may have trace a patrilineage to West Asia (where the haplogroup probably originated) but the 99.99% of their ancestry is not by that line. Got it?

      ...

      Delete
    2. ...

      "Is the Y-DNA R* of Mal'ta, a stage directly before R1 and R2 or could it possibly be labelled R3?"

      The latter almost without doubt.

      "Is this mtDNA U (apparently quite derived) could be rightfully labelled U10 hypothetically (just wondering if it's basically an unknown new mtDNA U and not just a simple basic U with few mutations)?"

      Positively "U10", so to say (U-other, that's what the asterisk means). I haven't found the sequence but it's more recent than the U2 of Kostenki, so it's clearly not its ancestor. It's not AFAIK even part of U2'3'4'7'8'9, the direct ancestor of U2.

      "Is the South Asian autosomal element only indicating that they didn't drift fully from the south Asian population they were/left originally, and that they were genetically a kind of intermediate prehistorical population - or does it simply signal an admixture event with a genetically south Asian group?"

      This one is complicated to answer. As you can see in the heatmap, some West and South Eurasian populations are closer (warmer colors) than others (deeper blue) to MA-1.

      On one side West Eurasians and South Asians were then (24 Ka ago) much more recently diverged than now (almost half the time) but on the other some South Asians seem to have more recent West Eurasian admixture, probably from Neolithic times. Then in turn some Europeans, etc. have some also "recent" Siberian admixture, etc. And additionally MA-1 might have elements from the Gravettian wave. So it's very hard to interpret this kind of gradation with any single simple answer. Probably all these flows affected the degree of autosomal affinity a bit.

      I don't see any reason to consider any secondary South Asian flow to Siberia anyhow. It must be understood within the context of the complex and relatively intense relations of South Asia and West Eurasia through Prehistory as I just outlined.

      Delete
    3. PS- They say clearly in the paper that is neither R1 nor R2.

      Delete
  5. Welcome back! I don't have anything to add concerning Mal'ta other than my own Native American markers from 23andMe are common to East Asia - so I can't confirm any relation to this individual.

    Today I am just trying to wrap my head around the amazing technical tour de force of obtaining an mtDNA sequence from 400 Ka bones. WOW!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They sequence horses, don't they?

      Delete
    2. I meant this: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-horses-dna-fills-picture-equine-evolution

      Although it was also something of a "good morning, what's going on?" joke, with a reference to that great movie and book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Shoot_Horses,_Don%27t_They%3F_%28film%29 (just in case you were oblivious).

      Delete
  6. According to the paper “Y-chromosome distributions among populations in Northwest China identify significant contribution from Central Asian pastoralists and lesser influence of western Eurasians”, R*-207 is found as follows: 1/50 Uygurs, 1/41 Kazakhs and 5/31 Chinese Tajike.

    Maju, I disagree with you when you say that “current East Asian genetic and phenotype hegemony in that area reflects post-LGM flows, mostly lead by yDNA N1”. At the moment, I am quite sure that many North East Asian traits developed in the North much earlier. N is much too young to have brought this phenotype to North East Asia and America. If it arose in Yunnan 20 kya and spread to the North during or after the Ice Age, it cannot have developed a phenotype that is found in such a wide area from China to America.

    When you say that “NW was more dominated by Q”, it is however true that the oldest sites in Xinjiang are Xiaohe (4000-3500 bp) with a lot of R1a and Tianshan Beilu (4000-3300 bp) with a lot of N, while Heigouliang and Pengyang sites with Q are younger (2500-2000 bp).

    Vooruit, when you say that “Old Uralic (which we probably can originally associate with Y-DNA N1c and mtDNA Z1a and D5) has borrowed words such as milk, udder, bag/bucket, briddle, cow, etc... to Indo-iranian so I would assumed they get acquainted with pastoralism late enough... at best bronze age, and near the Urals”, I say that they get acquainted with pastoralism when it arrived to the Volga Ural area. There is not any real link between Z1, D5 and N1c. Z1 and D5 moved in the arctic areas and are found in Saami with a frequency of 0-7% and 0-9% respectively. In the West, Z and D5 are found sporadically in Komis, Bashkirs, Kets, North Russians, Maris, Nganasans and Altaians, but the frequencies range between 0-5%.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "N is much too young to have brought this phenotype to North East Asia and America".

      Wait. Definitely not to America, where yDNA N does not exist. I'm talking of Central Siberia or Central-West Siberia. The East (Eastern Siberia and/or "Russian Far East") definitely got influences from East Asia much earlier (yDNA C3, various mtDNA clades) and there is where I'd look first for the proto-NA genesis.

      "If it arose in Yunnan 20 kya and spread to the North during or after the Ice Age"...

      I do not accept that claim of a mere 20 Ka age for yDNA N. Probably N1 (which I believe is all the N sampled at the 1000GP, with only 6 N(xN1c1)) is some 25 Ka old on its own, so N as a whole should be quite older, maybe as old as its more populous "brother" O, which seems like 50 Ka old or maybe slightly younger (say 40 Ka).

      If N1 was already formed c. 25 Ka ago, its expansion northwards would fit well with the post-LGM scenario.

      ... "it cannot have developed a phenotype that is found in such a wide area from China to America".

      I insist: you are misinterpreting me. N1 did not "develop" the Oriental or "Mongoloid" phenotype, this kind of stuff is much bigger than any single lineage and surely older as well, at least in its primary form. What I say is that the expansion of that phenotype to Central and West Siberia seems to correlate well with the spread of N1, which is a marker of that expansion, a "leader" or "carrier" if you wish, but not the phenotype itself (obviously: a lot of modern N1 carriers do not look East Asian at all).

      And in any case I'm not implying N1 in this phenotype expansion to East Siberia nor much less America. That's older than the N1 expansion, of course: pre-LGM dates with certainty.

      "... the oldest sites in Xinjiang are Xiaohe (4000-3500 bp) with a lot of R1a and Tianshan Beilu (4000-3300 bp) with a lot of N, while Heigouliang and Pengyang sites with Q are younger (2500-2000 bp)".

      I'm planning an entry on East Asian ancient yDNA, maybe today if the graphs work as I want them to. We should be able to discuss that then in more detail.

      By the moment suffices to say that all this data is Neolithic to Metal Ages, so pretty much irrelevant for the older dates we are discussing here, and also it refers to the territory of P.R. China, so it's not directly informative for Siberia, etc. The R1a site of Uyghuristan looks like an early Indoeuropean settlement (Afanasevo-related) or otherwise West Eurasian flow from that period, not Paleolithic, it is also exceptional in the overall NE Asian aDNA context, dominated by N, O, Q and C (plus some rarer clades in Japan).

      In brief: what I suggest is:

      1. East Asian expansion to East Siberia with, essentially yDNA C3 as marker.
      2. West Eurasian expansion to Central Siberia with Q1 as marker.
      3. Intense admixture leading to NAs in East Siberia (?)
      4. LGM demographic crisis in the Far North (Beringia refugium for early NAs).
      5a. East Asian expansion to Central and West Siberia with N1 as main marker.
      5b. NA expansion to America (Q1 as main marker, some C3).
      6. Uralic-specific expansion in West Siberia and NE Europe, intense admixture with Europeans.

      Delete
    2. Kristiina: "There is not any real link between Z1, D5 and N1c."

      To me there is clearly one. These haplogroups are found together in variable % each, in the same area, east-northern Europe, Urals and Siberia (west and central IIRC). They had to originally travel together, especially since they seem to have the same geographic origin in north east Asia.
      How do you think they all arrived there, each of them? These mtDNA lineages are different from the east Asian lineages found souther (within the mtDNA C spectrum).
      And clearly the origin of Z1 and D5a3 is in the north-east of Asia.

      D5a3 is found in Korea and the greatest clade diversity of Z is found in Korea, northern China and (also in Central Asia - probably in the Hazaras as I know they have some, but a non-negligible part of this population migrated with the Turks or Mongols during the Mongol invasion.
      Just think that CZ (the Z ancestor) is most common in Siberian population and that M8a2, which is derived from M8 the ancestor of CZ, is frequently found in indigenous peoples of Kamchatka (Koryaks, Itelmens), and with lower frequency among Chukchis, Koreans, Altayans, Mongolians, Khakassians, and Tuvans.


      "Z1 and D5 moved in the arctic areas and are found in Saami with a frequency of 0-7% and 0-9% respectively. In the West, Z and D5 are found sporadically in Komis, Bashkirs, Kets, North Russians, Maris, Nganasans and Altaians, but the frequencies range between 0-5%. "

      So what? What is the problem? It covers the Finno-ugric area, also areas that were finno-ugric in the past and the general antique path from north-east Asia that N1c and Z1a and D5a3 had to take.
      Is it the fact that N1c has a huge % in the male lineages unlike the female lineages Z1a and D5a3a? It seems perfectly logic to me.


      "I say that they get acquainted with pastoralism when it arrived to the Volga Ural area"

      Proto-indo-iranian is probably from 2,500 BCE at most, so for an Ugric language (and thus EAST of the Urals) such as Hungarian to have an INDO-ARYAN-LIKE word for cow ("tehen", closer to sanskrit dhenu than to Avestan dainu) and a word for carriage ("szeker", compare it with Hindi or Bihari sagar, for instance - again the indo-aryan branch, not the Iranic one), it can't be from the arrival of pastoralism at the Volga, that's too old.


      "the oldest sites in Xinjiang are Xiaohe (4000-3500 bp) with a lot of R1a"

      AFAIK, ALL the tested Xiaohe remains were R1a1a so far. Personnaly I don't have much doubt they were originally related to the Afanasevo caucasoid of the Altai-sayan region that appeared around 3,500 BCE, that were morphologically and culturally related to the Kurgan culture from the west. Their numerous mtDNA C4 also point to south Siberia as it is still found up there in no negligible % IIRC.

      Delete
    3. Hungarian expansion is Medieval, wherever early Magyars were before that it's very likely for what you say that they were in close contact with Scythians (Indo-Iranians). You cannot extrapolate from Hungarians to general Uralic or Finno-Ugric in any case.

      "Proto-indo-iranian is probably from 2,500 BCE at most"...

      In my understanding, Indo-Iranian has a much longer evolution as the main (not only) steppe branch of Indoeuropean. Most likely they derive from the Yamna culture ultimately. So if PII has to be from 2500 BCE as you claim, there must still be a "pre-proto-Indo-Iranian" older than that and it was surely centered around the Don-Volga area, I understand.

      "Cow" and "carriage" are not the kind of words that early Uralics would have incorporated to their particular variant of pastoralism anyhow, as they were reindeer specialists, at least initially. The words they needed were reindeer and sledge and these they already had from their hunter-gatherer period (assuming dog-led or even human-traction sledges or similar (travois or whatever)).

      "ALL the tested Xiaohe remains were R1a1a so far."

      Davidski reports (from a Chinese paper) also one "K*" but unclear what it is exactly. All other 11 samples are R1a1a, yes. In any case they do look a West Eurasian inflow, and a recent one for that time (Afanasevo surely, yes).

      Delete
    4. Oops, the reference to the last paragraph: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/01/lots-of-ancient-y-dna-from-china.html

      Delete
    5. Vooruit, you said it yourself, Z1 and D5 are typical of populations high in yDNA C3. The highest frequencies of D5 in Siberia are in West Evenks, 6.8% (70% of C3c), and in Altaian Chelkan, 8.6%. In Koryaks the frequency is 7.8% (33.3% of yDNA C3c). The frequency of D5 is 8% in Hubei and Guangdong, China. The highest frequency of Z in Siberia is in Evenks, 10.9% and in Teleuts, 5.7%. In northern China the frequency of Z is 9.68%.

      There is no northern yDNA path from Northern Siberia to Europe, i.e. European N lines have not developed from Yakut, Nenets, Nganasan or Beringian lines. According to this map http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bashkir_5.jpg, the root of N1c is shared between West Siberians, Volga-Ural people and South Siberians and Central Asian people. In addition, N lineage is quite young compared to C3, O, Q or R, and seems to have arisen somewhere in Yunnan where D5 and Z did definitely not come from.

      Here you have the D5 and Z frequencies of people high in N1c or N1b: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181943/table/TB1/)
      Nenets D5 0%, Z 0%
      Nganasans D5 0%, Z 2.3%
      Saami D5 3.1%, Z 1.3%
      Finns D5 0.2%, Z 1.5%
      Karelians D5 1.2%, Z 0%
      Estonians D5 0.2%, Z 0%
      North Russians D5 5.2%, Z 0%
      Komis D5 1.8%, Z 1.8%
      Udmurts D5 0%, Z 7.1%
      Maris D5 0%, Z 2.7%
      Mordvins D5 0%, Z 0%
      Hungarians D5 0%, Z 0%
      Khants D5 0%, Z 0%
      Mansis D5 0.7%, Z 0%
      Yakuts D5 0%, Z 0%

      D5a3 is found in Korea and in South-Siberia/Europe, and the age estimation of South-Siberian/European D5a3 is 3.5 kya. Z was found in an ancient burial in Bol’shoy, somewhere near Murmansk area on the Barents Sea, 3.5 kya. N1c is much older in Europe than 3.5 kya and 0 percentages are not good evidence for any real link.

      Maju, only a small part of N folks were reindeer herders. Baltic Finns and Volga Uralic people adopted the similar economy as mainstream Russians, and N1 folks in China were agriculturalists or pastoralists. Samoyeds are numerically a very small group within N folks, and they mixed heavily with Paleo-Siberians and a part of Eastern mtDNA lineages come from them.

      Delete
    6. "... only a small part of N folks were reindeer herders. Baltic Finns and Volga Uralic people adopted the similar economy as mainstream Russians"...

      Sure. But when did that happen?

      The Russians living at the same latitude as Finno-Permians are clearly of Uralic ancestry (at least largely), this establishes a climatic cline approx. at the southern border of Vologda Oblast between European Uralics and Indoeuropeans. It may have been even further south at some time.

      For what I know, the agriculture in the northern and northwestern latitudes of Eastern Europe (excluding the Uralic zone by the moment) was slow to establish. We are still talking of semi-foragers in the middle of Chalcolithic (pan-European chronology), which may have agricultural roots but developed a semi-forager way of life in places as far South as Lithuania or Götland.

      Going to the specifics of Uralic peoples, Comb Ware culture is generally described as "hunter-gatherers", much as their Pitted Ware neighbors often are (with some question marks, such as the use of pigs, some cereals and such). Do you mean that Uralic peoples went from that hunter-gatherer culture right away into farming and cattle herding around 2000 BCE? I admit that I haven't paid much (or even any) attention to that transition in the Uralic zone, so feel free to illustrate me.

      "... and N1 folks in China were agriculturalists or pastoralists".

      At some point they were but earlier they must have been foragers, just like everybody everywhere. Obviously (and unlike Austroasiatics in India) Uralic peoples did not bring the Eastern Neolithic package (millet for example, or pottery, which is even quite older than farming in East Asia) to the West, so their migration is in any case pre-Neolithic.

      I would say that they adventured northwards first, more or less as the freezing conditions of the LGM receded, and then, once established their economical-ecological niche, they migrated Westwards. Maybe their first distinct zone was in Yakutia, where Y-DNA N is also very important but was turkified in the 13th century. But I do not know if Tungusic languages may have been a previous layer of acculturation.

      "Samoyeds are numerically a very small group within N folks, and they mixed heavily with Paleo-Siberians"...

      Small numbers are key to understand the dynamics of the Far North. What are those "Paleo-Siberians" anyhow? Yukaghirs, whose language is sometimes included into Uralic or Yeniseian peoples, who live rather to the South?

      "... and a part of Eastern mtDNA lineages come from them".

      The only Western "Paleo-Siberian" group are the Yeniseian, of which only some 2500 Kets exist today. The other extinct Yeniseian groups lived even further South.

      Incidentally Kets are only half oriental re. mtDNA and when they are, their lineages are "peculiar". Following the old McDonald 2005 reference: the main Ket lineage is U, followed by F (not one the lineages discussed here) and then C, A and H. So if the Oriental lineages among Uralics are owed to Yeniseian peoples, we should expect quite a bit of F and maybe some A but probably not D nor Z (which are present only at very low frequencies among Kets).

      I think we discussed and agreed previously, Kristiina, that D seems to be related to early Altaic migrations from Mongolia in the context of the Seima-Turbino phenomenon (first Bronze Age) but CZ seem to be older in West Siberia (proto-Ugric or whatever).

      But well... I do not want to drive myself crazy with this issue of particular lineages being from here or there because it is a bit overload for my brain, sincerely.

      Delete
  7. Updated with rare clade's yDNA data for Chinese Central Asia (incl. Q*, R*, P*, K(xN,O,P), F* and R2) from a 2010 study.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Maju: "In my understanding, Indo-Iranian has a much longer evolution as the main (not only) steppe branch of Indoeuropean. Most likely they derive from the Yamna culture ultimately. So if PII has to be from 2500 BCE as you claim, there must still be a "pre-proto-Indo-Iranian" older than that and it was surely centered around the Don-Volga area, I understand. "

    Well, one of the proposed source for proto-indo-iranian in the Kurgan theory context is the Abashevo culture that was located between Volga and Urals, and was also right at the forest zone (and there are a few proto-indo-iranian words in proto-Uralic, among them, "Arya", "Asura" and "wheel").

    The proto-indo-iranian stage is often thought to be between 2,500 and 2,000 BCE (especially in the Kurgan hypothesis) because the oldest indo-aryan language, Sanskrit, and the oldest Iranic language, Avestan, were very close to each other, which means the proto-Indo-iranian stage couldn't be too far back.

    "Hungarian expansion is Medieval, wherever early Magyars were before that it's very likely for what you say that they were in close contact with Scythians (Indo-Iranians)"

    No. As I said, the linguists are clear, these words are either related to indo-aryan (some archaic indo-iranian leaning toward Indic) or Indo-aryan in origin.
    The Scythians were Iranic like all the Saka tribes, thus they couldn't be the source of these loanwords.

    And Ugric is spoken EAST of the Urals not west, so I assume that's where they got these loanwords.

    I don't see where is the problem with some Indic-related loanwords in Uralic, if all the indo-iranian language families (Iranic, Indic, Nuristani) have their origin in central Asia (sure it's not 100% proven but...).

    Iranic likely became prevalent with the rise of the Scythian tribes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abashevo seems derived from Corded Ware (Western IE).

      The simplest way to explain the origin of Indo-Iranians is as follows:

      Yamna → Poltavka¹ → Sintashta² → Andronovo.

      Notes:
      1 - with some influence from Catacomb culture (Anatolian branch?)
      2 - with some influence from Abashevo (Western IE branch), which is maybe where you should place your Western-Eastern vocabulary contact.

      Another branch derived from Poltavka, the Srubna culture may be at the origin of Cimmerians (debated).

      "The proto-indo-iranian stage is often thought to be between 2,500 and 2,000 BCE".

      That would essentially correspond to Poltavka but in fact, the division of Indo-Aryans did not happen until some later time, when the Swat culture and the Cemetery H phase (of late IVC), clearly signal the beginning of the Indo-Aryan invasion of India. This is date not earlier than ~1700 BCE. So Sintashta and early Andronovo would still correspond to the late phase of proto-Indo-Iranian, just before the Indo-Aryan split.

      "... because the oldest indo-aryan language, Sanskrit, and the oldest Iranic language, Avestan, were very close to each other, which means the proto-Indo-iranian stage couldn't be too far back".

      Precisely. I'd date the split c. 1700 BCE (or just slightly before), when we see the first archaeological evidence of the Indo-Aryan invasion.

      ... "these words are either related to indo-aryan (some archaic indo-iranian leaning toward Indic)"...

      OK, I misread you, it seems. If so the contact should correspond to the Andronovo period or a bit earlier.

      "And Ugric is spoken EAST of the Urals not west, so I assume that's where they got these loanwords".

      Exactly! The proto-Indo-Iranian area was just south of the Khanty-Mansi country.

      "I don't see where is the problem with some Indic-related loanwords in Uralic, if all the indo-iranian language families (Iranic, Indic, Nuristani) have their origin in central Asia"...

      Me neither. I thought you were trying to argue against Uralic reindeer pastoralism being older than 2500 BCE because of the 'cow' and 'carriage' loanwords, which may well be from a much later period, as early pastoralist Uralics almost certainly did not use and may not have even know about these items.

      In any case it seems, from the discussion, that these loanwords only affect Ugrian, not Uralics in general (i.e. Ugrian was already a distinct branch). Agreed?

      Delete
    2. Maju: "In any case it seems, from the discussion, that these loanwords only affect Ugrian, not Uralics in general (i.e. Ugrian was already a distinct branch). Agreed?"

      After verification it's clearly stated that it's PROTO-indo-aryan (which is logical), so when I talked of "indo-aryan" that was bad choice of word - "some archaic indo-iranian leaning toward Indic" was indeed more accurate (Even though some allege that some loanwords are from the vedic stage and even later, like Abayev, but that would be difficult to explain...).

      Anyway, Apparently Permic (Udmurt, Komi) has also loanwords that are related to PROTO-Indo-aryan.

      Bah, The Mitanni Indo-iranian words were also related to Indic (proto-indo-aryan?) it seems and the Hurrian invaders likely came from the region south of the Caucasus, so a "proto-indo-aryan" group arriving from the north of the Caspian sea and passing the Caucasus (along the seabord) is possible, I think.

      Delete
    3. Kristiina: "Vooruit, you said it yourself, Z1 and D5 are typical of populations high in yDNA C3"

      Do you see many C3 in north-east Europe and the Urals? I have no problems with the idea that these mtDNA haplogroups were originally companions of C3 (I also think it makes sense to link mtDNA M derived hgs with a Y-DNA C), what I don't understand, is why such female lineages couldn't be subsquently associated with N1c/N1b groups...
      You didn't reply. How did Z1a and D5a3 arrive so west? and when? What Asian flow could we observe in north-east Europe, in the north Eurasian forest-zone. I can see only one.


      "There is no northern yDNA path from Northern Siberia to Europe, i.e. European N lines have not developed from Yakut, Nenets, Nganasan or Beringian lines."

      But it tells you that Y-DNA N1 did go north IN Siberia, and that the direct ancestor of all the N1 lineages did go quite north, already. Why all his descendants would be found in north Eurasia, otherwise?


      "According to this map http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bashkir_5.jpg, the root of N1c is shared between West Siberians, Volga-Ural people and South Siberians and Central Asian people."

      First, what I see on this map is that The N1b (N-P43) points to a root in north China (wikipedia says that it's got a probable origin in Siberia (Derenko et al 2007)) and N1a (N-P128) in east Asia (more precisely it's found in low frequency in some samples of Manchus, Sibes, Manchurian Evenks, Koreans, northern Han Chinese, Buyei, and some Turkic peoples of Central Asia (and it has also be found in Japan).

      See? N1a and N1b seems to be particularly found in regions where you can find D5 and Z1 (For Z, high clade diversity in north china and Korea).


      N-Tat is indeed "rooted" in west Siberia, the Volga-Ural region and south Siberia/central Asia, which is OK with what I said: south Siberia works with a N1 in north china picking some Z1 and D5 on his way (As mentionned, Z1 and D5 fit with this general region).
      Wikipedia says "N1c* is very rare, found mainly in Asia (dominant among N1c in the Altai) (Dulik 2012)".
      ~North China -> Mongolia (maybe it stated even norther than north china and Mongolia, it's not impossible I think - lineages don't always leave traces everywhere, especially when talking of tiny groups living precariously, millenia ago) -> the forest zone of south Siberia -> Urals, etc...
      Seems fine to me.
      BTW, for the record, in the bronze/iron age aDNA from Keyzer et al 2009 there was a Z1.


      "In addition, N lineage is quite young compared to C3, O, Q or R, and seems to have arisen somewhere in Yunnan where D5 and Z did definitely not come from"

      Darnit... don't be psychorigid :)
      Why should they have appeared at the same place in order to be together at some point in history...
      If you've been interested in human genetics for awhile you surely remarked that male and female lineages are largely "independant" and that there is no fixed pattern, no absolute correlation between them!

      "Here you have the D5 and Z frequencies of people high in N1c or N1b: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181943/table/TB1/)"

      You do realize that there is no common female lineages and that from your own point of view, apparently, there can't be any language link between the Uralic peoples from north-east Europe and the Uralic peoples from north-east Asia and Siberia since apparently you can't accept the idea of a male-oriented spread of a language (the mtDNA having less and less impact in this process through the time and the movement west).

      It's perfectly logic to me that the mtDNA side remains more static and that the male lineages reflects better the vector of language adoption, which in the case of Uralic seems to be N1c.

      Delete
    4. "the age estimation of South-Siberian/European D5a3 is 3.5 kya. Z was found in an ancient burial in Bol’shoy, somewhere near Murmansk area on the Barents Sea, 3.5 kya. N1c is much older in Europe than 3.5 kya"

      I don't care much for molecular clock estimates. Ask Maju why.


      "and 0 percentages are not good evidence for any real link"

      Z1 and D5 are the only east Asian female lineages showing any correlation with Uralic, a language family that seems to have arrived with N1c, an haplogroup that happens to be from east Asia (Bingo! that's what we were looking for!)

      Delete
    5. Re. Hurrians and Mitanni:

      Mittani, as far as I know, are believed to be an Indo-Aryan elite arrived from the East or NE. Its chronology is coincident (slightly more recent in fact) with that of the Indo-Aryan arrival to Pakistan and NW India. The influence in this case appears to have arrived to Hurrians and not be carried from elsewhere by themselves, as may be the case with Hungarians.

      Anyhow, I tend to think of Hurrians as aboriginal from the Zagros area (or at least quite old in it), partly because they don't seem to have relatives other than the rather nearby Urarteans and (it seems) NE Caucasians, but also because I believe that NE Caucasian and Sumerian may be distantly related, what would make Hurrian a good candidate for a local Zagros Neolithic descendant, as Sumerians themselves seem to be. Whatever the case I don't see any reason to imagine them migrating to the area. If you're imagining that Assyrians or whatever other Semites are older over there, I have to strongly disagree: Semitic culture and language coalesced in the Circum-Arabian Pastoralist Complex, probably from PPNA antecedents, Harifian for example, and expanded from there (and secondary waves from the Levant in essence).

      It is difficult to discern the prehistorical and protohistorical ethnic makeup of the region in any case but the Indo-Aryan influence seems to have arrived to the Hurrians in their already established historical homeland in any case.

      Delete
  9. Maju, good remarks! I do not know Russian archaeology so well that I could really answer to your questions. I know that the Corded Ware related Battle Axe Culture thrived in Southern Finland 3200-2600 BC and it came from Northeast Poland and Baltic area. The traces of agriculture are not so many, but goats were kept and there were meadows near the houses. The words related to farming, such as harvest, came from Russian language and arrived later. It seems that Uralic people did not need Westerners to make pottery, as pottery was first developed in Asia. Yakuts are not at all a good proxy for Uralic people. They have a very low yDNA diversity and arrived to their present location only in the Middle Ages: “Yakuts originally lived around Olkhon and the region of Lake Baikal. But beginning in the 13th century they migrated to the basins of the Middle Lena, the Aldan and Vilyuy rivers under the pressure of the rising Mongols, where they mixed with other northern indigenous peoples of Russia such as the Evens and Evenks.”

    With this Paleo-Siberian admixture I mean (I have omitted R1a frequencies!):
    Northern Khanty: N1b 57%, N1c 7%, Q1a3 21%
    Selkup Samoyeds: Q 66.4, C3 1.5%, N1b 6.9%
    Kets: N1b 4%, N1c1 8%, Q1a3 84%
    Western Evenks: C3 70%, N1b 27.5%
    Evenki: C3 67.7%, N1b 3.1%, N1c 16.7%, Q 4.2%
    Nganasans: N1b 92.1%, C3 5%
    Nenets: N1b 56.8%, N1c 40.5%, Q 1.4%
    Yukaghir: C3 31%, N1c 31%, Q 31%
    Koryaks: Q 18.5%, N1c 22.2%, C3 25.9%, C3c 33.3%
    Chukchis: Q-M3 12.6%, P(xR) 20.8%, N1c 58.3, C3c 4.2%
    Siberian Eskimos: Q-M3 21.2%, P(xR) 18.2%, N1c 60%

    Khanty and Mansi eastern mtDNA lines assimilated from Kets could be: A8, A4, A10, F1. C4a in Uralic groups may be of Altaian origin. Its age estimation is 25 kya, so I suppose it arose before N1b arrived. MtDNA C4b probably arose within N1b folks (its age estimation is 7.6 kya). D4 includes a big number of subgroups, and unfortunately I do not know the distribution of its subclades among the Western Uralic groups. Nganasans D4b1 probably arose within N1b folks, but a big part of D lines were probably assimilated from Evenks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Corded Ware related Battle Axe Culture thrived in Southern Finland 3200-2600 BC"

      So far North? I was not really aware but this map goes in that same line, yes. It would seem that the group that reached Finland did so via the sea, a bit like Vikings/Swedes later on, rather than just walking or riding to the Finnish coasts.

      "The traces of agriculture are not so many, but goats were kept and there were meadows near the houses. The words related to farming, such as harvest, came from Russian language and arrived later".

      So can we conjecture that Baltic Finns (Finnish, Estonians, ancient Livonians) got first some goat herding from the Western Indoeuropeans (CW) and only much later (Middle Ages) farming proper from Eastern Slavs?

      "It seems that Uralic people did not need Westerners to make pottery, as pottery was first developed in Asia".

      Pottery was first developed in East Asia, yes, but I have all kind of negative thoughts about Uralics bringing it with them. The Comb Pottery may not be related to farming (unless they were involved in reindeer husbandry already, a point that remains obscure) but that does not mean automatically (nor in any way I can think of) that is derived from East Asia. Instead they should have got the concept from their southern Eastern European neighbors such as Dniepr-Don agriculturalists or early proto-Indoeuropeans from the Samara Bend area, among whom it is quite older than among Uralics.

      "Yakuts are not at all a good proxy for Uralic people. They have a very low yDNA diversity and arrived to their present location only in the Middle Ages: “Yakuts originally lived around Olkhon and the region of Lake Baikal".

      One thing is Yakut language and ethnic identity arriving then, another thing is genetics. It's clear that there was people living in the area before Yakuts (i.e. the Turkic migrants) arrived. It's also likely that there were previous flows such as those of Tungusic peoples (Evens and Evenks).

      But let's leave it at that for lack of more precise info. An alternative option could be that Yakuts themselves were turkified Uralics and it was then when N1 arrived to Yakutia (not before).

      If not in Yakutia, the proto-Uralics surely were established first somewhere in Central Siberia before migrating Westwards, although I do not know exactly where.

      ...

      Delete
    2. Re. Paleo-Siberian admixture, which to me is rather Uralic language-ethnicity overriding these older layers while retaining largely the "Paleo-Siberian" genetic makeup. I would agree on your data that Selkups do look somewhat Ket-like, what may imply that they are actually "uralized" Yeniseians, rather than "true genetic Uralics".

      I would expect this kind of yDNA Q absorption anyhow in such a expansion as that of Uralics through Siberia and NE Europe, after all there were some other peoples already over there, right? These "first peoples" were almost certainly dominated by yDNA Q (and maybe some R) and some of them (Selkups for example) may have "converted" to Uralic ethnic identity without major genetic shift. C3 on the other hand seems more restricted towards the Eastern parts of Siberia (with very lesser exceptions only). People like the Nganasans look very much patrilineally Uralic.

      "Khanty and Mansi eastern mtDNA lines assimilated from Kets could be: A8, A4, A10, F1"...

      Maybe. What percentage do they represent? I recall from memory that some of the (Central?) Siberian aDNA was rich in mtDNA F, but, sorry, I can't think of where to find the source (must be an old study from before 2008). This may give us a clue about a possible origin of Yeniseians, which would seem to originate further East from their current location.

      "C4a in Uralic groups may be of Altaian origin. Its age estimation is 25 kya, so I suppose it arose before N1b arrived".

      Forget about age estimates, they are just a confounding factor with near-zero scientific value. Whatever the ages, it's very possible that C4a and other such Eastern lineages were carried by N1 peoples (proto-Uralics) in their Westward migrations (alternatively proto-Yeniseians).

      "N1b (...) age estimation is 7.6 kya"...

      Junk. Meaningless. Almost certainly wrong.

      "Nganasans D4b1 probably arose within N1b folks, but a big part of D lines were probably assimilated from Evenks".

      Does this fit with what we discussed here?: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/05/ancient-west-siberian-mtdna.html

      Delete
  10. Ugric people probably assimilated C5 from Nganasan. Yukaghir groups are quite heterogeneous in their mtDNA composition. There is A2 which is probably yDNA Q related, C4b was probably brought by N1c, C5a was assimilated from Nganasan, Z, G1 and D5a1 are probably C3 related. When N1c mixed with Chukchis, it probably brought mtDNAs C5a and D4b1. It looks like N1c did not bring any mtDNA to Siberian Eskimos, as their lines seem to almost exclusively A2a, A2b and D4e.

    Vooruit, among Uralic languages, Volgaic languages are most similar to Indo-Iranian languages and Volgaic people are a mixture between yDNA N and R1a (and I and R1b). Linguists say that Ugric languages were originally spoken west of the Urals, but, of course, there were other Uralic groups and Yeniseian people east of Urals.

    The origin of D5a3 in Saami is a mystery. It may have come through Komis and their contacts with East-West traders. As for the Slavic D5a2, it is said that: “the D5a2a1a1 clade, defined by a transition at a position 16102, distinguishes three main branches. Two sister clades are represented by Japanese haplotypes, while the remaining branch is formed by two individuals from Poland. On the basis of 15218–15905 motif, both Polish haplotypes form a new subhaplogroup D5a2a1a1a identified in this study. Although two Polish haplotypes locate near the sister clade composed of Japanese samples, the entire haplogroup D5a2 was seen to be represented by the sequences from India, China and South Siberia (Buryatia).”

    As for Z, it is said that “we note that all hg Z lineages that are found in eastern Europe belong to a subhaplogroup Z1, characterized by transitions at nps 151, 10325, and 16129 within the Z phylogeny. A matching HVS-I founder haplotype has been observed in the Koryak and the Itelmen populations. The limited diversity of hg Z in Europe suggests its relatively recent spread west of the Urals.”

    As for the question of the origin of Z in Bol’shoy, it may have been introduced by groups carrying yDNA N, Q or C. Apparently, these people were not direct ancestors of Saami or Finnish people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Ugric people probably assimilated C5 from Nganasan."

      So you believe that they took it in the Odinovo setback phase and brought it with them back south in the Krotovo period?

      I truth it's very difficult to follow all your alleged connections (not this one but in general) because you don't provide evidence supporting your beliefs. I don't doubt you have your reasons (correct or wrong) but, sincerely, do you expect us to just believe them just because you think so?

      I believe that you need to systematize your alleged findings in a way that other people can see what is behind your claims and discuss them in a more comprehensive manner. Feel free to write a would-be guest post or mini-series for this blog if you want but I ask for some good explanation for the casual reader (with some background but not privy to all the details), including graphs and maps and all that (I can help you with that if this is a problem).

      I.e. not just a list of "I think this, that and that"... but most importantly why do you think that, as well explained as possible. Maybe after the Xmas nightmare?

      Delete
  11. Age estimation 7.6 kya refers to mtDNA C4b! N1b’s age estimate is c. 17 kya. My alleged connections are based on frequency comparisons, i.e. where a certain subclade is clearly most frequent. I have copies from a multitude of scientific papers at home. I am not inventing anything. These papers are usually available online.

    MtDNA F was found in all 3 ancient Lake Baikal burials: Shamanka, Lokomotiv (Neolithic), Ust’-Ida (Bronze Age).

    Kets and Selkups have a clearly different Q line! A and F lines are quite rare in Khanty and Mansi: 0-5%, but I suppose that there are clear differencies between groups.

    On the basis of Derenko C & D paper, it can be seen that C4a is more typical of R-related people Altaian-Kizhi, Tajiks, Shors, Teleuts, and C4b of N-related people Evenks, Yakuts, Koryaks. Buryats seem to have both C4a and C4b.

    There is also another interesting paper I found today: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-13-127.pdf
    The origin of Ugric C5 could be identified with more certainty on the basis of that Yakut paper, if I only could find out the Ugric subclade. C5 seems to be divided in several distinct clusters: C5b1 Central Yakuts/Dolgan, C5a1 Yakut/Altaian cluster, C5a2 Yakut/Chukchi/Nganasan/Yukaghir and C5d1 Even/Altaian clusters, C5c1 Polish cluster.

    R1(xM198) is found in Dolgans! Their frequencies (excluding recent gene flow) are:
    C3 1/67, C3c 8/67, N1b 15/67, N1c 20/67, R* 1/67

    As for that Bol’shoy Z, I had forgotten this observation: “In any case, long-distance connections across Eurasia are not unusual. A later migration from the East was associated with the spread of the Imiyakhtakhskaya culture from Yakutia (East Siberia) through northwestern Siberia to the Kola Peninsula during the Early Metal Age (3,000–4,000 yBP, [24]). Interestingly, one individual of the aBOO site (grave 10, not sampled for aDNA here) was archaeologically associated with this culture, but its cultural relationships to other individuals of the same site remain unclear.”

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I am not inventing anything."

    I don't say you are, just that it's extremely difficult to follow. And that's why I invited you to sort out your knowledge and ideas in a more accessible format.

    "MtDNA F was found in all 3 ancient Lake Baikal burials: Shamanka, Lokomotiv (Neolithic), Ust’-Ida (Bronze Age)."

    Ok. I recall something about the Angara river, but it is a Lake Baikal tributary so guess that's it.

    "Kets and Selkups have a clearly different Q line!"

    Interesting. Doesn't that seem to contradict your claim on Selkups having "Paleo-Siberian" admixture? Unless you are thinking of already extinct Paleosiberian ethnicities (but these could have been picked along in the Westward Uralic expansion or simply assimilated in destination).

    "R1(xM198) is found in Dolgans!"

    The Dolgans look an interesting people: somewhat distinct from Yakuts, reindeer pastoralist and hunters, high in N1 and with Samoyedic ancestral connections, via the Enets.

    Would you consider (tentatively) correct assuming the old Samoyed area (dashed area in this map) to be a plausible region or formation of the early Uralic peoples? Excepting the enclave at Altai, all the rest makes a contiguous bloc with the previously commented NE European and NW Siberian Uralic zone, roughly North of the 55th parallel.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In my opinion, the old Samoyed area is the area of formation of the Samoyedic culture and it could represent the expansion of Asian N1b to the North in the area inhabited already by groups carrying yDNA Q and C3c. You are very eager to see an arctic N migration to Finland, and it is possible that European N1b, which arose in Northern Russia, represents this kind of more northern migration route, but N1b is rare in Finland today and may have been, but not necessarily, replaced by more southern N1c.

    N1c has a different distribution. It probably spread from Altai-Sayan to the west and to the east. In that Yakut paper, they say that:
    "The clearest and most abundant traces in the Sakha gene pool have been left by the most RECENT migrations. The prevailing Y-chromosome haplogroup among the Yakuts, N1c, makes up over two thirds of paternal lineages in our sample. The Yakut-specific branch comprises also lineages from Evenks, Evens and Dolgans, most probably due to male gene flow from the Yakuts. The fact that the ancestral STR haplotype of the Yakut-specific clade is present among the Tuvinians, Tofalars and Sojots from the eastern Sayan regions could point to the putative “homeland” of Yakutian N1c predecessors. In addition, at least one maternal lineage, the sub-clade of C4a1c defined by the back-mutation C16298T, may have migrated together with the Y-chromosome haplogroup N1c. This clade, represented in contemporary as well as ancient Yakuts, has also been found among´the Tuvinians . Close similarities between the Yakut and Turkic languages spoken in the Altai-Sayan region, as well as some other aspects of the Yakut culture (e.g., pastoralism, clothing, festivals), point to ancestral ties between the Yakuts and the southern Turkic peoples.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You are very eager to see an arctic N migration to Finland"...

      I read this as you being very eager to reject an "arctic" N migration to the West (Finland and elsewhere in Far NE Europe).

      What I'm saying is that the Uralic ethno-linguistic area exists roughly north of parallel 55 and that implies an ecological specialization of some sort. That area is also the area of greatest presence of Euro-Siberian N1 (both N1b and N1c), even further East than where modern Uralics live, for example in Yakutia. The area is not strictly "arctic" (that would begin at the Polar Circle, which is quite farther north and only includes some of the Uralic zone) but it's all quite cold and difficult for that reason (more so in the past, without modern technology). Most of that zone is not Polar climate (i.e. "arctic") but Boreal (Subarctic) climate, although in Europe the Uralics also live in the northern reaches of the "Warm Temperate" zone (→ ref. map 1, ref. map 2).

      I really imagine (or rather reconstruct) the migration of N1 peoples with proto-Uralic language via the Boreal strip (which includes 99% of Finland but more importantly most of the Uralic zone, the main exception being Estonia-Livonia) but I would not call that "arctic" at risk of misunderstanding.

      Whatever the case, the Samoyedic historical zone corresponds to a wide range of latitudes, including an enclave as far south as Altai (which I suggested could be a hint about the route taken) and absolutely corresponds (excepted that enclave) with the latitudes in which other Uralic peoples live today or have lived in the past, including the Finnish, Estonians and such, even if their climate is ameliorated by Atlantic influences (not latitude).

      You may have misunderstood me somehow in the sense that Samoyeds did recently spread via the Arctic strip into NE-most Europe (Nenets country) but what I'm saying is very different: Samoyedic country, Ugric country, Permic country and Finnic country are at different longitudes but same latitudes. Whether N1c and N1b took different routes, at different latitudes within this Boreal strip, I have no qualms about but if what you imply is that Uralics and Western N1 arrived via a more southernly route like the steppe, I would have to ask for some sort of evidence, because it goes against everything I know.

      Delete
    2. Re. the Siberian Turkic branch, I can't say when the southern areas of Tuva, etc. were turkified (or the original language evolved into Turkic, if it did so locally) but looking to the late UP, when the N1 sublineages migrated first northwards and then westwards from (roughly) China, I'd say that the root taken must have been first via the Siberian areas North of Mongolia such as these (mostly because there's no indication that they marched via Altai, etc.)

      Interestingly some of those Siberian Turkic peoples (the Tsaatan especially) with plenty N1 are also reindeer pastoralists. Even if it is very likely that this pastoralism was adopted independently of the European one, it does underline the intense relationship that these peoples had and still have with these cold-adapted cervids and the overall econiche represented by them.

      Even if Yakuts come from these Sayan Turkics, I would not bet too much about them being always Turkic peoples, after all Turkic languange expanded very vigorously since the Iron Age, absorbing all kind of peoples. If so, what were they before? Maybe Samoyedic, maybe Yeniseian (or other "Paleo-Siberian") or maybe also Uralic (maybe all that at different times). Like Indoeuropeans or Semites, Turkic peoples absorbed other groups and these often then marched as "Turks" to conquer or settle new lands.

      But still: what about the Dolgans? These are rather distinct from the Yakuts proper and seem to have at least partly different origins.

      But anyhow, if Yakutia is an emotional problem for you, forget about it, please. Instead think of Tuva and the Sothern Central Siberia area North of Mongolia as a plausible (and almost unavoidable) route and even adaption zone for the N1 peoples who migrated to Siberia in the Late UP.

      Delete
  14. These facts suggest that the Yakuts originate from the Altay-Sayan region. On the other hand, some mtDNA (D5a2a2, M13a1b, A8, G2a5) and Y-chromosome haplogroups (C3d, the Buryat-specific cluster of N1c) in the Yakut gene pool are shared with Mongolic populations(Buryats, Khamnigans, Mongolians) from the Baikal area and Mongolia. This fact is consistent with the hypothesis proposed on the basis of archaeological findings, postulating that the Yakuts originate from the ancient Turkic-speaking Kurykan people from the Lake Baikal region. Estimates of the expansion time of the Yakut-specific clade of Y-chromosome haplogroup N1c support the hypothesis: the clade started to diversify 1.6 kya, about the same time (6th – 10th century AD) when the culture of the Kurykans flourished on the shores of Lake Baikal. The second expansion of the clade, dated to 0.9 kya, might coincide with the migration of the Yakuts´ ancestors to the middle reaches of the Lena River in the 11th-13th centuries AD. Thus, taking into account the aforementioned facts, the Yakut ancestors most probably originated from the Altay-Sayan region and settled for a time in the Lake Baikal area before migrating northwards along the Lena River. Genetic discontinuity between Sakha and Northeast"

    ReplyDelete
  15. ”Doesn't that seem to contradict your claim on Selkups having "Paleo-Siberian" admixture?” Maybe, Ket Q haplotype, Q1a2a1, is under M-54, and Selkup haplotype, Q1a2b, is under L-940. The ancient Afontova Gora haplotype is said to be Q1a1, i.e. a different branch again. Chechen Q haplotype seems to be close to Selkup Q haplotype. According to the diversity analysis, Ket haplotype is recent and not old in the area. In the end, Selkups may represent discendents of people who are more paleo-Siberian.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What I say is based on facts, but of course there are uncertainties about what you claim and what I claim. I reject the Arctic migration theory for several reasons:
    1. “Asian N1b-A“ is restricted to the east of the Urals, and according to Häkkinen, European N1b-E has arisen in North Russians (Mezen) and preN1b-E is found in Khanty who lived before in more southern areas west of the Urals. The ancestral haplotype of N1b is found in Altai-Sayan area.
    2. According to Häkkinen, “N1b-A certainly was born earlier, but the expansion of N1b-E seems to have been earlier than most of the expansions of N1b-A”.
    3. According to Derenko 2007, the ancestral haplotype of N1c1a1 is present in Eastern Europeans and in south Siberians from the East Altai-Sayan regions.
    4. According to Lobov Artem 2009 “Structure of the Gene Pool of Bashkir Subpopulations”, the root of N1c is shared between West Siberians, Volga-Ural people and South Siberians and Central Asian people
    5. According to Mirabal et al. 2009, “Y-STR variance values of N1c from this study do not support a migratory route from the Urals to the northeastern Slavic domain, as Russian Slavic populations exhibit higher Y-STR diversity (as high as 0.226 in the Arkhangelski population) than those found in the Uralic groups (0.079 in the Izhemski Komi and 0.121 in the Priluzski Komi).”
    6. Linguistically the deepest split is between the Samoyedic / Ugric languages (high in Asian N1b) and Finno-Permic languages, including Saami, (high in N1c with some European N1b). According to your theory, Samoyedic would be at the root, and Khanty/Mansi and Finno-Permic languages would branch off next, and Saami would be closer to Samoyedic and not in the opposite end.
    7. The fact that all the mtDNA lines of Finno-Permic people are Western Eurasian, even southern, such as J/T, support the more southern route.
    8. The fact that Finno-Permic languages share a large amount of words with Indo-Iranian and the fact that Indo-European Russians and Uralic speaking Finno-Permic people share the same yDNAs (R1a, N1c, N1b, I) and mtDNAs (H, HV, U, J, T) and similar autosomal admixture profile support the theory according to which they also shared the same territory (Volga area).

    Moreover, Mirabal et al. paper says that “Similarly, haplotype variance calculations based on haplogroup N1c do not support an east to west dispersal, given that northeastern European populations, such as Finland (0.223), Estonia (0.206), Tver (0.183), Arkhangelski (0.226), and Kursk (0.167), possess higher variance levels than the Komi Izhemski and Priluzski collections (0.079 and 0.121, respectively). As such, these results suggest that, instead of the previously reported migratory scenario from the Urals to the west, the flow of N1c may have occurred in the opposite direction. As older ages are observed when grouping All Asians versus All Europeans (Table 5) for N1c, the available data suggest that the mutation may have originated in northern China as previously reported, but may have traversed through a different migratory route than has been postulated elsewhere, reaching northeastern European populations before the Urals. The presence of haplogroup I (of European descent) in both Komi populations (specifically I-M253), in turn, suggests that European groups have contributed to these populations’ gene pools. The absence of I-M253 in the Khanty of West Siberia completes the demic decrease of this haplogroup (Europe–Urals–West Siberia), supporting the stipulated west to east Y-driven migration”

    ReplyDelete
  17. Please note the frequencies below and then have a look at Fig. 6 admixture plots (http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-13-127.pdf):
    Khakassians Q 7.6%, R1a1 28.3%, R1 7.6% (of which c. 3.2% R1b-M73), N1b-A 28.3%, N1c 13.2%, C 5.7%, I 3.8%, K* 5.7% 41.5% N
    Shors Q 2%, R1a1 58.8%, R1* 19.6% (of which c. 13.2% R1b-M73), N1b-A 13.3%, N1c 2%, C 2%, F 2% 78.4% R
    Khakassians: A4 3.5%, B4 8.8%, C*5.3%, C4 14%, D4 16%, F1 19%, F2a 5.3%, G3 1.8%, M8a2 3.5%, H 7%, V 1.8%, J 5.3%, T1 5.3%, U4 1.8%, U5 1.8% c. 77% eastern
    Shors: A4 1.2%, B4 4.9%, C*2.4%, C4 8.5%, C5 1.2%, D4 11%, D5 1.2%, F1 40%, F2a 1.2%, M10 3.7%, Z 1.2%, H 11%, J 6.1%, I 2.4%, U4 2.4%, K 1.2% c. 77% eastern
    The amount of mtDNA F is astonishing in both, but in general they look very similar and the share of eastern and western lineages is the same. There is not much difference between their admixture profiles, and both have the equal amount of western Eurasian. However, I note three differences: Khakassians have a small amount of Nganasan component and Shors have slightly more of Selkup and Indian components. It does not look like R1a is more European than N.

    By the way, Tuvinian yDNA frequencies are (excluding irrelevant hg’s):
    Q 35.4%, R1b(M73) 1%, R1a1 17.7%, N1b 14.2%, N1c 9.7%, C 7%
    Tuva surely represents a contact zone between many different groups!

    I do not understand why Baltic Finns who have never been reindeer herders should have arrived through the Samoyedic reindeer herding area because Siberian Turkic peoples with some N1c are reindeer herders, as reindeer herding is much more recent phenomenon than the expansion of N1c to the West of the Urals.

    Neither do I understand your idea that people would stick to an area between certain fixed parallels, such as north of 55th parallel. IMO, there is rather a correlation between a certain type of climate to which people are accustomed to. However, it seems that most of the Uralic people lived before in warmer areas and were in a way pushed northwards by other people: Saami were pushed North by the Finns, Khantys and Mansis and Komis by the Huns and the like and the Russian Empire, Samoyeds by the Tungusic people. According to Encyclopædia Britannica Khanty originated from the south Ural steppe and moved into their current location about 500 AD. Wikipedia says that the ancestors of Mansi people populated the areas west of the Urals and Mansi findings have been unearthed in the vicinity of Perm; and in the first millennium BC, they migrated to Western Siberia where they assimilated the native inhabitants. As for the Udmurts and Maris, the forced Christianization and Russian cultural suppression made many of them to move from the south and to the north.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all "my theory", as you put, it is not about "arctic" migration in the sense of the Polar climate zone but about "taiga" migration in the sense of the Boreal climate zone, if anything.

      "According to your theory, Samoyedic [language] would be at the root"...

      Not necessarily. For example if Western Uralic peoples were the first to split out (of surviving groups at least) their language (Finnic or Finno-Permic) would be hanging from the root in fact. Also successive contacts and acculturation phenomena may have altered the original linguistic structure to some extent, right? At least it has happened elsewhere, but linguistic change does not necessarily imply meaningful genetic change (it often does not).

      In any case the phylogenetic structure of Uralic languages seems to be hotly debated. I can't take a stand on whether the old school basic tree with Samoyedic and Finno-Ugric as main branches is real or if the Finnish revisionism that argues that Finno-Ugric does not exist is better. Even if we accept the Finnish revisionist version, we'd have three main branches (although not everybody agrees with them either): Samoyedic, Ugric and Finno-Permic. If anything, greater basal linguistic diversity in Siberia, would support a Siberian origin for the overall family - and let's not forget that some consider Yukaghir to be also Uralic or closely related.

      In fact other details you attempt to use as rejection of "my theory" (mainstream stuff but whatever) do suggest that Western/Eastern Uralics may have been the first split among surviving Uralic speaking populations (i.e. excluding Yukaghirs and other N1 Siberian carriers who may have been Uralic or proto-Uralic speakers in the past).

      Whatever the case the overall lineage N1 comes from East Asia and does not show any single trace of having been present in the steppe. Maybe there were punctual exceptions but in general Uralic seems a Boreal strip phenomenon with ultimate origins in the East. Whether there were some founder effects associated to the establishment of European Uralics (Finno-Permic branch) should not surprise us at all.

      "... all the mtDNA lines of Finno-Permic people are Western Eurasian"...

      Not all, obviously not. There is a tenuous but stubborn track of East Asian lineages such as the much discussed C, Z, D and even some others. These are more common in the far NE (i.e. among European Uralics and peoples in close contact with them like Russians or Scandinavians). For example D is found in 2.8% of Karelians or 1.5% of Mari (Wikipedia), some 10/480 Finnish carry mtDNA Z (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1756-0500/5/350/table/T1), Sámi also carry significant amounts of D and Z, while the Komi have also noticeable D, C, G and what seems to be A (http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf), etc. All those lineages are known to sporadically show up in Europe but where they are clearly noticeable is among Uralic peoples.

      Of course Uralic peoples also carry a much more noticeable East Asian lineage at much higher frequencies: yDNA N1. And no matter how you twist the picture, this lineage spread from East Asia in relatively recent times, arriving to Europe probably in the Epipaleolithic period.

      "The fact that Finno-Permic languages share a large amount of words with Indo-Iranian"

      That's absolutely normal considering the origins of Indoeuropeans first and Indo-Iranians later just south of the Volga Uralic area.

      Delete
    2. "Neither do I understand your idea that people would stick to an area between certain fixed parallels, such as north of 55th parallel".

      Well, it's quite simple: it is a climatic niche that the rest of peoples were mostly not well prepared to take over. That allowed Uralic peoples (who were no doubt specialists) to persist for so long because nobody would even consider (much less achieve) the conquest of those areas before rather recent times (when modern states like Sweden, Russia and such proceeded with it).

      ... "it seems that most of the Uralic people lived before in warmer areas and were in a way pushed northwards by other people"...

      If you mean in a general sense, i.e. for Uralics as a whole, maybe but those warmer areas were probably near Mongolia rather than in Europe.

      "Saami were pushed North by the Finns"

      Maybe but from where? And where did the Finns come from anyhow? Not Jamaica.

      "Khantys and Mansis and Komis by the Huns"

      Khantys and Mansis seem to be in roughly the same area all the time. If there was a pushover it was in the Seyma-Turbino period but then there was a comeback.

      "Samoyeds by the Tungusic people"

      Only in some areas. And these were the southernmost areas where Uralic presence is documented. And then Tungusic and even Turkic people from those areas appear to be Uralic-looking to some extent even in the Y-DNA side (so many were probably assimilated rather than just pushed around).

      "According to Encyclopædia Britannica Khanty originated from the south Ural steppe and moved into their current location about 500 AD".

      I don't see any evidence for that claim to hold up. The ancient steppe is lacking in Uralic markers or even in any East Asian marker whatsoever before the Iron Age (when Turkic peoples begin pouring out, even if it still looks for some time a Scythian cultural context). Just because Encyclopedia Britannica says it it does not have to be right automatically.

      ...

      Delete
    3. ....

      "Wikipedia says that the ancestors of Mansi people populated the areas west of the Urals"...

      Based on what we discussed on Western Siberian aDNA, the Khanty-Mansi (or some people very similar to them) seem to have been all the time in their current location, with lesser genetic changes and the Seima-Turbino mysterious parenthesis. Wikipedia and Britannica can say whatever that if I see clear evidence against it, I will not respect their opinion. Said that, the Urals are a highly permeable border and even modern reindeer herders cross them all the time (so it's possible that some groups may have been moving forth and back according to their needs of the moment or even the season).

      I watched a quite interesting documentary on Komi (?) reindeer herders and it was very interesting because of their (partly) very primitive lifestyle, which required close cooperation of two nuclear families. They did cross the Urals for mere seasonal pasture reasons. I imagine the populations of pre-farming Uralics being organized often like them, what implies extremely thin population densities and a hardy and culturally adapted (training since childhood) set of skills.

      Similarly I've watched a documentary on Nganasans, who were traditional hunter-gatherers instead of herders, and the living conditions were similar in the overall. They might not control (or rather follow) the herds of reindeers and relied more on fishing but they were still in need of a very tough kind of cultural training of the kind you can only learn as a kid.

      It's a matter of cultural adaption and AFAIK only two or three human "clans" have ever achieved it: the Q clan (with the C3 incorporation in the Far East) and the N1 clan. I don't understand why you are so hostile to this (pre-)history: it's admirable, possibly the hardiest people on Earth.

      "As for the Udmurts and Maris, the forced Christianization and Russian cultural suppression made many of them to move from the south and to the north".

      Could not find data for Udmurts but for the Mari the forced Christianization (which I deeply lament like all other similar fundamentalist uniformizing impositions) does not seem to have significantly implied migrations, at least Wikipedia does not mention them (all happened in Mari El, and says that the Mari are still largely Pagan.

      Delete
  18. I disagree on almost anything else eccept the East Asian origin of yDNA N, but never mind! :-)
    Please check
    The traditional economy of the Komi was based on hunting, fishing and trapping for fur as well as some cattle breeding and other agriculture. This lifestyle was maintained in most of the Republic without significant change until the beginning of the 20 th Century. The exception was the Northern Kom (Komi-Izhma), who began nomadic reindeer herding in the 17 th Century. http://www.arcticphoto.com/komi.asp
    A substantial part of Finns seem to have come from Baltic or Volga area!

    D5 is, with all probability, recent, and what's more, it is more frequent in Northern Russians than Finns or other Finno-Ugric populations. Z might be a legacy of very ancient Arctic migrants with a completely different yDNA from modern inhabitants!

    N crossed Altai-Sayan c. 15-10 kya. It may have been only a small group of people or a handful of groups here and there. We do not have any ancient yDNA from the areas where Finno-Permic people live today. Moreover, in the west yDNA N was surely accompanied by western mtdNA, such as U and H.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As we have seen elsewhere, Northern Russians are essentially acculturized Uralics, clustering with these in everything genetic. They were only assimilated in the last few centuries. So that excuse is irrelevant.

      D overall may well be relatively recent in the West but some D was already present in Neolithic Western Siberians, so not all D needs to be recent. Whatever its origins it is relatively frequent in at least some Uralic populations. Besides D we also find other East Asian matrilineages.

      "Z might be a legacy of very ancient Arctic migrants with a completely different yDNA from modern inhabitants!"

      Those very ancient "Arctic" migrants were the early Uralics almost certainly. I don't see any reason to imagine any other population doing that epic migration through the Far North. If anything (but totally speculative) they could be some "Paleo-Siberians" being pushed to the edges by the Uralic migration - but we do not see any concrete evidence that could suggest that (such as maybe mtDNA F, like Kets).

      CZ, D and A are the main NE Asian matrilineages and they must have arrived to Europe together with the main (and essentially only) NE Asian patrilineage from that origin: N1.

      "N crossed Altai-Sayan c. 15-10 kya".

      Rather to the earlier date or even earlier, I'd say.

      "We do not have any ancient yDNA from the areas where Finno-Permic people live today".

      Well, we do have some ancient yDNA from Karelia (which is a Finno-Permic nation), North Russia, Sápmi (more recent though) and West Siberia, so that's almost the only blank to fill in in the whole Uralic zone. Be a little creative and extrapolate please.

      "Moreover, in the west yDNA N was surely accompanied by western mtdNA, such as U and H".

      Western mtDNA which they had to pick on their way from Mongolia. The most clear and oldest evidence is the Uznyi Oleni Ostrov sample of Epipaleolithic Karelia, which carried 33% East Asian lineages (incidentally all C1 but that doesn't mean that they were not D or Z or whatever in another different group). The Bronze Age sample from Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov (which is historical Lappland/Sápmi) was even more markedly oriental, with about 60% of its lineages Oriental: C*, C5, Z1a and D*.

      Is it possible that "internal" Uralic S→N repeated migrations (or just intermarriage) has caused much of that intense dilution? I'd say that it's plausible. It's possible that the proto-Sami of 3500 years ago looked much like Nganassans? I'd say it's very plausible as well.

      Delete
  19. Previously, I agreed with you that in the earlier periods Baraba area was probably inhabited by Yeniseian and Uralic groups, but with Uralic groups I meant those carrying mainly N1b-A.
    That ancient mtDNA we have from Karelia is not shared by the Finns: U4 haplotype is weird and very specific, U5 is also different, C1 is found only in Iceland. The Baraba haplotypes resemble somewhat Karelian haplotypes, and for example A is very rare in Uralic groups, and C1 non existant. If a yDNA N line was involved in these cultures, it must have been different from modern western lines.

    Yes, D4 is found in Uralic people, but Saami and Finns do not carry D4 but D5a3. If Uralic D was carried to the West with N1, when it expanded to the West c. 10 kya, it would form its own subcluster, such as D5h, with its own subclusters, and be found in several groups in geographically separate areas. The very frequency pattern of D5 and Z goes against your idea of the Samoyedic origin of all Uralic groups
    Nenets 0 0
    Khants 0 0
    Mansi 0 0
    Yakut 0 0
    Nganasans 0 2.3

    And note your Altaian Shors, with 78% R1a, carry 77% of eastern mtDNA lineages which should according to your logic confirm their East Asian origin.

    Proto-Saami of 4 kya probably looked more western than they look today. After 3.5 kya the Finnish and Kola (?) Saami groups mixed with these Arctic groups from the East, related to Imiyakhtakhskaya culture, which made them more Nganasan looking. In my opinion, it is possible that part of the ancestors of Finns and Saami mixed with the Yeniseians in the area west of the Urals.

    You cannot be sure of your claims until there is some ancient yDNA (mtDNA is not enough) to confirm your hypothesis and disqualify mine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "... goes against your idea of the Samoyedic origin of all Uralic groups"...

      I'm not saying that Samoyeds are ancestral to all Uralics, just that their historical region looks like a good candidate for the expansion route of proto-Uralics into Siberia, prior to the divergence in various subpopulations. Probably Samoyeds only retain part of that legacy but the fact that they, as well as other Siberians, appear somewhat similar to ancient populations of Karelia, Sápmi and Northern Russia in the mtDNA aspect, should support somewhat this hypothesis, not deny it. After all, in their relative isolation (less contact with Europeans, more contact, if anything, with other Siberians and peoples from the N1 ancestral region around Mongolia) should have helped them to better preserve the ancestral legacy, with quite less dilution.

      But obviously a modern people is not ancestral to anyone.

      "And note your Altaian Shors, with 78% R1a, carry 77% of eastern mtDNA lineages which should according to your logic confirm their East Asian origin".

      Altaians in general have high frequencies of East Asian mtDNA but in ancient DNA this Eastern influence was apparently zero before the Iron Age.

      I'm not sure how you gather that mtDNA alone would say "according to my theory" that Altaians have East Asian origin. By that same logic I should then be claiming that Uralics (or at least Finno-Permic peoples) have European origins, what is not what I'm saying, certainly not in that simplistic way.

      I reckon that mtDNA indicates matrilineal origin (obviously) but in all this discussion what I have been emphasizing, if anything, is Y-DNA. We are discussing mtDNA because it is what ancient DNA is mostly made of and what I say is that, in the case of Uralics, Y-DNA N1 peoples (considered as patrilocal, as they surely were in fact) arrived from East Asia and carried at least some East Asian mtDNA with them (at least C and Z, I'd say, probably also some D). This Oriental mtDNA (and nDNA) was initially quite more important than today because there was a long process of dilution by contact and intermarriage with other Europeans. The bigger present day evidence is not mtDNA anyhow (although it's also an evidence) but Y-DNA N1, which is much better preserved because of patrilocality.

      Inversely, applying this same logic ("my theory", as you put it) to Altaians and Native Americans, their patrilocal main markers are West Eurasian but their matrilineages are not. In the case of Native Americans this admixture or dilution to the extreme (almost is very old, from probably 20 or 30 Ka ago, but in the case of Altaians it seems quite more recent, only from the Iron Age onwards (aDNA says).

      ...

      Delete
    2. ...

      "Proto-Saami of 4 kya probably looked more western than they look today".

      I don't see why. More East Asian mtDNA surely meant more East Asian autosomal genetics. If today they look absolutely North European, having maybe 5-10% Oriental mtDNA, back then they surely looked still quite Siberian, simply because more than 50% of their mtDNA was still from the Far East. The dilution of mtDNA and the dilution of autosomal DNA certainly happened simultaneously.

      Similarly Altaians now look quite Oriental because, in spite of their very dominant West Eurasian lineages (R, Q), their mtDNA is largely from that origin (dilution in the opposite direction) and, in turn Native Americans who experienced at their origin a similar dilution towards East Asian genetics (but almost exclusively apparent in their mtDNA, not their Y-DNA) are known to be most similar genetically to East Asian of all non-American populations.

      It's all very logical but you are misinterpreting my logic completely.

      "You cannot be sure of your claims until there is some ancient yDNA (mtDNA is not enough) to confirm your hypothesis and disqualify mine".

      Which is your hypothesis in any case? If I'd knew it'd be easier to show it false (if that's the case). You accept that (non-recent) East Asian genetics, mtDNA included, arrived to Europe with Y-DNA N1, right? If you don't think so, then what?

      Delete
  20. Please, look at Figure 2 of Baraba paper (http://www.academia.edu/3372867/Ancient_DNA_Reveals_Prehistoric_Gene-Flow_from_Siberia_in_the_Complex_Human_Population_History_of_North_East_Europe)
    Kets and Selkups are the closest match to aUzPo and aBOO haplogroup distribution, followed by Bashkirs, Nenets, Mari and Khanty; and Finns and Nganasans are clearly farther away at opposite ends!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A more direct link is this one (open access paper):

      → http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296

      Fig. 2 is a PCA in which you can see how the vectors affect the results. In synthesis there are three "pulls": (1) West Eurasian lineages other than U5, U4 and V pull to the left or bottom-left (fan style), (2) U5, U4 and V pull to the top and (3) East Asian lineages C, D, Z and "EAS" (other eastern, I guess) pull to the bottom-right. So the clustering we can see says nothing but the relative apportion of these three components: populations with very dominant East Asian lineages (like Nganasans, Evens, Tuvinians, etc.) cluster in the bottom-right zone, while the ones you mention are intermediate between this East Asian component and the most distinctive NE European one (defined as U5, U4 and V), nothing more. They are not comparing lineage on lineage, it's just a very rough comparison which depends only on the overall level of E-W admixture (expressed in mtDNA lineages only).

      IF we would proceed to lineage on lineage comparison there would be no clustering with Kets, for instance, because these have way too much F to be the same populations in any way. But the PCA is insensible to that level of detail. Instead it is hypersensible to the overall level of W-E admixture (always as seen in mtDNA only) and this may have evolved a lot since the Epipaleolithic and other ancient eras, and almost certainly did so.

      So what you are saying is look Finns or Karelians can't be descendant of the Epipaleolithic inhabitants because they are much more Europeanized now. And what I say is that such conclusion is shallow, lazy and simply wrong. And I'm almost certain that there is an element of emotional denial in it (whose deep reasons I'm not going to dwell into: it's your personal matter).

      More in the reply to your previous comment.

      Delete
    2. Better more details about Der Sarkissian's study. The one-on-one haplotype comparison is discussed in the section titled "Comparison of 3,500 uncal. yBP Bol'shoy Oleni Ostrov (aBOO) with extant populations of Eurasia". Let's see it by parts:

      1. C* and D*: The distribution of haplotype matches observed in pools of the VUB, West Siberia and Central/East Siberia was partly due to the presence of basal C* (16223T-16298C-16327T) and D* (16223T-16362C) haplotypes in these pools, whereas these types were absent in Middle Eastern and European pools. Central Siberian Tuvinians displayed the highest percentage of shared haplotypes with aBOO (12.2%) although all shared haplotypes belong to hgs C* and D*.

      2. C5: A more explicit genetic link between aBOO and extant East Siberians was seen in the presence of the derived C5 haplotype (16148T-16223T-16288C-16298C-16311C-1632​7T)in aBOO and in one single Buryat individual of Central Siberia [54].

      3. Z1: The Z1a haplotype (16129A-16185T-16223T-16224C-16260T-1629​8C) detected in aBOO had a broad but interesting distribution in Eurasia. It was found in all Central/East Siberian pools except in Tuvinians, but also in the Bashkirs of the Urals, in the VUB pool, as well as in Scandinavian and Baltic populations (Norwegians, Swedes, Finns, Ingrians, Karelians, and the Saami).

      Not mentioned here is C1, which seems almost privative of Native Americans but was also still present in Eurasia 7500 years ago.

      So: of all the Siberian matrilineages arrived to the area in the past (and detected in aDNA analysis) only Z1a seems to survive to this day in Europe, but precisely among Finnic peoples and Scandinavians. Considering the massive matrilineal flow from more southernly latitudes along time (whatever the means, mere continuous intermarriage can probably explain it) and the extremely low densities of the discussed populations, resulting in heavy drift, this evolution seems reasonable without need to claim mass population replacements.

      Of course, I can't discard these hypothetical population replacements but, even if these are real, the overall East Asian genetic elements in NE Europe (particularly prominent among Uralic peoples) must be from the Epipaleolithic era (with maybe secondary waves, I can't judge that much). These have been strongly diluted in the mtDNA pool (and therefore surely also in the autosomal aspect) but I understand that mere sustained "wife import" from the South, together with drift, is enough to explain this process. This "wife import" can be seen in terms of mere egalitarian intermarriage because the population relatively to the North would be almost invariably much smaller than the population relatively to the South, getting the bulk of the genetic impact in this otherwise bidirectional process.

      The fact that the main remnant of the East Asian ancestry is Y-DNA N1 (widespread among Uralics but rare in other European populations), strongly suggests that patrilocality was the norm (as happens in so many societies) and the inheritance "glue" that kept the ethno-linguistic identity even through such a sustained gene flow.

      Delete
    3. One thing however I want to correct from my previous comments (further up): I said that pottery was probably incorporated on southern DD or PIE influence, which in turn would have adopted it from West/Central Asian or Balcanic influence. I read now that Der Sarkissian et al. mention that:

      ... the North East and East European hunter-gatherer pottery is thought to have originated in the early ceramic traditions of the Russian Far East and Siberia [66]–[68].

      So I want to retract from my previous claim in the opposite direction and open my mind to such a possibility, which looks intriguing indeed, although I fail to understand well yet the chronological aspects. Maybe that 21% of Oriental mtDNA (all C) in the Don basin holds some secrets of the Eastern European Neolithic.

      Delete
    4. I don't have access but the study by A.A. Vybornov (→ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aeae.2009.03.002) looks interesting in this regard. Abstract:

      The present article outlays a chronological sequence based on radiocarbon dating using ceramics from Neolithic sites in the Volga-Kama region. Sites in the North Caspian region are considered the most ancient being dated to the first half of the 6th millennium BC. The Neolithic culture of the southern forest-steppe zone of the Volga-Ural interfluve was formed at approximately the same time. Neolithic sites in the Lower Volga region are considered slightly later dating to the second half of the 6th millennium BC. Contacts between the steppe and forest-steppe cultures of the Middle Volga led to the emergence of the pricked decorative style in ceramics in the early 5th millennium BC. This tradition survived until the early 4th millennium BC. In the mid 5th millennium BC, the comb-cogged stamp decorative element emerged in the forest-steppe zone of the eastern Volga and in the forest zone of the Volga-Kama region. In southern areas, this tradition continued until the mid 4th millennium BC, and in northern areas, until the late 4th millennium BC.

      These dates are not older than West Asian or Greek pottery but may well be older than Dniepr-Don Neolithic, which begins in the 5th millennium BCE. So maybe there was some sort of cross-influence, which I find very interesting.

      Delete
  21. Saami may originally have been a mixture of R1a, N1c and I1 and mtDNA U5b and V. At some point of time they might have mixed with the Bol’shoy culture with the result that Saami were left with haplogroup Z, but perhaps it is more plausible that Saami got or inherited their Z from people inhabiting areas between Syktyvkar and Karelia, which is the very area where Saami seem to have come from. At a later period of time Saami acquired D5, probably through contacts with Komi/Udmurts. It looks like Finnish Z1a is not the same as Bol’shoy Z1a (http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Aitilinjat.pdf).

    “Central Siberian Tuvinians displayed the highest percentage of shared haplotypes with aBOO (12.2%)”
    Indeed, the most frequent haplogroup in Tuvinians is Q with a frequency of 35.4%!
    Bol’shoy haplotype is U4a1, and Oleni Ostrov haplotype is probably related to it as it has the mutation 093. U4a1 is absent in Finns. In the paper here http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/8/1651.full
    I found a frequency comparison of U4a1 subtypes (Supplementary table S2.)
    Kets (n=38) 21.1% (8)
    Chuvashes (n=55) 9.1% (5)
    Nganasans (n=24) 8.3% (2)
    Komi-Zyrians (n=62) 8.1% (5)
    Maris (n=136) 7.4% (10)
    Bashkirs (n=221) 6.3% (14)
    Komi-Permians (n=74) 4.1% (3)
    Karelians (n=83) 3.6% (3)
    Udmurts (n=101) 2.0% (2)
    Tatars (n=228) 1.8% (4)
    Lithuanians (n=180) 1.7% (3)
    Poles (n=849) 1.6% (14)
    Hungarians (211) 1.4% (3)
    Belorussians (n=247) 1.2% (3)
    Mordva (n=102) 1.0% (1)
    Latvians (n=299) 1.0 (3)
    Nenets (n=58) 0
    Mansis (n=98) 0
    Estonians (n=48) 0
    Finns (n=403) 0
    Again a connection with the Yeniseians. Komi-Zyrians are the northern Izhemtsy Komi who seem to have mixed with Yeniseians on their mtDNA side. Also Bashkirs who still harbour mtDNA C1 are quite high on the list.

    In two Kets the mtDNA haplotype distinguished by the 16 192, 16 256, and 16 270 transitions, signature mutations for haplogroup U5a, was observed. This signature mutation is not found in Finns or Nganasans, but in Baraba Steppe and Bols’hoy there are U5a’s with exactly the same HVR1 mutations.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am quite sure that the oldest Oleni Ostrov Culture was Yeniseian, with what I only mean that yDNA was Q. The later Bol’shoy culture may be related to Samoyeds, but as I do not have information on Nenets or Selkup Samoyed frequencies, it is impossible to be more precise. However, C5, which appears in the Baraba Steppe later stages, seems to be found in Nenets, and C* with the mutations 223 298 327, detected in Baraba and Bol’shoy, seems to be wide spread in Volga-Ural area in Bashkirs, Chuvashes, Kets, Komis, Tatars, Udmurts. D* haplotype with the mutations 223 362, detected in Baraba and Bol’shoy, also seems to be found in Volga Ural (Bashkirs, Chuvashes, Komis, Maris, Tatars, Udmurts).

    In my opinion N1c crossed Altai-Saian c. 13-11 kya, before the Younger Dryas (10-11 kya), and spread to the Volga forest area. It is in these ancient Volga-Kama sites that N1c could well be found. N1b-A probably originated earlier in Altai-Sayan and spread mainly to the north and west, and N1b-E probably arose in northern Russia (perhaps in Syktyvkar area). As mtDNA C4a is diverse in ancient Ukraina and quite deep rooted in Iran, it is possible that it came to Europe with N1c (yDNA Q/R is another possibility), and as I already said, I think that mtDNA C4b (age estimation 7 kya) arose within N1b people, perhaps also C5 (age estimation 17 kya). C itself seems to have arisen in Altai area between 24-30 kya. As Mal’ta boy did not have any Siberian in him, I doubt that N1b was around at that time. I still consider that it is more likely that mtDNA C is originally yDNA Q linked. Also mtDNA D must have been in the north before yDNA N.

    As for mtDNA A, I think that it moved with the Yeniseians in the west and with yDNA Q, C3 and C3d, at least in the beginning, in the east, and a subclade/s of A4 was taken to America by yDNA C3c/Q(xM3).

    Again, as Mal’ta boy did not have any Siberian in him, and now that NO-related X was discovered in India, I think that N came from southwest China, and it seems that it did not bring any mtDNA to Europe from southwest China. Perhaps mtDNA F2a, frequent in southwest China, was brought to the north by yDNA N, and a few minor M lines. When men were moving, their best survival kit was surely a local wife.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I am quite sure that the oldest Oleni Ostrov Culture was Yeniseian, with what I only mean that yDNA was Q".

      I can't accept that but as an unfounded speculation. I'd dare say that Yeniseian peoples probably arrived to West Siberia after Uralics. The still fresh linguistic connection of Yeniseian with Na-Dene, whose migration to America is believed to be most recent and the fact that Yeniseians (Kets) have a lot of mtDNA F, rather weight against such idea. Another reason against is the extremely low occurrence of Y-DNA Q in Europe, mostly related to recent contacts with America across the Atlantic.

      I don't think that the frequencies of U4a1 on their own can serve as better evidence. Highly speculative at best.

      "As for mtDNA A, I think that it moved with the Yeniseians in the west"...

      Haplogroup A is not meaningful in West Eurasia, including West Siberia, so I'm not paying any attention to it in relation to this discussion. In any case, if you imagine it to be related to Yeniseians, then it'd be another negative evidence to relate the Karelian and North Russian aDNA with them, right?

      "I think that N came from southwest China, and it seems that it did not bring any mtDNA to Europe from southwest China".

      N may have ultimate origins in Southern China but the N that spread to Siberia and Europe almost certainly came from North China (and/or nearby areas), where it was still very common in the Neolithic (while in the South it was not anymore).

      "Perhaps mtDNA F2a, frequent in southwest China, was brought to the north by yDNA N"...

      Perhaps but do not trust frequencies too much: founder effects only need one founder, more so in the extreme conditions of the Far North.

      Delete
  23. I correct myself again:
    The age of M8a variation is 15700-36700 (according to Soares), and the age of C variation is 38400 ± 9900 years (Derenko et al. 2003) and 18100-34500 (according to Soares 2009).

    ReplyDelete
  24. You yourself have vehemently defended the idea that P was first in Altai c. 30 kya and proceeded to America. Now it seems that Afontova Gora ydna (17 kya) is Q1a1, which is found today in East Asia, including in Vietnam with a frequency of 7% (Q-M120), and in Iran and the surroundings with a frequency of 2% -6% (Q-M25). On the basis od Genetiker’s analysis (http://genetiker.wordpress.com/) of Afontova Gora, there is no Sinid or Tungid in Siberia 17 kya:
    Globe 4
    •70.95% Caucasoid (“European”)
    •28.11% Indianid (“Amerindian”)
    •0.91% Negroid (“African”)
    •0.03% Mongoloid (“Asian”)

    Globe13
    •62.62% Nordic (“North_European”)
    •11.87% Indianid (“Amerindian”)
    •10.70% Alpine (“West_Asian”)
    •7.45% Veddoid (“South_Asian”)
    •6.54% Eskimid (“Arctic”)
    •0.61% Paleo-Negrid (“West_African”)
    •0.13% Melanesid (“Australasian”)
    •0.07% Nilotid (“East_African”)
    •0.00% Capoid (“Palaeo_African”)
    •0.00% Mediterranean (“Mediterranean”)
    •0.00% Orientalid (“Southwest_Asian”)
    •0.00% Sinid (“East_Asian”)
    •0.00% Tungid (“Siberian”)

    That Yakut paper says clearly that ”The most frequent Y chromosome haplogroup in northern Eurasia – N1c –most probably arose in present day China and spread to Siberia after the founder event associated with the human entry into the Americas. Two other Y-chromosome haplogroups dominant in Siberia – C3 and Q1 – are more ancient in northern Asia.”

    As for mtDNA F, the Ket study says ” urthermore, in the population of Upper Kets (the settlement of Sulomai) haplogroup F was detected. It was shown that all nine Kets carrying haplogroup F had one mtDNA haplotype, i.e., the probability of the founder effect was close to 100%. It cannot be excluded that haplogroup F appeared in Kets only recently as a result of recent marriages with their neighbors, western Evenks, where this haplogroup is found with low frequency. It is more likely, however, that haplogroup F was purchased from the Sayan–Altai region, the territory of presumptive origin of one of the Kets’ ancestors.” NB, this is just the area from which yDNA N spread to the north and west.

    So now you think that Native Americans sailed across the Atlantic and landed in Scandinavia. I suppose that you also support the American origin of European mtDNA X2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So now you think that Native Americans sailed across the Atlantic and landed in Scandinavia."

      NO! I think that European colonialism in America since the Viking era (and certainly since Columbus) brought the occasional Native American lineage to Europe.

      "I suppose that you also support the American origin of European mtDNA X2."

      NO! It's a clear marker of Neolithic spread from West Asia, as are W, N1, J and T mtDNA lineages (and maybe others). I can't say if there is some rare X2 in Europe from America but it's certainly not the rule.

      Either you don't pay attention to what I say or you're being intentionally manipulating my opinion, something I do not like the least. Please do not get into that kind of irrational polemic. Thanks in advance.

      "On the basis od Genetiker’s analysis (http://genetiker.wordpress.com/) of Afontova Gora, there is no Sinid or Tungid in Siberia 17 kya"...

      Fine with that. Those are not the (main) ancestors of (yDNA) N1 peoples (Uralics and such). Maybe at that point these were a few valleys to the East or maybe they were just pondering their chances of migration northwards at the Yellow River. I can't say.

      It's early for the post-LGM chronology. For comparison in Europe, Magdalenian was already being formed in SW Europe but the expansion to Central Europe would still take some 2000 years more or so.

      "It cannot be excluded that haplogroup F appeared in Kets only recently"...

      I'm skeptic. Why only them?

      "It is more likely, however, that haplogroup F was purchased from the Sayan–Altai region, the territory of presumptive origin of one of the Kets’ ancestors".

      I'd say that all the Yeniseian branch may well have those origins in fact. "Purchased" is therefore not the term.

      Delete
  25. I am Sorry Maju, I do not want to be mean. However, I do not understand how Scandinavian Q lines which form their own clusters and are not found in Native Americans could be imported from America post-Columbian times. According to Wikipedia: The frequency of haplogroup Q-M242 in Norway and Sweden is about 3%. It is believed that almost all of these are either Q-L527 or Q-L804. According to Eupedia, Götaland and Gotland in southern Sweden now have the highest frequency of haplogroup Q in Europe (5%) and almost all of it belong to the Q1a2b1 (L527).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Scandinavian Q lines which form their own clusters and are not found in Native Americans"...

      Alright. I was not privy to the details.

      My main question would be: are they of Siberian/East Asian relationship, of West Asian relationship or totally independent. I say because Q does not need to be North Asian in origin either and may perfectly have a West Asian origin, where most of the basal diversity of the haplogroup is.

      While, by numbers, Q is more important in Siberia and America, it is by origin a West Eurasian haplogroup, probably from Iran or somewhere nearby, so we can't conclude the Siberian origin just for being Q.

      In fact, from what you say, the Scandinavian Q is part of Q1a2-L56, of which Wikipedia says:

      Found at low frequency in Europe, South Asia and West Asia. It has been found in Pakistan,[24] Saudi Arabia,[25] the United Arab Emirates,[28] India,[24] Tibet,[14] and Bali.[17] Found with high frequency 25-50% in Turkmens and Turkmenistan...

      Also, within it there are listed the main NA branch Q1a2a1a1-M3 and a Yemeni-Jewish branch Q1a2c-M323.

      So it seems to be of direct West Asian origin, even if maybe ancient (?) an does not look related to Siberia.

      Some doubts may be raised re. Q1a2a1a2-L804, because it's "brother" of M3 but it can still perfectly be of ancient West or Central Asian origin.

      Other Western European Q lineages may still be of American origin (they are very rare in any case).

      Delete
  26. Q1a2 (also Q1a3) has three main branches: Q1a2a, Q1a2b, Q1a2c
    Q1a2a1a L-54: M3 Native Americans, age estimation 22-24 kya (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0071390); L-804 Scandinavians
    Q1a2a1b Z780, L191: Native Americans
    Q1a2a1c L330: Mongols, Kets, Khantys, Tuvinians, age estimation in Mongolia is 6.5 kya (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0071390)
    Q1a2b L-940: Northern Altaians, Selkups, Chechens, Scandinavians, Northern Europeans, Central Asias
    Q1a2c M323: Yemenite Jews
    Here are some Q1a2 frequencies:
    Kets 84%
    Northern Selkups 66.4%
    Tuvinians 38%
    Northern Altaians 20%
    Khakassians 6%
    Mongolians 4.5%
    Tajiks 3.5%
    Evens 3.2%
    Uzbeks 3%
    Zoroasterians 2.9%
    Indians 2.4%
    Burusho 2.1%
    Pashtuns 1-2%
    Lur 2%
    Pakistanis 1.7%
    Azeris 1.6%
    Tibetans 1.23% (whole Q)
    Iranians 0.9%
    Saudi Arabia 0.64%
    The Recent Klyosov paper gives the following ages for the Q1a2 variation (http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/5_12_2012.pdf):
    Iran 8.8 kya
    Arabia, Anatolia 6.85 kya
    India 3.5 kya
    Europe (Q1a2a1 L-53) 16.5 kya
    Altai 8.7 kya
    America Q1a2a L-213 16 kya
    America Q1a2a1a1 M3 13 kya
    America Q1a2a1a1f L-766 11 kya
    I would buy an Eurasian rather than West Asian origin for Q1a2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that the interesting part of all you say is:

      Q1a2b L-940: Northern Altaians, Selkups, Chechens, Scandinavians, Northern Europeans, Central Asia[n]s

      Because it seems to establish some sort of link between Europe and Central Asia, skipping West Asia for this lineage. All the rest is just "noise" for me.

      "I would buy an Eurasian rather than West Asian origin for Q1a2".

      West Asia is part of Asia and therefore of Eurasia, which is the name of Asia+Europe. We could say just "Asia" in fact (Europe is just a subcontinent of the Asian landmass) but it gets confusing, so we use Eurasia instead (→ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia).

      Also, whatever your unusual usage of the term, West Asia has all the time been in intimate contact with both Europe and Central Asia, as well as South Asia and parts of Africa. Considering that Q as a whole and at least a sizable number of sublineages have ancient origin in West Asia most likely (South Asia may be an alternative origin), we have to get very much fine tuned to the particular lineage we are dealing with in order to discuss its origins.

      So rather than discussing Q1a2, I'd discuss Q1a2b specifically. This one does look rather northernly indeed, assuming that your population data is complete and does not have information blanks. I have no idea of when it arrived to Europe, but considering the necessary age of its "brother" Q1a2a, which must have migrated to the Far East c. 30,000 years ago, it's possible that Q1a2b is similarly old in Europe. If so it should not be signature of any Epipaleolithic movement, at least not the bulk of it, but something more ancient.

      But who knows? I will remain open to whatever future aDNA data on the matter (just spare me the age guesstimates, please: they are just a distraction).

      Delete
    2. I've been chewing on this distribution of Q1a2b (following your word all the time in this) and it becomes clear that Q1a2b is a West Eurasian lineage (which a Northern tendency) that was never in China, Mongolia, East Siberia nor any other place of East Asia where it could have picked oriental mtDNA like C before it came to at least West Siberia or Altai by some other mean.

      It's almost indinstinct from R1a in its distribution (just a bit more northerly because of Selkups and lack of Southern or SW Asian presence, it seems, but not more easterly at all).

      So it was the butler...

      There's no other patrilocal vector to (pre-Turkic) East Asian mtDNA in Europe or the Wider West Asia than N1.

      Someone mentioned (not sure if here or in Davidski's blog) that Mal'ta does not even have autosomal affinity to East Asians barring minor to Inuits, which is consistent with minor Western roots for all NAs. We do not see Oriental mtDNA in Altai before the Iron Age either, so unless you can mysteriously attribute this mtDNA to proto-Selkups before N1 contact, I'm closing the case.

      Selkups, quite curiously are maybe the only Uralic speakers without dominant yDNA N1 (other than extremely anomalous Magyars), being instead dominated by Q (possibly all or most that Q1a2b you mentioned). I'm not sure what's their exact unwritten history but I'd bet that their mtDNA ancestry and quasi-oriental phenotype comes from systematic admixture with N1 Uralics south of them, probably the (proto-)Ugrics (as their presence in NE-most Europe is recent).

      Earlier, when we discussed the issue of maternally-caused dilution of autosomal genetics and phenotype, including the extreme dilution to near-nothingness that we observe in Western Uralics and Native Americans, I came to think that simple intermarriage with nearby groups can be enough in the long term to cause that. Let's imagine a simplified case of three populations A, B and C, each of whom lives just north of the previous one and is therefore many times smaller (climate obliges). A could have Ne=100,000, B: Ne=10,000 and C Ne=1000. Each time an equal intermarriage happens it causes almost no change in the southern population but it makes a much more important effect in the northern one, especially as this pattern is repeated through time for centuries and even millennia. These three populations can be anything like, for example, three Uralic populations such as Estonians, Finns and Sámi, but we can also see them as three ethnically different populations such as proto-IEs (or other steppe peoples), West Siberia Uralics and Selkups. In the end C (Selkups, for example) would end up with largely the B (Ugric) original mtDNA/DNAn/phenotype, while B would adopt at least partly the A (steppe) mtDNA/DNAn/phenotype. As populations are internally layered and the history is not that linear, there are probably some nuances to this overall pattern but I think it can explain the DNA changes to the partial exclusion of Y-DNA (which persists much better because of patrilocality) even in relative geographical stasis, without need of founder effects or other strange phenomena (still possible but not really necessary).

      So I would dare say that proto-Selkups, today the archetype of "orientalness" in Europe, were once as "western" in everything as any other European (as their Western Y-DNA tells us: >95% Western, including Q1a2b) but became heavily orientalized because of persistent N1-Uralic contact influence, which even assimilated them in language.

      Delete
    3. Q1a2c: One of these is (geographically) not like the others! Not expecting you to agree here, but I'm just waiting for Q1a2c to turn out to be from South/Central America, and accompanied the Olmec? nicotine and coca that turns up in Egyptian mummy hair.

      Delete
    4. I don't see how Egypt can explain Siberia or how can post-Neolithic alleged trans-Atlantic trade justify Paleolithic speculations. Keep your feet on the ground, please and try to contain your wild imagination a bit when discussing real world matters.

      Delete
  27. I agree with you on what you say about admixture processes. It seems that people always mix and people always end up looking like their neighbours.

    You always say that there is no Oriental mtDNA in Altai before the Iron Age, but I am not really convinced that you can use the fact that Eastern mtDNA is not found in western style Iron and Bronze kurgans as conclusive evidence of the Altaian mtDNA pool before the Ice Age, and note that Eastern mtDNA (C, A, D, F) has been found in the oldest sites around Lake Baikal, just there where we have now ancient R and Q.

    I think it is obvious that Q1a arrived to Siberia from north of India and not from Turkey or Europe, and it is possible that Q1a itself arose in Siberia or Central Asia well before the last glacial maximum. I must admit that I have never understood this “West Asianness” of yDNA Q, and even less now that P and M are linked. In my opinion, West Asianness is more related to yDNAs IJG and mtDNAs HV, H, JT and N1a.

    Klyosov gives the following age estimations:
    Q 33 kya, Q1a 27 kya, Q1a1b-M25 12.7 kya, Q1a2-M346 21.7 kya
    C3 29 kya, C3b (America) 27 kya, C3 (Asia) 27 kya, C3c (Asia) 23 kya
    N1c1d-L708 (European N1c) 8.4 kya
    N-M231 16 kya, N1*-LLY22g (found in China, mainly Yunnan, Sichuan, Xinjiang) 22 kya, N1b 19 kya, N1c 11.7 kya (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0066102)
    N1 15.8 kya (Chinese Super-Grandfathers)
    N1b Khanty 4 kya, Izhemski Komi 6.7 kya (northern group), Priluzski Komi 13 kya (southern group), other Slavs 18 kya, Hezhens 3 kya, other Siberian and Mongolian groups 5.2 kya (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2986641/)

    At the moment, I am pretty sure that mtDNA M8/C, A and G/D were in North Asia well before yDNA N arrived. With all likelihood, paleo-Native Americans were in Beringia before 24 kya and with all likelihood, N1b spread to Central North Siberia after LGM. After reading “A Mitochondrial Revelation of Early Human Migrations to the Tibetan Plateau Before and After the Last Glacial Maximum”, 2010, it seems that mtDNA G/D is rather linked with yDNA C3 than yDNA D as mtDNA D does not figure among the oldest haplogroups in Tibet. Instead, A10 is among the oldest mtDNA lines in Tibet together with C4d (ages c. 20 kya), while M8a and A5 are found in Korea and Japan. At most, one could argue that M8 and A arrived with yDNA D, but on the basis of their distribution I still think that a connection with yDNA Q is more plausible. YDNA N cannot have brought these haplogroups to Altai after LGM, as they were already in America at that time. Your theory can be true only if N is much older than estimated, against all scientific papers which say that it is younger compared to other yDNA lines. Your theory also creates plenty of other problems: why yDNA N did not migrate to America if it met Paleo-Native Americans, why there is no original Native American mtDNAs anywhere in North Asia, why Native Americans do not show at any level a 50% admixture with Siberians, why Mal’ta and Afontova Gora individuals do not show any East Asian or Siberian admixture if N1b was around.

    IMO, the arctic phenotype is an adaptation to the cold climate and it developed among populations that have endured the cold climate the longest.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "You always say that there is no Oriental mtDNA in Altai before the Iron Age, but I am not really convinced that you can use the fact that Eastern mtDNA is not found in western style Iron and Bronze kurgans as conclusive evidence of the Altaian mtDNA pool before the Ice Age"...

    I guess that you mean "in the Ice Age" or "before the end of the Ice Age", right? Before the Ice Age there were most likely no Homo sapiens whatsoever in that region.

    I can only agree that there is always room for doubt ("absence of evidence is not evidence of absence") but in any case the new Mal'ta data rather reinforces than notion of an extended West Eurasian genetic area in the Ice Age, even to as far East as Lake Baikal, without notice of anything that might look Oriental.

    "I think it is obvious that Q1a arrived to Siberia from north of India and not from Turkey or Europe"...

    Iran or nearby areas of South Asia. Somewhere between Delhi and Tehran, so to say.

    ... "it is possible that Q1a itself arose in Siberia or Central Asia"...

    Very possibly, yes. In Altai maybe. Siberia is a big place however and for this period we should differentiate East and West and, if anything, it'd be in the Western part. And this Western part, before the N1 expansion, does not seem to have any Oriental genetics (always barring new possible surprising findings, of course).

    "I must admit that I have never understood this “West Asianness” of yDNA Q, and even less now that P and M are linked".

    It does not matter if P and M are linked (they used to be already anyhow via MNOPS), that only points to some sort of shared origin around the Bay of Bengal. P* is most common near Bengal, so it makes good sense.

    It's a matter of where the basal diversity of Q lays: the East Asian part of Q (and even the NW Eurasian one) are just the tip of the Iceberg; most basal lineages seem to be in West and South Asia. Also ethno-culturally, Central Asia, including all Siberia West of Baikal, were affiliated with the West in both culture and genetics during the Ice Age.

    Anyhow the distribution of Q sublineages is as follows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M242#Subclade_Distribution):

    → Q* South Asia and Afghanistan
    → Q1* (P36.2) Iran

    So far South Asia and Iran/Afghanistan, right?

    → Q1b (L275) and its main derived lineage Q1b1 (M378) seem restricted to West Eurasia and South Asia, so again nothing that points to the East.

    The most complicated part is probably Q1a (MEH2), which still has several basal lineages restricted to West Asia:
    → Q1a*: NE Asia (Koryaks and Paleo-Eskimo)
    → Q1a1 (F1096, "new clade") is found in East Asia (Q1a1a1) but also West Asia (Q1a1b)
    → Q1a2 (M346) is found in all West Eurasia and South Asia, as well as in Tibet and, one very particular subclade (Q1a2a1a1-M3) among Native Americans

    So only Q1a looks like being involved in the Northern and Eastern journey but still keeping fractions at the Western or Southern Asian origin. Q1b, Q1* and Q* all are restricted to West Eurasia and South Asia.

    I know it's counter-intuitive because frequencies peak in the North and in America but basal diversity is definitely concentrated between South and West Asia. The frequency peaks correspond only to some very particular subclades, all them within Q1a, namely the Koryak Q1a* (probably a well defined sublineage but not yet well studied), the East Asian Q1a1a or Q1a1a1 and the Native American specific Q1a2a1a1-M3. All the rest is Western, thinly spread but restricted to the West (with a lesser Tibetan exception within Q1a2).

    I think it should be easy to understand for you if you ponder this carefully. Please do it because it may well be at the origin of what I perceive as your confusion on this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Klyosov gives the following age estimations"...

    I don't care much about age guesstimates. BTW, Klyosov wasn't that guy who even Dienekes (one of his main paladins once) eventually broke up with because his extremely short guesstimates were shown to be just impossible? I believe so.

    "At the moment, I am pretty sure that mtDNA M8/C, A and G/D were in North Asia well before yDNA N arrived".

    North Asia is a big place, I repeat. They were in NE Asia, not sure if associated with N or with C3 or both (and of course with the fraction of Q that reached out to the East). In any case mtDNA G is generally considered a more southerly ("central") lineage, with lesser presence in the North, just for the record.

    "IMO, the arctic phenotype is an adaptation to the cold climate and it developed among populations that have endured the cold climate the longest".

    IMO not. IMO the East Asian phenotype is a random founder effect with origins in the quite tropical SE Asia.

    ReplyDelete
  30. BTW, I finally finished with those elusive East Asian ancient Y-DNA maps: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/12/ancient-east-asian-y-dna-maps.html

    ReplyDelete
  31. You say that “C. 30,000 years ago, Upper Paleolithic ("mode 4") technology with roots in Altai reached other parts of Siberia, Mongolia and North China, from where it expanded eastwards and southwards gradually in a process of, probably, cultural diffusion.” 30 000 is before the Ice Age.

    It is not only one particular subclade in Native Americans. Apart from M3 there are:
    Q1a2a1b Z780, L191: Native Americans
    Q1a2a1c L330: Mongols, Kets, Khantys, Tuvinians, age estimation in Mongolia is 6.5 kya (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0071390)

    Q* has been found in Afghanistan, as Wikipedia says “Important in Afghanistan, paragroup Q-M242 (xMEH2,xM378) was found at 16.3% in Pashtun people”, but according to Wikipedia, Indian paragroup* is not necessarily Q-M242 (xMEH2,xM378), as all current branches of the Q-M242 tree were not tested.
    The recent Afghanistan mtDNA paper gives detailed mtDNA frequencies of Afghanistan Pashtuns, including the following South Asian -looking haplotypes (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0076748):
    M2a 1.1%
    M3a 3.3% (highest concentrations in west and NW India, Pakistan)
    M4 3.3% (M4a Gujarat, Pakistan, Meghalaya)
    M37 1.1%
    M5a’d 1.1%
    M33a 1.1%
    Other M 2.2%
    R2 4.4% (Iran, Baluchistan (Pakistan), Volga basin, India)
    R5 2.2%
    U2a 2.2%
    U2b2 5.6%
    U2c’d 2.2%

    M 12.1%, R(xU) 6.6%, U 10.1%

    If yDNA Q arose in Aghanistan, it could easily have carried a precursor of U and M8 to the North, as India is full of mtDNA R and M. The origin of a precursor of A in Afghanistan is more difficult to perceive. It is interesting that according to Ebizur, the following N types are found in Hunza Burusho: 1/44 = 0.023 N(xA, I, N1, N9a, R, W, X), 1/44 = 0.023 W, 1/44 = 0.023 X, 6/44 = 0.136 N(xR).

    On the basis of this paper (http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/IJHG/IJHG-08-0-000-000-2008-Web/IJHG-08-1-2-001-256-2007-Abst-PDF/IJHG-08-1-2-085-08-336-Maji-S/IJHG-08-1&2-085-08-336-Maji-S-Tt.pdf), undefined N* is found also in India, although not present in this Afghanistan paper.

    In my opinion, tropical East Asians look very different from Eskimos, and Southern or Central Native Americans all look very different from both above.

    Yes, I think that Klyosov's ages used to be very much in the low end, but now his age estimations for Q and C3 seem to be quite well in line with the archaeology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If yDNA Q arose in Aghanistan, it could easily have carried a precursor of U and M8"

      MtDNA U and M8 are completely different animals: M8 is an Eastern (NE) Asian and Native American lineage with some distribution in North and Central Asia and even as far as Europe. I have no doubt that M8 arose in NE Asia, not too far from modern Beijing (in fact M8a is almost only found over there). M8 has nothing to do with South Asia (barring the occasional C/Z infiltration). There are more than 40 basal sublineages of M (the biggest star-like structure of the human mtDNA tree), so I don't see why you would imagine that listing some of them would somehow "magically" produce a relation with M8. Afghans do have M8 but it is almost only of the Z sublineage and is concentrated among Hazaras (who also show other East Asian "recent" influences via Central Asia.

      U instead is a Western lineage and very clearly so. Totally unrelated.

      The only known precursor of U is R-root, but the only known precursor of M8 is M-root. M expanded in Asia long before R even existed almost certainly: the slim majority of M sublineages are centered in South Asia, while the rest are in East Asia and in some cases Australasia. For some reason there is no M basal sublineage centered in West Asia (M1 is derived from a South Asian upper tier lineage), only R and N derived ones (and not many: about 20-25% for R and probably quite less for N). That's because the first expansion after the OoA took place in Tropical and Subtropical Asia, East of the Neanderthal dominated lands of the West. Only at the end of this process, probably because of having reached some density limit, people began looking further into less hospitable lands such as the cold NE Asia (M8 & co.) or the Neanderlands of the West (U & Co.) but these two, even if parallel, are different processes.

      → http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/06/synthesis-of-early-colonization-of-asia.html

      "It is interesting that according to Ebizur, the following N types are found in Hunza Burusho: 1/44 = 0.023 N(xA, I, N1, N9a, R, W, X)"

      Probably N2(xW). Both N2 and W appear to me rather centered towards AfPak but I'm not certain of their exact origins. Whatever the case they are NOT precursors of A, exactly the same that N9 or N11 are not either. A is just another of many (18?) N sublineages and its long stem suggests it coalesced only late and already close to its NE Asian destination, where it enjoyed a bout or two of expansion.

      Sorry but in my understanding you are sinning of mtDNA ignorance. Barring maybe some rare clade the only West Eurasian aboriginal N-derived lineages are N1 (incl. I), N2 (incl. W), X and, via R, R0 (incl. HV), JT, U and some other very rare clade like R2 or R3 (not sure which one right now). In addition to that there is M1 (derived from a South Asian lineage) and probably some, very old but uncommon outside Arabia Peninsula, L(xM,N) lineages, either a residue from the OoA or some later movements, and then some much more recent Siberian lineages of East Asian origin like M8 (incl. CZ), A or D. All the rest of the diversity is East of Iran or South of the Sahara.

      You want to radically displace the center of diversity and logical origin of A and M8? Sorry but I'm not going to accept that easily, certainly not with the kind of poor arguments you are using here. You'd need much more than maybes and wishful thinking.

      Delete
    2. ... "undefined N* is found also in India"...

      Nice to know. The relative lack of N in South Asia has always been a bit of mystery, considering that the Western N(xR) sublineages almost certainly went through it before reaching West Asia. R is clearly most diverse in South Asia but N(xR) was a bit more problematic, as its origins in any case point towards SE Asia.

      "In my opinion, tropical East Asians look very different from Eskimos, and Southern or Central Native Americans all look very different from both above".

      Maybe. I thought you meant the so-called Mongoloid phenotype, which has been often argued to originate in Siberia and what not, precisely as supposed adaption to cold climates, something we know now it's surely not the case at all because the bulk of the genetic flow was from South to North and not vice versa.

      "Yes, I think that Klyosov's ages used to be very much in the low end, but now his age estimations for Q and C3 seem to be quite well in line with the archaeology".

      "Q 33 Ka" is not in agreement with the archaeology I know. That would rather be Q1a2a1a1-M3 if anything. Q must be quite older than 47 Ka to fit with the archaeology. Q1a could be for example 50 Ka old. So Q may well be 60 Ka old (just my educated guess anyhow - but surely much better than his).

      People who do age guesstimates without solid archaeological references are like someone trying to juggle balls without arms: the balls unavoidably fall all to the ground. And a lot of people does that, what is a total waste of time in the best case and source of confusion in the worst.

      Delete
  32. So, you think that Q-M3 was in Beringia 33 ka. That is very close to the Soares age estimations of C (28 ky) and A (29 ky).

    I do not understand your claim that M expanded in Asia long before R even existed almost certainly, if you do not mean that M expanded in East Asia a few thousands of years before R. In Table S2 (http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/06/10/1306043110.DCSupplemental/pnas.201306043SI.pdf), you find the following age estimations:
    R South Asia 62300
    R East Asia 54300
    M South Asia 47970
    M East Asia 57300

    I definitely agree with you that M8/C and A arose in the North Asia. M8 is also found in Koreans and Japanese. You say that the precursors of M8/C and A came from South China and I say that they may have come from Central Asia. In both cases the root is not found in the Tropics.

    I do not see so much mtDNA flow from the Tropics or Southeast China, if you so wish, to the Arctic North (excluding, of course, the initial settlement of the Northern areas). A, C and D lineages are all more frequent in the north than in the south, and probably spread from north to south (as A, C and D lineages in India). MtDNA B seems to be more southern and has probably spread from south to north, but also from north to south. Also F has spread from south to north, but F is not ancient in the Arctic areas. Also in Western Eurasia, northern lineages U4 and U5 are more frequent in the north than in the south (Africa, Near East) and did not spread from the Near East to Scandinavia.
    The Arctic lineages of Koryaks, Chukchi and Itelmen are all restricted to Arctic or subarctic areas: A2, A8, C4b, C5, D3, D2, D4a, D4h, D4m, D4o, G1b, Z1a, Y1a. They are not found in Southeast Asia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So, you think that Q-M3 was in Beringia 33 ka".

      Actually, if I transmitted that idea, I might have exaggerated the note a bit. My estimate for the Beringia period is more like the LGM, some 10,000 years later probably, with some uncertainty. But I really think that Q1a is of about 50 Ka ago, because it is geographically split between the overall Q origin area of South-Central Asia and the destiny region of North Asia (and America). The eastwards migration is apparent in the archaeological record since c. 30 Ka, so probably the arrival to Beringia is of a later date, maybe towards 20 Ka BP.

      "That is very close to the Soares age estimations of C (28 ky) and A (29 ky)".

      I would have to check for a better estimate but I really think that those ages seem a bit too young in any case. I have in the past estimated the first expansion to NE Asia associated to those haplogroups (as well as D and other M8) with the approximate date of c. 50 Ka ago also, although some lineages may be a bit younger. Anything less than 30 Ka sounds a bit suspicious. And generally all standard age estimates don't fit the thumb rule of the OoA being as old as 100 Ka or even a mere 80 Ka: they invariably assume the OoA to be around 60 Ka ago because someone made such estimate a decade ago and it'd be to risky to contradict the literature. They are career academics, not intellectual pioneers, daring too much could cost them the swimming pool or whatever.

      "I do not understand your claim that M expanded in Asia long before R even existed almost certainly".

      Count the mutations from the root. I use coding region mutations only (HVS is too messy). Let's see (each "→" represents one c.r. transition

      L3→→→M
      L3→→→→→N→R

      Simple enough, right?

      Unless the molecular clock is terribly irregular even in the short distances, and therefore utterly useless, M must have coalesced (and sent some 40-50 sublineages all around Asia and Australasia in a big bang of sorts) at about half the time (counting from Africa's L3 shared root) that it took for R to do the same thing (or rather a weaker resemblance).

      Assuming that L3 coalesced c. 125 Ka ago (at the beginning of the Abbassia Pluvial and the preliminary OoA into Arabia) and that M coalesced c. 100 Ka ago (when the archaeology of today shows that the Eurasian expansion was actually active) then R may have coalesced some 75 Ka ago. This, with some minor adjustments would make N and R "explode" (not at all as strongly as M in any case) after the Toba catastrophe, what makes some good sense IMO, because it would have opened some niches for them.

      But in any case N and R look clearly expanding some time after M did, what makes total sense, because their star-like structures (which should indicate rapid expansion) are much more modest than that of M. Only H can compare with M in this aspect and is still second to it.

      That's truly a prolific grandmother!

      Delete
    2. Going back to M8, it'd be just one mutation younger than R, i.e. roughly the same as R0. Let's see:

      L3→→→→→→→M8
      L3→→→→→→→R0

      That should mean that they might have coalesced in similar times, some 50 Ka ago, I guess. But of course there's not hardcore certainty in any molecular clock estimate, it's just an educated guess and little more.

      This is my educated guess.

      "you find the following age estimations:
      R South Asia 62300
      R East Asia 54300
      M South Asia 47970
      M East Asia 57300"

      I just can't agree, very especially not regarding M.

      "... in the North Asia".

      Such a big place!

      "M8 is also found in Koreans and Japanese."

      M8a is most common among Japanese in fact.

      "You say that the precursors of M8/C and A came from South China".

      The only known precursor of M8 is M and that was almost certainly in South Asia. The precursor of A (5 mutations upstream) is N and most likely coalesced in SE Asia.

      What I say is that in their "invisible" stem stages they were carried via what is now China, mostly because Central Asia and Siberia was then part of the Neanderlands: closed territory to H. sapiens. Instead in East Asia there is abundant data on early H. sapiens presence. It's a matter of chronology and shortest possible route, and also of detecting other "sister" lineages with less lengthy stems sprouting in the region one after the other.

      M8 can't have arrived via Central Asia because its arrival to the East is parallel to the first incursions of H. sapiens to West Asia, not yet even Central Asia surely.

      You can fantasize all you want but I have gone through all this discussion a zillion times and you are making me think of retirement. Sincerely, if you want someone who agrees with you I'd recommend you to begin emailing with Terry T. I'm not going to agree with that, no way.

      "I do not see so much mtDNA flow from the Tropics or Southeast China"

      I have done this exercise many times in the past. It's all around my blogs. I'd recommend you do it. Get the PhyloTree, get some sources on the distribution of mtDNA haplogroups like my little wiki (see links page for both) and, counting from L3, plot, using one map for each transition (= approx. time unit), plot the haplogroup nodes that coalesce at each time. Then join the dots.

      When you have done that at least once, come back and tell me if your hypothesis still holds up.

      So far I have got from you what I wanted: something boring to get sleepy and go to bed. Thanks.

      Delete
  33. If I haven't made my disclaimer clear enough already, I'm just having fun with this one. My basic logic is, IF Q1a2 split apart NOT at 50kya in West Asia, BUT sometime later in Siberia (one branch going to America, another to Scandinavia), then there has to be some means by which one branch gets all the way to Yemen. (All the other Q1 branches anywhere near that far south are Q1b, aren't they?) Certainly, there are plenty of historical connections from Siberia/Central Asia to Yemen to explain it--e.g. Huns, Khazars, Turks...but they don't seem to have left a trail of Q1a in between AFAIK. So you have this isolated Q1a branch way down there in Yemen, which is so far from Siberia, certainly it is still more likely to have traveled overland across Eurasia, but couldn't there be SOME chance it came around the other way? Maybe just in post-Columbian times. That's all. Again, I just find it fun to wonder, don't see why that should offend anyone. (btw, Do you recall hearing some anecdote that something like 1% or 2% of Greeks carry a Q lineage common among Mayans? Can't seem to find it anymore, though.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The distribution of Q1a2 per Wikipedia (mostly curated by Ebizur, who knows his trade quite well) is:

      Q-M346 (L56, L57, M346) — Found at low frequency in Europe, South Asia and West Asia. It has been found in Pakistan,[25] Saudi Arabia,[26] the United Arab Emirates,[29] India,[25] Tibet,[14] and Bali.[17] Found with high frequency 25-50% in Turkmens and Turkmenistan Confused with R1b1 because of P25 , [1]
      → Q-L53 (L53, L54, L55, L213)
      (...)
      → Q-M323 (M323) — It has been detected in Yemenite Jews.[39]


      So there's absolutely no reason for Q-M323 to have migrated from Central Asia with all that Q1a2* in Arabia, Iran, etc. It was only Q1a2a (L53) which migrated to America (via Siberia, I guess), M323 is just some of that Q1a2* that stayed put, which happens to have been described as distinct haplogroup probably only because it's present among certain Jews.

      It is true that there is not a Siberian nor Central Asian (other than Tibetan) trail of Q1a2a-L53 but barring the extremely unlikely "Solutrean hypothesis" or UFO abductions, and considering that its close relatives Q1a* Q1a1-M120 are rather common in NE Asia, plus the new findings re. the Mal'ta boy, I'd rather support the parsimony of a Siberian route for proto-Amerindians, with a founder effect for that particular subclade of Q at the end of the process.

      cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q_%28Y-DNA%29#Subclade_Distribution

      Delete
  34. [As for my "e.g. Huns, Khazars, Turks" reference, I should have said "there are plenty of historical connections from Siberia/Central Asia to THE MIDDLE EAST (in general)", i.e. it gets you close.]

    ReplyDelete
  35. The more data you present the more it weighs in favor of your position, which was already the obviously more likely one anyway. I had just thought Q1a2 was only found in America, the far recesses of north Eurasia...and Yemen. So I thought maybe some sample Amerindians (carrying Q1a2c--yet to be discovered an Amerindian lineage) had been brought to the Mediterranean world by one of the following: Minoans/Phoenicians/BellBeakerites/Tartessians/Spaniards/Themselves, with a trace of descendants ending up in Egypt en route to Yemen. (In no way was I postulating a non-Siberian source for Native Americans; don't know how that was inferred.) Anyway, I apologize if I tarnished your blog with too-wild a speculation. I guess it would have been more appropriate on one of those Atlantis/Mu blogs.

    ReplyDelete

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)