PDA

View Full Version : 24,000 year old Y DNA R AND MTDNA U FOUND IN SIBERIA!!!!



Pages : [1] 2

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 10:46 PM
Here is the original article Surprising aDNA results from Paleolithic Siberia (including Y-DNA R) (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/10/surprising-adna-results-from.html).


According to leaks from the Paleoamerican Odyssey conference (http://paleoamericanodyssey.com/abstracts.html), a 24,000-year-old Siberian sample from the Mal'ta archeological site, near Lake Baikal, appears genetically like a mix between modern Europeans, Amerindians and Oceanians. Apparently his Y-DNA belongs to haplogroup R and mtDNA to haplogroup U. Moreover, judging by his pigmentation genetic markers, he was swarthier than Oetzi the Iceman. For more information and updates see here (http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/10/paleoamerican-odyssey-conference-ancient-malta-dna-back-migrations-to-the-old-world-and-hallway-discussions/#comment-22946) and here (http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/paleoamericanodyssey-tweets-on-24000.html).

If true, these results obviously have major implications for our understanding of how both the New and Old Worlds were peopled. Indeed, if Y-chromosome haplogroup R was present in Siberia 24,000 years ago, then it's likely it was also present in Europe at about the same time, because of long distance migrations by hunter-gatherers across the forests and steppes of Eurasia (see here (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/european-specific-mtdna-c-from.html)). Also worth noting is that the vast majority of Paleolithic and Mesolithic mtDNA sequences from Europe belong to mtDNA haplogroup U.

Could it be, then, that Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans largely belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1?
I have been saying for so long Y DNA R is Mongliod and originated probably in Siberia but it seemed no one believed me. I also have been saying R got to Caucasians through inter marriage around 20,000ybp developing into R1b somewhere around the Near east and R1a possibly in Europe and R2 around south asia and Iran. This is now prove of Caucasian-Mongolid Y DNA R inter marriage from 24,000ybp!!! I have thought that it would be the Mongliods migrating west into the Near east and Europe but this mtDNa U is prove of Caucasians migrating east and inter marrying with Mongliod Y DNA R. I think the article made a terrible mistake it is not likely R was in Europe 24,000ybp because it was in Siberia are you freaking kidding me. He is trying to connect this with Europe not realizing R1a1a1b1 Z283 did not became widespread and dominate in eastern Europe till Corded ware culture(spoke ancestral language to Balto Slavic) just 5,000ybp and R1b1a2a1a L11 did not begin to spread in western Europe with Germanic and Italo Celtic languages till just 4,500-5,000ybp. If anything the mtDNA U I think is connected with the Near east not Europe and might be connected with Native American mtDNA X2. They have their own unique subclade X2g and they also have subclade X2a which has been found in Israeli Druze.

They also added that he was darker than Otzie(5,300 year old copper age farmer alps Italy) who had brown hair and brown eyes so their probably talking about skin color. If they are his dark skin should not be a surprise because of Native Americans who migrated out of Siberia over 20,000ybp are very dark.

rms2
10-19-2013, 11:08 PM
If this is true, honestly, I do not see what is so all-fired amazing about it. Mal’ta and Afontova Gora are in Siberia, near Lake Baikal, and pretty far east. How does that translate to "Could it be, then, that Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans largely belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1?"

First off, we do not know if that alleged 24k year old sample is "R1"; we are only told it belongs to y haplogroup R. Second, Lake Baikal is pretty doggoned far from Europe. I guess finding any very old R anywhere on Planet Earth translates to a faint glimmer of hope for the R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge diehards.

I guess some R that old so far east is surprising, but whoopee. Siberia isn't in Europe.

Here is a map that shows where Mal’ta and Afontova Gora are:

http://donsmaps.com/images26/northernussrpaleolithicimage001b.jpg

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 11:15 PM
If this is true, honestly, I do not see what is so all-fired amazing about it. Mal’ta and Afontova Gora are in Siberia, near Lake Baikal, and pretty far east. How does that translate to "Could it be, then, that Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans largely belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1?"

First off, we do not know if that alleged 24k year old sample is "R1"; we are only told it belongs to y haplogroup R. Second, Lake Baikal is pretty doggoned far from Europe. I guess finding any very old R anywhere on Planet Earth translates to a faint glimmer of hope for the R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge diehards.

I guess some R that old so far east is surprising, but whoopee. Siberia isn't in Europe.

It is kind of cool that is exactly the area Andronovo culture existed(1,800-1,400ybp) with Y DNA R1a1 and mainly mtDNA U(U5a, U2e, U4). It was a back migration of Y DNA R into Siberia after over 20,000 years. rm2 your y DNA is under R and mtDNA under U but just like the Andronovo people unconnected.

Here is a map that shows where Mal’ta and Afontova Gora are:

http://donsmaps.com/images26/northernussrpaleolithicimage001b.jpg
The reason he connected it to Europe is mtDNA U which proves inter marriage with Caucasians. Also that the majority of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European mtDNA is under U(U5, U5a'b, U8, U2, U2e, U4). But it is just as likely that U came from the Near east. I am not surprised at all they found Y DNA R in Siberia 24,000ybp since it is a Mongliod Y DNA haplogroup. I am sure there is R(XR2, R1) or R1(XR1a, R1b) in Siberia today. People don't realize Y DNA R tells almost nothing about the origin of Europeans and all Caucasians in Europe it did not become widespread and popular till very recently.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 11:18 PM
{DO NOT BUMP YOUR OWN THREAD. INSTEAD EDIT YOUR INITIAL POST.}

rms2
10-19-2013, 11:28 PM
The reason he connected it to Europe is mtDNA U which proves inter marriage with Caucasians. Also that the majority of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European mtDNA is under U(U5, U5a'b, U8, U2, U2e, U4). But it is just as likely that U came from the Near east. I am not surprised at all they found Y DNA R in Siberia 24,000ybp since it is a Mongliod Y DNA haplogroup. I am sure there is R(XR2, R1) or R1(XR1a, R1b) in Siberia today. People don't realize Y DNA R tells almost nothing about the origin of Europeans and all Caucasians in Europe it did not become widespread and popular till very recently.

MtDNA U is all over the place, and that is all we think we know about it: U, not U5 or whatever. Another thing: the application of antiquated racial categories like Caucasian, Mongoloid, etc., to y and mtDNA haplogroups, especially when they turn up in 24k-year-old remains, is a mistake. What was a "Caucasian" 24,000 years ago? What was a "Mongoloid" 24,000 years ago?

A y-hap R result in Siberia near Lake Baikal proves that there was at least one Paleolithic R man not in Europe. It certainly does not prove there was any R in Europe at that time.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 11:40 PM
MtDNA U is all over the place, and that is all we think we know about it: U, not U5 or whatever. Another thing: the application of antiquated racial categories like Caucasian, Mongoloid, etc., to y and mtDNA haplogroups, especially when they turn up in 24k-year-old remains, is a mistake. What was a "Caucasian" 24,000 years ago? What was a "Mongoloid" 24,000 years ago?

A y-hap R result in Siberia near Lake Baikal proves that there was at least one Paleolithic R man not in Europe. It certainly does not prove there was any R in Europe at that time.

You can make racial categories of some haplogroups like U when all of its subclades have a origin in Caucasians. Autosomal DNA proves "race" exists there is a such thing as Caucasian, Oceania-Mongliod, and Sub Saharan African families. It makes sense over 200,000-30,000 years people formed into distinct family groups. If you study mtDNA haplogroups like B and U you will see they obviously are in these separate families Austomal DNA has discovered. There has always been inter marriage that is what the 24,000 year old mtDNA U in Siberia is from.

I understand some people will be against saying there are Race's but its true there are genetic families which you can call races. mtDNA U isn't poplar "Everywhere" it is centered in Europe, near east, and north Africa where the subclades U1-U9 defintley originated and it barely reach's into eastern Asia and sub Sahara Africa and definitely from inter marriage.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQP5fxKEP1sdHWTX72dmxVvq9t98IOqj DeOhU9fEO-VAl_L0es3 (http://www.theapricity.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=HOeqln54VgOfCM&tbnid=-RSujqgowuk8WM:&ved=0CAgQjRwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fs1.zetaboards.com%2Fanthroscape%2 Ftopic%2F2697533%2F&ei=kztKUtr8BcrI2gXj_IDwDA&psig=AFQjCNGOVmztdF204bqQluQqEDpReSvRiQ&ust=1380683027172679)

Anglecynn
10-19-2013, 11:40 PM
If this is true, honestly, I do not see what is so all-fired amazing about it. Mal’ta and Afontova Gora are in Siberia, near Lake Baikal, and pretty far east. How does that translate to "Could it be, then, that Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans largely belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1?"

First off, we do not know if that alleged 24k year old sample is "R1"; we are only told it belongs to y haplogroup R. Second, Lake Baikal is pretty doggoned far from Europe. I guess finding any very old R anywhere on Planet Earth translates to a faint glimmer of hope for the R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge diehards.

I guess some R that old so far east is surprising, but whoopee. Siberia isn't in Europe.

Here is a map that shows where Mal’ta and Afontova Gora are:

http://donsmaps.com/images26/northernussrpaleolithicimage001b.jpg

Well R had to be somewhere 24,000 years ago, i agree - I don't know how it being Siberia also means it is in Europe. One could therefore assume that as I is found a lot in Europe, due to modern trade links around the world, I is also very common in places like China and sub-saharan Africa?

It's a bit of a non-argument on their part, but very interesting results.

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 11:43 PM
Well R had to be somewhere 24,000 years ago, i agree - I don't know how it being Siberia also means it is in Europe. One could therefore assume that as I is found a lot in Europe, due to modern trade links around the world, I is also very common in places like China and sub-saharan Africa?

It's a bit of a non-argument on their part, but very interesting results.

What sources do you have Y DNA I is popular in Sub Sahara Africa and China?

Fire Haired
10-19-2013, 11:45 PM
I see rm2 has gotten two thanks because even the smartest people. Like to agree with the well we don't know what race is philosophy and its a big mystery. When it isn't it more simple then figuring out where R1b in western Europe comes from and I don't understand why experts on this website ignore obvious answers on human race from like in globe13 (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/).

rms2
10-19-2013, 11:55 PM
@Fire Haired

Race is an ephemeral concept. It is based on what people look like and on some anthropometrics laid down by 19th and early 20th century anthropologists who were making comparisons based on what people in different parts of the world looked like and how their skeletons and body parts measured up at that time. Those things depend on autosomal dna, which recombines and changes generation by generation.

I won't deny that races exist; it's pretty obvious they do. But try defining them scientifically. That is nearly impossible.

Anglecynn
10-20-2013, 12:00 AM
What sources do you have Y DNA I is popular in Sub Sahara Africa and China?

I was just making a point, we know that I is practically non existant in those places, yet it is found in Europe. So in my mind finding R in Siberia is somewhat expected (either that or Central Asia) and does not mean it was in Europe at the same time. That is my problem with some elements of the article.

Anglecynn
10-20-2013, 12:05 AM
It's interesting, considering the hotspots of the 'East Euro' component in Eurogenes, it's correlation with R1a, and now this article.

Certainly shows there is something of a continuum along this northern zone that terminates in the north European plain at the western end. Especially when you factor in y-DNA N and Q as well.

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/2359/zhqw.png

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 12:30 AM
It's interesting, considering the hotspots of the 'East Euro' component in Eurogenes, it's correlation with R1a, and now this article.

Certainly shows there is something of a continuum along this northern zone that terminates in the north European plain at the western end. Especially when you factor in y-DNA N and Q as well.

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/2359/zhqw.png

The east Euro in Asia is probably rom spread of R1a1a1b2 Z93 with Indo Iranian and Tocharian languages. I think it was there in the Mesolithic but was then spread further by R1a1a1 M417 Indo Europeans.

Richard A. Rocca
10-20-2013, 03:46 AM
Here is the original article Surprising aDNA results from Paleolithic Siberia (including Y-DNA R) (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/10/surprising-adna-results-from.html).

I have been saying for so long Y DNA R is Mongliod and originated probably in Siberia but it seemed no one believed me.

Sorry, but you didn't really go out on a limb with that one. Every study and poster over the last 8 years has said that haplogroup R originated somewhere in central Asia. Heck, even my first National Genographic test (2008) had this pinned down pretty good...

786

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 04:16 AM
Sorry, but you didn't really go out on a limb with that one. Every study and poster over the last 8 years has said that haplogroup R originated somewhere in central Asia. Heck, even my first National Genographic test (2008) had this pinned down pretty good...

786

This Siberian sample means that R was in Siberia at least 24,000 years ago that's a early times for Y DNA R. I have been saying that its Mongolied not Caucasian. I am shocked that even very smart people like Mikwww who know so much about pre history and DNA but ignore the facts Austomal DNA tells about Human families because it is to close to race. There are clearly mtDNA and Y DNA haplogroups that originated in certain human races identified in austosomal DNA. People are so stubborn to belive that Y DNA R1 did not became widespread in Europe starting 5,000ybp. Just because it is so popular in Europeans today does not mean it tells something about European origin and people just cant belive it was originally a Mongol Y DNA haplogroup. I have been saying to family members our direct male line 20,000-30,000ybp was in Siberia and no one believed me I am just happy a 24,000 year old Y DNA R sample in Siberia as evdeince. I have also said that he would of looked like Native Americans with very dark skin. And I have been saying that there had to of been Mongol Y DNA R and Caucasian inter marriage around 15,000-25,000ybp and the R became R2 and I guess the R1 became R1a and R1b. The mtDNA U proves Caucasian inter marriage everything is coming out perfectly.

According to this


Debetz (1946) identified the remains of “nothern Asian Mongoloids” at the site of
Afontova Gora 2; they included a fragment of the frontal bone. Mongoloid features had
been originally acknowledged in the skeletal remains of a child found at the site of
Malta. Alexeev (1998, 323) in his later publication was more cautious, stating that this
area was “inhabited by a population of Mongoloid appearance.”

The Malta people had Mongoloid features also.

Willerslev: Based on genomes, "the Mal'ta is much darker if you want than the iceman (Otzi)" #paleoamericanodyssey

Here I am guessing their talking about skin color so much darker than Otzie 5,300 year old Farmer from alps, Italy. I would guess as dark as modern native Americans it is debatable that Europeans ancestors 24,000ybp where pale skinned or like other Caucasian's but I think the Mongoloid features and dark skin is evidence the Caucasian mtDNA U went back a few generations it wasn't his mother.

Rathna
10-20-2013, 08:09 AM
I have written this on another thread. Richard is Richard Rocca:
“Richard, a simple equation: R&U: we know that U (above all U5 and U4 but also U2e) is the mtDNA of palaeolithic Europeans. This, if confirmed, could be the proof that some R&U migrated before the LGM to South Asia (R2&U), Central Asia (R1a&U), Western Europe (R1b&U) = R1b would be palaeolithic in Europe.
From these data we could hypothesize that also Q was born more western Eurasian than it was thought before”.

P.S. Of course that hg. R* was in Central Siberia 24,000 years ago doesn’t mean that it was a few later in Europe, but you probably know that I am spending these last years in demonstrating that there has been an “Italian Refugium” of hg. R1b1 (and many others, above all mtDNA, I think having demonstrated ad abundantiam) during at least the Younger Dryas. Of course we have to find some aDNA which proves this, but we are arriving in the truth, I think, with these last tests (Geno 2.0, Chromo 2 and above all the Full Y).
We have an interesting discussion on other threads about R-M269* and R-L23* and I am happy that also Mikewww is taking in consideration my previous analyses. But my strong point remains R1b1* cluster A, where I think having demonstrated that Italy has so far the highest variance. The other clusters aren’t the ancestor of R-M269*, beginning from the Iberian one: see Segarra’s Geno 2.0 with 4 mutations, whereas DeMao has only one, and it is highly suspicious that he wasn’t able to send his Geno 2.0 to the FTDNA R1b1 Project.
I have ordered a Geno 2.0 for my acquired cousin Fabrizio Federighi (R-M269* with DYS462=12), because we are trying to verify if all the survived R-M269* belong to the cluster with L150+ and the three Sardinian SNPs PF7558/PF7562/PF7563+.

Jean M
10-20-2013, 10:28 AM
@ Rathna - I replied on that thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1474-paleoamericanodyssey-tweets-on-24-000-year-old-Mal-ta-Siberian

U is not restricted to Palaeolithic Europeans. On the evidence so far we can deduce that U itself probably arose at what I call the Asian cross-roads, which is not an exact location, but just my term for the general area between the Persian Gulf, the Caspian and the Himalayan, Karakoram and Hindu Kush mountains, where we can surmise that groups of Homo sapiens went in different directions. Some went south into South Asia, some north to eventually reach north-east Asia and the Americas, some west towards the Levant. From the Levant we have another parting of the ways, with some U entering Europe (where it seems U5 was born) and some entering North Africa (where U6 was born.)

I deduce this pattern from the fact that U2 seems to have been born from U in the Asian cross-roads later on, since the oldest U2 subclades are found in South Asia, yet we also have U2 entering Europe in the Palaeolithic, apparently via the Caucasus. U3 appears to have arisen from U in the Levant.

There is no reason to suppose that Y-DNA R was born in Europe, and absolutely no data to support the idea that R1b was Palaeolithic in Europe or anywhere else. The estimated date I have for it is c. 12,000 BC. The big question has been where Y-DNA R took refuge in the LGM. It looked to me as though we had two choices:

1. The southern Caspian.
2. Around Lake Baikal and the Yenisei.

I went for the South Caspian. That seemed to best explain the data thus far (i.e. prior to this paper that we now await). It looked to me as though Y-DNA N and mtDNA C arrived around the Volga from Lake Baikal. But there was always the possibility that Y-DNA R arrived the same way. We shall just have to wait and see.

Jean M
10-20-2013, 11:03 AM
I won't deny that races exist; it's pretty obvious they do. But try defining them scientifically. That is nearly impossible.

I'll have a go. "Race" or "breed" can be used to refer to the bundle of characteristics that typify a group within a species that has inter-bred in natural or controlled reproductive isolation, so creating genetic drift which makes the group distinct in specific ways from other groups within that species. Homo sapiens created its own relatively isolated inter-breeding groups by spreading across the world and then getting cut off by seas and other geographical barriers, mainly between the continents. However the process of genetic drift did not happen overnight. It took a long time. The characteristics that we see as specifically East Asian (thick hair etc) appear to have arisen from a single mutation in Central China between 13,175 and 39,575 years ago. See http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1302/120215-animal-model-of-human-evolution-indicates-thick-hair-mutation-emerged-30000-years-ago

That does not mean that people cut off around Lake Baikal in the LGM had acquired this mutation even in one person, let alone having it fixed by genetic drift by that time. According to German Dziebel's report on Eske Willerslev’s ancient DNA analysis of Mal’ta and Afontova Gora, these samples showed no connection with East Asians autosomally.

Neither did these samples resemble modern Europeans in every way. On analysis of his genome, the Mal’ta sample would have been much darker in colouring than Otzi. https://twitter.com/sw4mi/status/390972953795362816 . This should come as no surprise. The European-type alleles at TYRP1, SLC24A5, and SLC45A2 appear to have arisen much later - all within the last 11,000-19,000 years. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/looks.shtml

alan
10-20-2013, 01:17 PM
I think the exact opposite. Haplogroup Q is probably a west Eurasian group that picked up other characteristics on its long journey through the east. Q is not as close to R as people often think. The common ancestor P is a heck of a long time back and I think its very wide of the mark to place modern racial categorisation back in the early upper Palaeolithic.



Here is the original article Surprising aDNA results from Paleolithic Siberia (including Y-DNA R) (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/10/surprising-adna-results-from.html).


I have been saying for so long Y DNA R is Mongliod and originated probably in Siberia but it seemed no one believed me. I also have been saying R got to Caucasians through inter marriage around 20,000ybp developing into R1b somewhere around the Near east and R1a possibly in Europe and R2 around south asia and Iran. This is now prove of Caucasian-Mongolid Y DNA R inter marriage from 24,000ybp!!! I have thought that it would be the Mongliods migrating west into the Near east and Europe but this mtDNa U is prove of Caucasians migrating east and inter marrying with Mongliod Y DNA R. I think the article made a terrible mistake it is not likely R was in Europe 24,000ybp because it was in Siberia are you freaking kidding me. He is trying to connect this with Europe not realizing R1a1a1b1 Z283 did not became widespread and dominate in eastern Europe till Corded ware culture(spoke ancestral language to Balto Slavic) just 5,000ybp and R1b1a2a1a L11 did not begin to spread in western Europe with Germanic and Italo Celtic languages till just 4,500-5,000ybp. If anything the mtDNA U I think is connected with the Near east not Europe and might be connected with Native American mtDNA X2. They have their own unique subclade X2g and they also have subclade X2a which has been found in Israeli Druze.

They also added that he was darker than Otzie(5,300 year old copper age farmer alps Italy) who had brown hair and brown eyes so their probably talking about skin color. If they are his dark skin should not be a surprise because of Native Americans who migrated out of Siberia over 20,000ybp are very dark.

alan
10-20-2013, 01:22 PM
I agree its hardly a shock. Its always been contended that R* emerged somewhere around central Asia in that sort of timeframe. Its exactly what most people thought. As for Ice Age regugia, finding a potentially R* man in Siberia 22000BC actually adds to the already obvious impossibility of R1b in a western refuge in the ice age - something that is clearly complete nonsense anyway considering it is most DF27, a very young clade in the R story.


If this is true, honestly, I do not see what is so all-fired amazing about it. Mal’ta and Afontova Gora are in Siberia, near Lake Baikal, and pretty far east. How does that translate to "Could it be, then, that Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans largely belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1?"

First off, we do not know if that alleged 24k year old sample is "R1"; we are only told it belongs to y haplogroup R. Second, Lake Baikal is pretty doggoned far from Europe. I guess finding any very old R anywhere on Planet Earth translates to a faint glimmer of hope for the R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge diehards.

I guess some R that old so far east is surprising, but whoopee. Siberia isn't in Europe.

Here is a map that shows where Mal’ta and Afontova Gora are:

http://donsmaps.com/images26/northernussrpaleolithicimage001b.jpg

alan
10-20-2013, 01:33 PM
I would also add out idea of Europe and Asia is a modern idea. The continent is Eurasia really and modern cultural/racial divisions are irrelevant to central Asia or Siberia 22000 years ago. Also as far as I am aware, oriental types are a relatively late introduction to central Asia and genetically and phenotypically the 'European' genetic provence probably extended deep into central Asia long before east Asian groups penetrated.

Seriously we have always been told that R split from P in central Asia so this is expected, not a surprise IMO.


MtDNA U is all over the place, and that is all we think we know about it: U, not U5 or whatever. Another thing: the application of antiquated racial categories like Caucasian, Mongoloid, etc., to y and mtDNA haplogroups, especially when they turn up in 24k-year-old remains, is a mistake. What was a "Caucasian" 24,000 years ago? What was a "Mongoloid" 24,000 years ago?

A y-hap R result in Siberia near Lake Baikal proves that there was at least one Paleolithic R man not in Europe. It certainly does not prove there was any R in Europe at that time.

jdean
10-20-2013, 01:56 PM
How much older is this to the last oldest Y A-DNA ?

According to Jean's spreadsheet the previews record was 5300-5226 BC

If that's correct this is a huge leap for A-DNA testing !!!

OOI What are the current age estimates for R1 and R2, I'm guessing this is probably a bit older ?

alan
10-20-2013, 01:58 PM
The last time racial categorisation was popular in Europe up to 85 million people died worldwide, about one person in thirty of the entire population of the world in our grandparents generation. That total doesnt include the maimed, the bereaved, the orphaned, the displaced and the long term mentally traumatised which would extend it to virtually every village, town street and extended family. So, of course many of us do not want to dabble in that ever again.

ADW_1981
10-20-2013, 02:08 PM
The reason he connected it to Europe is mtDNA U which proves inter marriage with Caucasians. Also that the majority of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European mtDNA is under U(U5, U5a'b, U8, U2, U2e, U4). But it is just as likely that U came from the Near east. I am not surprised at all they found Y DNA R in Siberia 24,000ybp since it is a Mongliod Y DNA haplogroup. I am sure there is R(XR2, R1) or R1(XR1a, R1b) in Siberia today. People don't realize Y DNA R tells almost nothing about the origin of Europeans and all Caucasians in Europe it did not become widespread and popular till very recently.

There was a blog posting on the paper's website which I guess someone got hold of the autosomal data and the split was basically 66.7% Udmurt and 33.3% South Asian. Neither of these groups are "Mongoloid". People with East Asian appearances weren't around yet, or may have lived somewhere else. Keeping all that in mind, it certainly gives a bit of an edge to a R1a1a haplotype, but no guarantee.
I am quite surprised the Admixture test had no resemblance to Amerind populations though...

Rathna
10-20-2013, 02:10 PM
I agree its hardly a shock. Its always been contended that R* emerged somewhere around central Asia in that sort of timeframe. Its exactly what most people thought. As for Ice Age regugia, finding a potentially R* man in Siberia 22000BC actually adds to the already obvious impossibility of R1b in a western refuge in the ice age - something that is clearly complete nonsense anyway considering it is most DF27, a very young clade in the R story.

The time is 24,000 BP and not 22,000 and my "Italian Refugium" I have always put during the Yunger Dryas, about 12,900 to 12,000 years ago. Then I wouldn't be sure like you in excluding my theory.

alan
10-20-2013, 02:20 PM
I hope the entirely expected presence of what might be an R* man in Siberia doesnt reanimate the Franco-Cantabrian R1b fanatics. There is a heck of a difference between R* and DF27. Really this is just a minor nuance on what was expected. The bottom line is almost all of European R1b is below L23 and most of it below L11 and descended from just one much much later man. Still, nationalistic and ethnocentric thinking really blinds some people.

Rathna
10-20-2013, 02:26 PM
I hope the entirely expected presence of what might be an R* man in Siberia doesnt reanimate the Franco-Cantabrian R1b fanatics. There is a heck of a difference between R* and DF27. Really this is just a minor nuance on what was expected. The bottom line is almost all of European R1b is below L23 and most of it below L11 and descended from just one much much later man. Still, nationalistic and ethnocentric thinking really blinds some people.

But L11 was born from some L51, L51 from some L23, L23 from some M269, M269 from some R1b1*, probably of the Cluster A1 in the R1b1 FTDNA Project, and just about this I am speaking.

ADW_1981
10-20-2013, 02:27 PM
I hope the entirely expected presence of what might be an R* man in Siberia doesnt reanimate the Franco-Cantabrian R1b fanatics. There is a heck of a difference between R* and DF27. Really this is just a minor nuance on what was expected. The bottom line is almost all of European R1b is below L23 and most of it below L11 and descended from just one much much later man. Still, nationalistic and ethnocentric thinking really blinds some people.

I'm actually hoping for a R1b1* result, but odds are against it. Let's not forget that R1b in some form being in Europe 18,000 ybp is different from saying DF27 in Europe 18,000 ybp. A lot of these younger R1b lineages, could be just supplanting earlier R1b lineages in the same territory. The agricultural "crash" in NW Europe 4-8,000 years ago is strangely coincidental with a rapid growth/age estimates of R1b-M269 in the same region.

alan
10-20-2013, 03:14 PM
I wasnt referring to your theory. Italy did have an epigravettian tradition and some old clades so I have never found your theories as implausible as the Franco-Cantabrian ones. Nevertheless most European R1b other than in the east is L11 so its really the location of the L23-L51-L11 man who left descendants that matters. I have always respected the fact that you have worked hard to provide evidence of such a sequence of R1b clades for your model. I actually think Italy may have been really crucial in the R1b story of western Europe but I generally differ from you in that I see that as commencing with perhaps a subset of L23 and particularly L51. However, there is a lot of uncertainty from P297 and before L23 with no clear pattern covering that long period so anyone's theory is not disproven. I do not know the archaeological context of this early R Siberian but if I get some info I can have a think about it. In theory Palaeolithic technocomplexes were very widespread, populations very mobile etc and subject to massive climatic populations. So R* men could have been scattered all around in theory but only one of them is the important one.


But L11 was born from some L51, L51 from some L23, L23 from some M269, M269 from some R1b1*, probably of the Cluster A1 in the R1b1 FTDNA Project, and just about this I am speaking.

Rathna
10-20-2013, 03:27 PM
I have written many times that in my theory, in all this pathway from R1b1 to L51, only L11 was scarce in Italy. Recently I have helped Ballard in his researches about Medieval Italian documents and have accepted his hypothesis that his origin was Italian but from a Langobard family and that L11 is above all German, because has survived above all amongst them. But for supporting my theory that also L11 was in Italy in its origin, I have spoken of a (probably) most ancient L11 present in Boattini paper and found in Tuscany (Pistoia province), which is an outlier and has many mutations in very slow mutating markers. Of course we would need proofs: more markers values, many SNPs, possibly Geno 2.0 or Chromo2 or, definitely, Full Y. Then nobody wants to impose his theory. We are searching for proofs.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 03:59 PM
I have written this on another thread. Richard is Richard Rocca:
“Richard, a simple equation: R&U: we know that U (above all U5 and U4 but also U2e) is the mtDNA of palaeolithic Europeans. This, if confirmed, could be the proof that some R&U migrated before the LGM to South Asia (R2&U), Central Asia (R1a&U), Western Europe (R1b&U) = R1b would be palaeolithic in Europe.
From these data we could hypothesize that also Q was born more western Eurasian than it was thought before”.

P.S. Of course that hg. R* was in Central Siberia 24,000 years ago doesn’t mean that it was a few later in Europe, but you probably know that I am spending these last years in demonstrating that there has been an “Italian Refugium” of hg. R1b1 (and many others, above all mtDNA, I think having demonstrated ad abundantiam) during at least the Younger Dryas. Of course we have to find some aDNA which proves this, but we are arriving in the truth, I think, with these last tests (Geno 2.0, Chromo 2 and above all the Full Y).
We have an interesting discussion on other threads about R-M269* and R-L23* and I am happy that also Mikewww is taking in consideration my previous analyses. But my strong point remains R1b1* cluster A, where I think having demonstrated that Italy has so far the highest variance. The other clusters aren’t the ancestor of R-M269*, beginning from the Iberian one: see Segarra’s Geno 2.0 with 4 mutations, whereas DeMao has only one, and it is highly suspicious that he wasn’t able to send his Geno 2.0 to the FTDNA R1b1 Project.
I have ordered a Geno 2.0 for my acquired cousin Fabrizio Federighi (R-M269* with DYS462=12), because we are trying to verify if all the survived R-M269* belong to the cluster with L150+ and the three Sardinian SNPs PF7558/PF7562/PF7563+.

I guess it is always a possibility Y DNA R1b was anywhere 10,000-20,000ybp if it was in western Europe it has nothing to do with R1b there today. About 99.99% of R1b in western Europe is under subclade R1b1a2a1a L11 which is estimated to be 5,000-6,000 years old and 99.99% have a subclades under that R1b1a2a1a1 U106 and R1b1a2a1a2 P312 which are estimated to be 4,000-5,500 years old and almost everyone has subclades under that that have even younger ages. 22 5,000 year old Y DNA samples from southwestern France where P312 is around 80% today no R1b 20 had G2a and two had I2a1a1 M26. Ancient DNA totally backs up the idea R1b spread in western Europe from mainly 5,000-3,000ybp.

R1b in west Europe also fits perfectly in my opinion with spread of Germanic and Italo Celtic languages (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1350-Spread-of-R1b1a2a1a-L11-Germanic-Italo-Celts-in-western-Europe).

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 04:26 PM
Neither did these samples resemble modern Europeans in every way. On analysis of his genome, the Mal’ta sample would have been much darker in colouring than Otzi. https://twitter.com/sw4mi/status/390972953795362816 . This should come as no surprise. The European-type alleles at TYRP1, SLC24A5, and SLC45A2 appear to have arisen much later - all within the last 11,000-19,000 years. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/looks.shtml

Those so called European type alleles are not as European as you think they are about as popular in Near easterns and north Africans as in Europeans. In my opinion proving that is not the main cause of European pale skin and that estimate 11,000-19,000ybp is completely unreliable.(Origin of European palness(skin,hair,eye (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?92883-Origin-of-European-Paleness(skin-hair-and-eye-color))). Having higher amounts of non dark hair and eyes also makes a people group paler even their skin is a little paler. And I have noticed that the autosomal group unique to Europe and dominate in Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gathers samples "North Euro" has very strong correlation with fair hair and eyes in Europe and overall the palest Europeans. Meaning that Europe before farming began to spread in Europe 9,000ybp or so Europe would have been much paler than today. Europe could have had 40-60% yellow hair like modern Finnish and northeast Baltic's who have 75-80% north Euro in globe13. mtDNA totally connects those Mesolithic and Neolithic hunter gathers all over Europe back to the Palaeolithic definitely the two 31,155 year old pre U5's in Czech Republic. So in my opinion Europeans ancestors have been dominated by Pale skin since the Palaeloithic but it is hard to give a exact estimate. I think before LGM(26,600-19,000ybp) because all the people migrating out of those southern Refuges probably would have had pale skin. But I have no idea my estimates could be totally off but I do think Europe was paler before the Neolithic.

I have no idea where they get those age estimates 11,000-19,000ybp because that fits perfectly to the end of the LGM and migrations from southern Refuges. I saw their original estimate 6,000-10,000ybp to fit with the Neolithic age but now we know if anything Europe became tanner in Neolithic. To me it seems the east Asian look of pale skin and slanted eyes has been around for a very long time. The reason is in Finland and the Sami you can see rare example of that even though east Asian y DNA N(their dominate y dna haplogroup) migrated there 8,000-10,000ybp. There are so many unrelated Mongoliod people who have that look Na Dene and Chinese they have just about absolutely no connection in Y DNA and Autosomal DNA besides their common Mongoioldism which Native Americans also have. I don't know but I definitely think it goes pretty far back maybe even to 24,000 years ago. But then what confuses that are Native Americans who are very related to Na Dene who look exactly like Chinese or who ever. Since they say he was much darker than Otzie(5,300ybp farmer alps Italy) who I would assume had paleish skin like the Sardine who are very related to him Autosomally or he would have been somewhat olive skinned like many Sardinia people. I guess an Iraqi is darker than Otzie but I would picture more like Native American dark which is super dark brown and reddish. I have seen Native Americans and their skin is kind of like red sand I understand why they were called redskins. I bet Autosomal DNA will find if his mother, grandmother, etc. who had mtDNA U was European or near eastern. Also if he was more related to Native Americans or another Mongoliod people.

J Man
10-20-2013, 04:33 PM
Those so called European type alleles are not as European as you think they are about as popular in Near easterns and north Africans as in Europeans. In my opinion proving that is not the main cause of European pale skin and that estimate 11,000-19,000ybp is completely unreliable.(Origin of European palness(skin,hair,eye (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?92883-Origin-of-European-Paleness(skin-hair-and-eye-color))). Having higher amounts of non dark hair and eyes also makes a people group paler even their skin is a little paler. And I have noticed that the autosomal group unique to Europe and dominate in Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gathers samples "North Euro" has very strong correlation with fair hair and eyes in Europe and overall the palest Europeans. Meaning that Europe before farming began to spread in Europe 9,000ybp or so Europe would have been much paler than today. Europe could have had 40-60% yellow hair like modern Finnish and northeast Baltic's who have 75-80% north Euro in globe13. mtDNA totally connects those Mesolithic and Neolithic hunter gathers all over Europe back to the Palaeolithic definitely the two 31,155 year old pre U5's in Czech Republic. So in my opinion Europeans ancestors have been dominated by Pale skin since the Palaeloithic but it is hard to give a exact estimate. I think before LGM(26,600-19,000ybp) because all the people migrating out of those southern Refuges probably would have had pale skin. But I have no idea my estimates could be totally off but I do think Europe was paler before the Neolithic.

I have no idea where they get those age estimates 11,000-19,000ybp because that fits perfectly to the end of the LGM and migrations from southern Refuges. I saw their original estimate 6,000-10,000ybp to fit with the Neolithic age but now we know if anything Europe became tanner in Neolithic. To me it seems the east Asian look of pale skin and slanted eyes has been around for a very long time. The reason is in Finland and the Sami you can see rare example of that even though east Asian y DNA N(their dominate y dna haplogroup) migrated there 8,000-10,000ybp. There are so many unrelated Mongoliod people who have that look Na Dene and Chinese they have just about absolutely no connection in Y DNA and Autosomal DNA besides their common Mongoioldism which Native Americans also have. I don't know but I definitely think it goes pretty far back maybe even to 24,000 years ago. But then what confuses that are Native Americans who are very related to Na Dene who look exactly like Chinese or who ever. Since they say he was much darker than Otzie(5,300ybp farmer alps Italy) who I would assume had paleish skin like the Sardine who are very related to him Autosomally or he would have been somewhat olive skinned like many Sardinia people. I guess an Iraqi is darker than Otzie but I would picture more like Native American dark which is super dark brown and reddish. I have seen Native Americans and their skin is kind of like red sand I understand why they were called redskins. I bet Autosomal DNA will find if his mother, grandmother, etc. who had mtDNA U was European or near eastern. Also if he was more related to Native Americans or another Mongoliod people.

I highly doubt his mother or grandmother who gave him his mtDNA haplogroup U result migrated from the Near East or Europe to Siberia just before he was born lol.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 04:38 PM
I would also add out idea of Europe and Asia is a modern idea. The continent is Eurasia really and modern cultural/racial divisions are irrelevant to central Asia or Siberia 22000 years ago. Also as far as I am aware, oriental types are a relatively late introduction to central Asia and genetically and phenotypically the 'European' genetic provence probably extended deep into central Asia long before east Asian groups penetrated.

Seriously we have always been told that R split from P in central Asia so this is expected, not a surprise IMO.

Can you please stop ignoring that genetic human families exist just look at globe13 (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/). People in Siberia 24,000ybp most likely where Mongoliod like people there today and Native Americans who's ancestors left Siberia over 20,000ybp. The Mongoliod family is not a recent invention and why would you say it was invented. 42,000 year old mtDNA B4'5 sample in China is prove of that you should look it up there is more genetic info that connects it as in the ancestor family of modern Native Americans and east Asians it was a MONGOLOID. It Is true that Y DNA R is a MONGOLIOD Y DNA haplogroup. Its brother Q is exclusively in Mongoloid people like Native Americans. Same with its cousins N and O and its uncles S and M are exclusively in papue New Gunie and austosomally a very close relation between Mongliods and Oceania has been proven. mtDNA U is CAUCASIN we have already found 4 samples( two pre U5's, U2, U8) in over 30,000 year old human remains in Europe. It exists in exclusively Caucasian people of Europe, Near east, and north Africa. Who have been proven with autosomal DNA to be in the same family also in mtDNA, somewhat in Y DNA, and in physical features(skull shape, body build, body and facial hair, hair texture, brown hair color) which has been noticed since the 1800's.

So this 24,000 year old y DNA R and mtDNA U in Siberia is prove of Caucasin-Mongoliod mixing. Which makes sense since Y DNA R1a, R2, and R1b would have originated in Caucasians and there had to be Mongoliod Y DNA R and Caucasian inter marriage around 15,000-25,000ybp. I would not be surprised if they test more DNA from around this area of Siber they will find a bunch of R's possibly R1's more Caucasian mtDNA and possibly some Caucasian Y DNA IJ, J, I, subclade of F, maybe even G.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 04:42 PM
I highly doubt his mother or grandmother who gave him his mtDNA haplogroup U result migrated from the Near East or Europe to Siberia just before he was born lol.

Your right it probably took 1,000's of years of migrations so that mother was probably not fully Caucasian. This Y DNA R and mtDNA U result is freaking huge especially the mtDNA U which is prove somehow there was Caucasian and Mongoliod mixing 24,000ybp. Y DNA R1a, R1b, and R2 in Caucasians is prove there was Palaeolithic Caucasin-Mongliod inter marriage same with mtDNA X2 in Native Americans.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 04:46 PM
How much older is this to the last oldest Y A-DNA ?

According to Jean's spreadsheet the previews record was 5300-5226 BC

If that's correct this is a huge leap for A-DNA testing !!!

OOI What are the current age estimates for R1 and R2, I'm guessing this is probably a bit older ?

No there is a 10,300 year old Y DNA Q M3(dominate in modern Native Americans) sample in Oregan, United States. Jean only does west Eurasian DNA there are also a bunch of Y DNA samples in China going back to the Neolithic you should look it up.

J Man
10-20-2013, 04:46 PM
Your right it probably took 1,000's of years of migrations so that mother was probably not fully Caucasian. This Y DNA R and mtDNA U result is freaking huge especially the mtDNA U which is prove somehow there was Caucasian and Mongoliod mixing 24,000ybp. Y DNA R1a, R1b, and R2 in Caucasians is prove there was Palaeolithic Caucasin-Mongliod inter marriage same with mtDNA X2 in Native Americans.

Well yes I do agree with you on the whole that his mtDNA haplogroup U probably did come down to him originally from a woman who would have been Caucasoid like.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 04:48 PM
The last time racial categorisation was popular in Europe up to 85 million people died worldwide, about one person in thirty of the entire population of the world in our grandparents generation. That total doesnt include the maimed, the bereaved, the orphaned, the displaced and the long term mentally traumatised which would extend it to virtually every village, town street and extended family. So, of course many of us do not want to dabble in that ever again.
If you want to learn about human history you have to because there are Human families aka races and dominte pale skin does make Europeans unique from other Caucasians.

J Man
10-20-2013, 04:51 PM
If you want to learn about human history you have to because there are Human families aka races and dominte pale skin does make Europeans unique from other Caucasians.

That is actually true to a degree. There are white skin pigmentation genes that Europeans have that most West Asians/ Near Easterners and South Asians do not have.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 04:51 PM
There was a blog posting on the paper's website which I guess someone got hold of the autosomal data and the split was basically 66.7% Udmurt and 33.3% South Asian. Neither of these groups are "Mongoloid". People with East Asian appearances weren't around yet, or may have lived somewhere else. Keeping all that in mind, it certainly gives a bit of an edge to a R1a1a haplotype, but no guarantee.
I am quite surprised the Admixture test had no resemblance to Amerind populations though...

There will have to be official info to say anything about that. I am guessing totally Mongoliod with some Caucasian admixture.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 04:54 PM
That is actually true to a degree. There are white skin pigmentation genes that Europeans have that most West Asians/ Near Easterners and South Asians do not have.

Do you mean they do have it those alleles types at TYRP1, SLC24A5, and SLC45A2 are about as popular in Near easterns and North Africans and from what I have seen also in South Asians.

J Man
10-20-2013, 05:02 PM
Do you mean they do have it those alleles types at TYRP1, SLC24A5, and SLC45A2 are about as popular in Near easterns and North Africans and from what I have seen also in South Asians.

There is one at least that is common in Europeans and not so much in other Caucasoids. I am trying to find it now.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 05:06 PM
There is one at least that is common in Europeans and not so much in other Caucasoids. I am trying to find it now.

Are you sure where did you hear that click here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?91397-Supposedly-Euro-light-skin-genes-are-popular-in-all-Caucasins-and-exists-in-about-all-Humans) I even have a link to a study in that thread which shows all three alleles and they are all very popular in the near east, north Africa, Europe and no where else. It is pathetic the study still stubbornly said those alleles are European and assumed it was European admixture that why all north Africans and near easterns had it at almost the same rate higher than Puerto Ricans who have mainly Iberian ancestry. So all near easterns and north Africans would then have to be 60-80% European and we know there is definitely no evidence of that in mtDNA, Y DNA, and defintley not autosomal DNA.

J Man
10-20-2013, 05:15 PM
Are you sure where did you hear that.

Found it...Yes it is SLC45A2 rs16891982. It is also found in the Near East and South Asia but not like it is in Europe.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/08/pigmentation-phylogeny-history-and-adaptation/#more-22358

BMG
10-20-2013, 05:24 PM
It would be interesting what type of R he belong to .I believe the time period is too early to have R1a,R1b or R2 around . Anyway R existed then along with haplogroup U and that too near to a place where many consider to be birthplace of R .
Also the autosomal analysis(if the info is correct) does not show any significant east asian(shown as a mix of udmurt(~65%) and pakistani(~35% ) input but we have to keep in mind that it is just a best fit and expecting to have a good match with modern population will be ridiculous .

Anglecynn
10-20-2013, 05:31 PM
The last time racial categorisation was popular in Europe up to 85 million people died worldwide, about one person in thirty of the entire population of the world in our grandparents generation. That total doesnt include the maimed, the bereaved, the orphaned, the displaced and the long term mentally traumatised which would extend it to virtually every village, town street and extended family. So, of course many of us do not want to dabble in that ever again.

Although it was more about politics...

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 05:59 PM
It would be interesting what type of R he belong to .I believe the time period is too early to have R1a,R1b or R2 around . Anyway R existed then along with haplogroup U and that too near to a place where many consider to be birthplace of R .
Also the autosomal analysis(if the info is correct) does not show any significant east asian(shown as a mix of udmurt(~65%) and pakistani(~35% ) input but we have to keep in mind that it is just a best fit and expecting to have a good match with modern population will be ridiculous .

I know there is no way it matched with modern ethnic groups.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 06:02 PM
Found it...Yes it is SLC45A2 rs16891982. It is also found in the Near East and South Asia but not like it is in Europe.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/08/pigmentation-phylogeny-history-and-adaptation/#more-22358
It was never said to be found in Near east just south asia and north Africa.

GailT
10-20-2013, 06:15 PM
If you want to learn about human history you have to because there are Human families aka races and dominte pale skin does make Europeans unique from other Caucasians.

There is significant variation in skin colour within Europe, within Africa and throughout the world. We know that it is gene that can spread rapidly through a high latitude population due to natural selection. There are much better ways to assess human diversity. Discrimination and prejudice based on skin colour are still widespread, and when anyone mentions skin colour as defining a race, it raises all sorts of red flags about what their motivation might be. It's not useful, it does a lot of harm, and I'd strongly recommend using other indicators to characterize human diversity.

jdean
10-20-2013, 06:56 PM
No there is a 10,300 year old Y DNA Q M3(dominate in modern Native Americans) sample in Oregan, United States. Jean only does west Eurasian DNA there are also a bunch of Y DNA samples in China going back to the Neolithic you should look it up.

Jean has quite a lot of A-DNA from China in her spreadsheet.

Jean M
10-20-2013, 07:09 PM
Jean has quite a lot of A-DNA from China in her spreadsheet.

That is because of the difficulty of drawing a line to separate east and west. Some people (e.g. the Huns) entered Europe from East Asia, while some people from the European steppe ended up deep in Asia. So I have noted anything that might reveal something of such movements, but excluded studies specific to East Asia with no apparent relationship to East-West migration.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 07:57 PM
There is significant variation in skin colour within Europe, within Africa and throughout the world. We know that it is gene that can spread rapidly through a high latitude population due to natural selection. There are much better ways to assess human diversity. Discrimination and prejudice based on skin colour are still widespread, and when anyone mentions skin colour as defining a race, it raises all sorts of red flags about what their motivation might be. It's not useful, it does a lot of harm, and I'd strongly recommend using other indicators to characterize human diversity.

Skin color does not range in Europe sure in Iberia, Italy, Balkans, and Greece people are much tanner than the rest of Europe but sill basically white skinned. And that can be explained since they have over 50% Meditreaen, west Asian, and southwest Asian which all came to Europe during or after the Neolithic age. While North Euro in globe13 is dominate in European hunter gather samples and was probably 100% in almost all of Europe before the spread of farming and has string correlation with paleness in Europe. So over 9,000ybp all of Europe probably had the same very pale pigmentation maybe even as pale as modern Finnish and northeast Baltic people.

Skin color does not vary that much in the Near east and north Africa they are basically brown-light brown skinned. Because they are so related to Europeans(globe13 (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/)) and possibly because they have the "pale European" Alleles in TYRP1, SLC24A5, and SLC45A2 at almost the same rate as Europeans. In my city there are 250,000 Muslims mostly coming though from Pakistan and India. There are also Muslims from Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. and Christian Assyrians and most are brown to light brown skinned and some have literally white skin. Also I have seen Kurds and other Indo Iranian speakers from the Near east with light colored hair and eyes and more pale skin than average, This can be explained by there 5-10% North Euro in globe13 and other Aust DNa tests which shows traces of European blood non Indo Iranian speakers in the Near east and south Asia don't have. And we know through ancient DNA and archeology the ancestral language to Indo Iranian came from Yamna culture in Russia and Ukraine and that the people who spread it had high amounts of light hair and eyes(Indo Iranian and Tocherian DNA (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1431-INdo-Iranian-and-Tocherian-DNA)).

There definitely is not a variation of skin color in Sub Sahara Africa and in Oceania people who both are pretty much all black skinned and have nappy hair. Except I guess the San why still have nappy hair and definitely look "black" but technically have bronze colored skin. The Oceania people though are totally black skinned and so are Admanese. I think there is a good chance the first humans had black skin and nappy hair because Oceania and Admanese who are more related to Mongolids than Sub Saharan Africans have the same features and it did not evolve twice.

You cant assume how different skin colors evolved in Humans or how quickly. We don't know it is a gene that can spread quickly because of natural selection you are making it simpler than it is. Think about how hard to would be to take a Near eastern looking people and making them all white skinned. I really don't understand how evolution is even possible. My skin is as white as humanly possible unless your albino and I know many very dark skinned people and I don't endure cold and dark weather any better than they do. I don't see how I have really any advantage over them just I get sun burned all the time but even if I was in South Africa with stones and sticks I would find a way to survive.


Discrimination and prejudice based on skin colour are still widespread, and when anyone mentions skin colour as defining a race, it raises all sorts of red flags about what their motivation might be. It's not useful, it does a lot of harm, and I'd strongly recommend using other indicators to characterize human diversity.

I understand in result of European imperialism since the 1500's people are very sensitive about defining with skin color. It definitely is useful way to define some people but there are also other ways. I think people need to not be so sensitive. In everyday talk people say white and black and no one gets offended we don't say European American or I guess sometimes African American. But even African American doesn't narrow it down because what about north Africans there definitely not black and are Caucasians but technically can be called African American. And I am so sick of US cenus where they count Near easterns, north Africans, and south Asians as white. In my city like I said there are 250,000 Muslims but they count as white even though culturally and just their history they definitely are not the same as white Americans. Same with White Hispanics I guess overall Iberian is higher than Native American in Autosomal DNA results of Hispanics but they still have very high amounts of Native American ancestry I think for Mexicans is a little higher than Iberian on average. And their history and culture definitely doesn't fit with white Americans they should always have their own category even the most Iberian Hispanics like Argentina or Brazil.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 08:00 PM
That is because of the difficulty of drawing a line to separate east and west. Some people (e.g. the Huns) entered Europe from East Asia, while some people from the European steppe ended up deep in Asia. So I have noted anything that might reveal something of such movements, but excluded studies specific to East Asia with no apparent relationship to East-West migration.

I wish you would include ancient DNA from everywhere in the world. There is actually a lot in north America including 14,300 year old mtDNA B2 and 10,300 year old Y DNA Q m3 both exclusively Native American. But there is not nearly as much DNA from non west Eurasia so it wouldn't be that much work. I saw you updated today can you please somehow list all the new results when you update.

Mikewww
10-20-2013, 08:01 PM
This Siberian sample means that R was in Siberia at least 24,000 years ago that's a early times for Y DNA R. I have been saying that its Mongolied not Caucasian. I am shocked that even very smart people like Mikwww who know so much about pre history and DNA but ignore the facts Austomal DNA tells about Human families because it is to close to race.....

First of all, although I thank you for the partial compliment, but I don't know that much about pre-history.

However, I'm confused about where I'm ignoring facts. I honestly am not sure what you are talking about.

If you want to criticize someone, you should be specific. Please quote me and refer to the conversation of whatever it is I'm ignoring and how.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 08:04 PM
First of all, although I thank you for the partial compliment, I don't know that much about pre-history.

However, I'm confused about where I'm ignoring facts. I honestly am not sure what you are talking about.

If you want to criticize someone, you should be specific. Please quote me and refer to the conversation of whatever it is I'm ignoring and how.
Globe13 (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xal68HraeTs/UJBfD1d2CoI/AAAAAAAAAzU/yvTVW2WNvLQ/s640/1_2.png (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xal68HraeTs/UJBfD1d2CoI/AAAAAAAAAzU/yvTVW2WNvLQ/s1600/1_2.png)
((West_African:0.00448794,(East_African:0.00506576 ,(((((East_Asian:0.0173284,Siberian:0.00732773):0. 0027852,(Amerindian:0.026174,Arctic:0.0118342):0.0 0742092):0.0114738,Australasian:0.0488974):0.00266 559,South_Asian:0.00734044):0.008089,(Southwest_As ian:0.00541405,((West_Asian:0.00620657,North_Europ ean:0.00657599):0.00311587,Mediterranean:0.0079894 9):0.00650328):0.0118925):0.0299627):0.00597674):0 .00671186,Palaeo_African:0.0215931);
0.0640319 NA NA NA Palaeo_African:0.0215931 Australasian:0.0488974
0.270468 NA NA NA Australasian:0.0488974 East_Asian:0.0173284
0.185213 NA NA NA South_Asian:0.00734044 ((West_Asian:0.00620657,North_European:0.00657599) :0.00311587,Mediterranean:0.00798949):0.00650328
0.129883 NA NA NA North_European:0.00657599 Amerindian:0.026174
0.138757 NA NA NA Arctic:0.0118342 (West_Asian:0.00620657,North_European:0.00657599): 0.00311587

Isidro
10-20-2013, 08:24 PM
Skin color does not range in Europe sure in Iberia, Italy, Balkans, and Greece people are much tanner than the rest of Europe but sill basically white skinned. And that can be explained since they have over 50% Meditreaen, west Asian, and southwest Asian which all came to Europe during or after the Neolithic age. While North Euro in globe13 is dominate in European hunter gather samples and was probably 100% in almost all of Europe before the spread of farming and has string correlation with paleness in Europe. So over 9,000ybp all of Europe probably had the same very pale pigmentation maybe even as pale as modern Finnish and northeast Baltic people.


Well it depends what you mean by people in Iberia and other med countries are much tanner than the rest of Europe... do you mean skin that is exposed to the Sun or full body skin tone color?.If you mean the full body I totally disagree.My autosomal is quite average for Spaniards and I can assure you my skin is as light or lighter than the "average" European North of the Pyrenees and Alps. I have lived in the US long enough to notice that quite often.I have also noticed that people in the South (US) seem tanner that Northerners for obvious reasons.

Jean M
10-20-2013, 08:24 PM
I wish you would include ancient DNA from everywhere in the world.

That would be pretty much a full-time job! :) My table(s) sprang from my interest in the peopling of Europe. You could create one for the Americas if you like.


I saw you updated today can you please somehow list all the new results when you update.

I don't even have time to keep up with all the aDNA papers coming out these days. I began to put in the data from Brandt 2013, despaired of getting through it all and decided today to add the stuff from Bollongino 2013 first, as it would be quicker. I haven't time to pick out the latest changes in any way, I'm afraid.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 08:26 PM
That would be pretty much a full-time job! :) My table(s) sprang from my interest in the peopling of Europe. You could create one for the Americas if you like.



I don't even have time to keep up with all the aDNA papers coming out these days. I began to put in the data from Brandt 2013, despaired of getting through it all and decided today to add the stuff from Bollongino 2013 first, as it would be quicker. I haven't time to pick out the latest changes in any way, I'm afraid.

I understand and are you saying there are many Ancient DNA samples even from west Eurasia not on your site? I think I will make a collection of non west Eurasian DNA but I don't understand how they get the results so I will just but down what ever the source reported it as.

Mikewww
10-20-2013, 08:39 PM
Nice chart from dodecad, but you totally ignored my request. We are not really big into ad hominem arguments on this forum but if you are going to include a personal criticism you should follow through with some specificity, as I requested.

Your post below is out of context of your reference to me and my request to you and you add no explanatory value in it. You are a curious fellow.


Globe13 (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xal68HraeTs/UJBfD1d2CoI/AAAAAAAAAzU/yvTVW2WNvLQ/s640/1_2.png (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xal68HraeTs/UJBfD1d2CoI/AAAAAAAAAzU/yvTVW2WNvLQ/s1600/1_2.png)
((West_African:0.00448794,(East_African:0.00506576 ,(((((East_Asian:0.0173284,Siberian:0.00732773):0. 0027852,(Amerindian:0.026174,Arctic:0.0118342):0.0 0742092):0.0114738,Australasian:0.0488974):0.00266 559,South_Asian:0.00734044):0.008089,(Southwest_As ian:0.00541405,((West_Asian:0.00620657,North_Europ ean:0.00657599):0.00311587,Mediterranean:0.0079894 9):0.00650328):0.0118925):0.0299627):0.00597674):0 .00671186,Palaeo_African:0.0215931);
0.0640319 NA NA NA Palaeo_African:0.0215931 Australasian:0.0488974
0.270468 NA NA NA Australasian:0.0488974 East_Asian:0.0173284
0.185213 NA NA NA South_Asian:0.00734044 ((West_Asian:0.00620657,North_European:0.00657599) :0.00311587,Mediterranean:0.00798949):0.00650328
0.129883 NA NA NA North_European:0.00657599 Amerindian:0.026174
0.138757 NA NA NA Arctic:0.0118342 (West_Asian:0.00620657,North_European:0.00657599): 0.00311587

Jean M
10-20-2013, 08:40 PM
are you saying there are many Ancient DNA samples even from west Eurasia not on your site?

There will be many samples still in the lab being worked on, or written up but awaiting publication. Of published samples, only the remaining samples from Brandt 2013 are missing, as far as I know. Some might be published in places not easily located.

GailT
10-20-2013, 08:43 PM
There definitely is not a variation of skin color in Sub Sahara Africa and in Oceania people who both are pretty much all black skinned and have nappy hair.

Once again, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'll assume you are speaking from ignorance and not ill intent. You make all sorts of wild, unscientific speculations that, in addition to being inaccurate, show absolutely no sensitivity to the history of racism. It is not going to help your analysis and it is going to offend many people.

alan
10-20-2013, 09:29 PM
Fire Haired - I and noone is denying that today and for many millennia phenontypical differences have existed. Its just a question of a couple of things

The date when modern phenotypical divisions emerged. Its not at all clear that present distributions and divisions existed in anything like the way they have in recent history back in the Upper Palaeolithic. Many of the traits may have only appeared and been selected for in the time since with drift, selection and all sorts of factors involved. I think what you are thinking is back-projecting modern patterns. It was probably a lot more chaotic back in 22000BC. The LGM had not happened yet for instance and that event had a giant influence.

To be more specif, it appears from the date of 24000BP, whether that is calibrated or not, that the R individual belonged to the tail end of the pre-LGM middle upper palaeolithic group of Siberia. They had resemblances to what was going on in Europe. Now, c. 21000-18000BC there was a hiatus in settlement in Siberia.

There then appeared a new group with new technology and habitational habits who apparently came from even further east, maybe Japan. These people are too late for this R man. He seems to have belonged to the last century or so of the middle upper palaeolithic culture who abandoned the area during the LGM, presumably seeking better conditions elsewhere.

http://csfa.tamu.edu/cfsa-publications/Graf-SourPalTrans2009-479.pdf

This guy is very interesting as he lived in the last few centuries before the LGM and was therefore one of the last of a 10000 year long presence of the middle upper palaeolithic culture of Siberia. That is a long time and it is likely then that R developed within that culture from one of the P lines. In fact this R guy probably lived fairly early in the existence of R and yet he probably lived in one of the last few centuries that his 10000 year long culture was present in Siberia.

However, please do not get hung up on the Q and R thing. They share a P ancestor but P dates back to perhaps well before 30000BC long before either Q or R emerged. P paragroups are actually much more common in places like India and Iran etc and are distinctly not east Asian. Neither is R. Q is the odd man out and it is usually dated to around the LGM and after. I suspect personally that Q might be associated with the far eastern group based around Japan who spread both east and west from there around the LGM and entered Siberia after the LGM. They would have spent a significant period in an area where there were other older peoples. There is no reason to think that groups like Q and R who had potentially been separated for over 10000 years would have been far eastern in phenotype and there is no reason to believe their shared P ancestor was far eastern. Quite the contrary- P looks to have emerged somewhere around the longitude of India or Iran.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 09:32 PM
Well it depends what you mean by people in Iberia and other med countries are much tanner than the rest of Europe... do you mean skin that is exposed to the Sun or full body skin tone color?.If you mean the full body I totally disagree.My autosomal is quite average for Spaniards and I can assure you my skin is as light or lighter than the "average" European North of the Pyrenees and Alps. I have lived in the US long enough to notice that quite often.I have also noticed that people in the South (US) seem tanner that Northerners for obvious reasons.

It is true that in central France, Iberia, Italy, Balkans, Greece, and Sami(far northern Scandinavia) have much lower amounts of light hair and light eyes than the rest of Europe. But I have seen some pretty tan German and British people some seriously naturally have brown skin in my own family. I haven't seen Sami people in my life but I do know from experience and I live in the north that people from all the other parts of Europe I named are tan skinned much more often than other Europeans. I have read ancient Roman and Greek writing where they mention that their skin is tanner than Gauls, Germans, and Scythians and they described their own skin as olive and they said the same for people in Iberia and the Balkans and somewhat Britain. It is a fact that people from those areas of Europe are darker pigmented but definitely not as dark as Near easterns. There can be other explanations for why North Euro has connection with lighter pigmentation in Europe because the Sami at the northern tip of Scandinavia in pigmentation group with Meditreaen Europe and have the highest North Euro. And North Euro today I have heard has a Neolithic component I am not 100% sure how it connects with North Euro found in ancient hunter gathers.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 09:51 PM
Once again, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'll assume you are speaking from ignorance and not ill intent. You make all sorts of wild, unscientific speculations that, in addition to being inaccurate, show absolutely no sensitivity to the history of racism. It is not going to help your analysis and it is going to offend many people.

Can you please give me any sources for why your right because then your just as ignorant as me. We cant live in a fairy tale world where there is no physical difference between different Genetic families in Humans aka races. My source was Autosomal DNA globe13 (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/) test also human mtDNA and Y DNA haplogroups which are more complicated since their just direct maternal and paternal lines. I am not being inaccurate at actually just you assumed I was because I am not extremely politically correct like you. I understand that people are sensitive towards this and I don't think it is smart to define races by skin color not because it offends people. But because Oceania(who are in Mongliod Oceania race) have black skin and nappy hair like Sub Saharan Africans, Native Americans and Polynesians who are both Mongliod have dark brown skin like Indians and somewhat like Near easterns and north Africans, All other Mongoliods have pale skin like Europeans but not other Caucasians. If I am wrong about what I am saying I will admit and just try to figure all this out. And I really don't care if the truth about Human genetics offends people especially when I am not claiming any race is any more superior than another.

alan
10-20-2013, 09:53 PM
However, from memory these are hunter gatherers from much much later than 24000 years ago or the P ancestor or R and Q who probably lived before 30000BC. Many of the traits associated with races or phenotype categories may have been barely starting to separate into distinct geographical zones of phenotypes back in 24-30 thousand years ago. What you see today and in later hunters tested for ancient DNA is the result of 10s of millenia of all sorts of forces acting on populations. We do not know what the ancient autosomal breakdown of anything other than very late hunters. They are just the end product not what was there at the beginning or before the LGM. That is a big leap of back-projection. I suspect that many of the European characteristics in terms of pigment may have only developed slowly and may have just been incipient rare traits back 24000BC. The LGM happened after this R guy lived and just that event alone majorly shook up and compressed groups who have once been spread over wide areas to the north. So, I do not think its possible to back-project modern phenotype patterns that far back in time. Although I have doubts myself, I recall studies a few years back that suggested both blue eyes and blonde hair didnt develop its present distribution until surprisingly late.


It is true that in central France, Iberia, Italy, Balkans, Greece, and Sami(far northern Scandinavia) have much lower amounts of light hair and light eyes than the rest of Europe. But I have seen some pretty tan German and British people some seriously naturally have brown skin in my own family. I haven't seen Sami people in my life but I do know from experience and I live in the north that people from all the other parts of Europe I named are tan skinned much more often than other Europeans. I have read ancient Roman and Greek writing where they mention that their skin is tanner than Gauls, Germans, and Scythians and they described their own skin as olive and they said the same for people in Iberia and the Balkans and somewhat Britain. It is a fact that people from those areas of Europe are darker pigmented but definitely not as dark as Near easterns. There can be other explanations for why North Euro has connection with lighter pigmentation in Europe because the Sami at the northern tip of Scandinavia in pigmentation group with Meditreaen Europe and have the highest North Euro. And North Euro today I have heard has a Neolithic component I am not 100% sure how it connects with North Euro found in ancient hunter gathers.

jeanL
10-20-2013, 09:54 PM
...And their history and culture definitely doesn't fit with white Americans they should always have their own category even the most Iberian Hispanics like Argentina or Brazil.

This is one of the main reasons why the social definition of race shouldn't be discussed in a genetic forum. "White American" is a very vague term and could include anyone from a full blooded Sicilian American to a Danish American, to racially mixed individuals with known Native American ancestry. In terms of genetics there are people in Latin America who fully resemble "White Americans", the only difference would be that on average the European ancestry in Latin America would be from Southern Europe, and in North America from Northern Europe. Notice I say on average, as there are full blooded German Brazilians who are both culturally German, and genetically German, no different whatsoever from the average German American. Why don't you show me your 23andme results, and I'll show you some of my relatives who are 100% Latin Americans and we'll compare. Mind you I am talking about full genome here, not pigmentation genes, as there are plenty of people with native or SSA Admixture in the order of <10% who look plain European.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 10:04 PM
Fire Haired - I and noone is denying that today and for many millennia phenontypical differences have existed. Its just a question of a couple of things

The date when modern phenotypical divisions emerged. Its not at all clear that present distributions and divisions existed in anything like the way they have in recent history back in the Upper Palaeolithic. Many of the traits may have only appeared and been selected for in the time since with drift, selection and all sorts of factors involved. I think what you are thinking is back-projecting modern patterns. It was probably a lot more chaotic back in 22000BC. The LGM had not happened yet for instance and that event had a giant influence.

To be more specif, it appears from the date of 24000BP, whether that is calibrated or not, that the R individual belonged to the tail end of the pre-LGM middle upper palaeolithic group of Siberia. They had resemblances to what was going on in Europe. Now, c. 21000-18000BC there was a hiatus in settlement in Siberia.

There then appeared a new group with new technology and habitational habits who apparently came from even further east, maybe Japan. These people are too late for this R man. He seems to have belonged to the last century or so of the middle upper palaeolithic culture who abandoned the area during the LGM, presumably seeking better conditions elsewhere.

http://csfa.tamu.edu/cfsa-publications/Graf-SourPalTrans2009-479.pdf

This guy is very interesting as he lived in the last few centuries before the LGM and was therefore one of the last of a 10000 year long presence of the middle upper palaeolithic culture of Siberia. That is a long time and it is likely then that R developed within that culture from one of the P lines. In fact this R guy probably lived fairly early in the existence of R and yet he probably lived in one of the last few centuries that his 10000 year long culture was present in Siberia.

However, please do not get hung up on the Q and R thing. They share a P ancestor but P dates back to perhaps well before 30000BC long before either Q or R emerged. P paragroups are actually much more common in places like India and Iran etc and are distinctly not east Asian. Neither is R. Q is the odd man out and it is usually dated to around the LGM and after. I suspect personally that Q might be associated with the far eastern group based around Japan who spread both east and west from there around the LGM and entered Siberia after the LGM. They would have spent a significant period in an area where there were other older peoples. There is no reason to think that groups like Q and R who had potentially been separated for over 10000 years would have been far eastern in phenotype and there is no reason to believe their shared P ancestor was far eastern. Quite the contrary- P looks to have emerged somewhere around the longitude of India or Iran.

Q is definitely exclusively Mongoloid. R1a, R1b, and R2 are exceptions neither was widespread in Europe till just 5,000ybp. What descendants of P are popular in south Asia and Iran besides R1a1a1b2 Z93 and we know it has only been there for 3,000-3,500 years. Do you also notice P's nephews N and O are also exclusively in Mongoloid people. I don't understand why you are so stubborn to believing a Y DNA or mtDNA haplogroups is connected to the human families autosomal DNA finds. We already have a 42,000 year old mtDNA B4'5 sample in China with other Genetic info to show it is most related to Modern Mongoloids and today mtDNA B is exclusively in Mongoloid people so 30,000BC is not that long ago and no way could you say Y DNA P was in the ancestor family of Caucasians and Mongoloids.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 10:10 PM
This is one of the main reasons why the social definition of race shouldn't be discussed in a genetic forum. "White American" is a very vague term and could include anyone from a full blooded Sicilian American to a Danish American, to racially mixed individuals with known Native American ancestry. In terms of genetics there are people in Latin America who fully resemble "White Americans", the only difference would be that on average the European ancestry in Latin America would be from Southern Europe, and in North America from Northern Europe. Notice I say on average, as there are full blooded German Brazilians who are both culturally German, and genetically German, no different whatsoever from the average German American. Why don't you show me your 23andme results, and I'll show you some of my relatives who are 100% Latin Americans and we'll compare. Mind you I am talking about full genome here, not pigmentation genes, as there are plenty of people with native or SSA Admixture in the order of <10% who look plain European.

But when talking about Genetics not cultural there are human families.

Fire Haired
10-20-2013, 10:22 PM
However, from memory these are hunter gatherers from much much later than 24000 years ago or the P ancestor or R and Q who probably lived before 30000BC. Many of the traits associated with races or phenotype categories may have been barely starting to separate into distinct geographical zones of phenotypes back in 24-30 thousand years ago. What you see today and in later hunters tested for ancient DNA is the result of 10s of millenia of all sorts of forces acting on populations. We do not know what the ancient autosomal breakdown of anything other than very late hunters. They are just the end product not what was there at the beginning or before the LGM. That is a big leap of back-projection. I suspect that many of the European characteristics in terms of pigment may have only developed slowly and may have just been incipient rare traits back 24000BC. The LGM happened after this R guy lived and just that event alone majorly shook up and compressed groups who have once been spread over wide areas to the north. So, I do not think its possible to back-project modern phenotype patterns that far back in time. Although I have doubts myself, I recall studies a few years back that suggested both blue eyes and blonde hair didnt develop its present distribution until surprisingly late.

Since Europeans, Near easterns, and north Africans group in Autosomal DNA and mtDNA. And all have the same Caucasian skull shape, body build, body hair, facial hair, and other physical traits. It makes sense to say that goes back to before the first settlers arrived in Europe probably at least 60,000 years. I don't like taking the stance we will never know when phenotypes first appeared because there is a lot of evidence for ideas of when they did. Since red hair exists in Samaritans and autosomal DNA results from all of them in globe13 showed 0% distinctly European north Euro its probably not a European source and red hair could have originated in early Caucasians. Since genes connected with blue eyes is not exactly European and is mainly in other Caucasians(click here (http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-color-of-eyes-at-least-17-herc2.html)) same for blue eyes and probably all non brown eyes.

What do you mean by phenotypes had just started to separate recently. Looking at mtDNA there has been a split between Caucasians and Oceania Mongoloid for at least 60,000 years. Also I am sick of people connecting Caucasians or just Europeans to Mongoloids just because both live in Eurasia. Autosomal DNA has proven they are very related to Oceania not Caucasians so there is no proto Caucasian Mongoloids. You don't have to talk like everything is mystery you can connect common traits with common ancestors in DNA to figure stuff out.

alan
10-20-2013, 10:23 PM
What I would observe is that from an R point of view this changes very little. It has long been thought that P spawned R somewhere in central Asia or thereabouts, R* probably arose somewhere there before being driven south during the LGM giving rise later to R1* and R2. While maybe a little towards the eastern end of the normal model for R*arising its not a major change.

Archaeologically it is thought that the pre-LGM mid upper palaeolithic groups of north central Asia and Siberia were driven out during the LGM and replaced by a different culture from the east. Now, this guy appears to belong to the pre-LGM Siberians of the middle upper palaeolithic group if the 24000BP date is correct. So, he still belongs to a group that seems to have retreated south during the LGM. As far as I understand R1* is best known around Iran today and R2 towards the Indian subcontinent. P paragroups are similar.

So what this guy possible represents is the early R* home, or part of it, prior to the LGM. That is not something I expected would be discovered for many years so its an amazing find. However this is not the R* LGM refuge. We know from archaeology that the pre-LGM peoples that this R guy appears to have belonged to left during the LGM and never returned and were replaced by different cultures from the east after the LGM. Where these people left to can only presently be surmised but they were probably still R* people when they fled south. R1* seems too young and probably occurred after the displacement southwards.

Still, this is not a time for arguing. Its a simply amazing and unexpected thing for an early R guy to be found like this. In some ways it fits quite well expectations about geography, the date of R etc but in others it seems like a remote chance to have actually discovered this guy.

alan
10-20-2013, 11:16 PM
There were many human groups who arrived in east Asia vastly earlier than Q. I am not surprised that a 42000 year old sample from China may have local characteristics but that proves the point that the characteristics were there long before Q arrived. Q is a latecomer to that region, perhaps less than half the age of groups like O may have been in China since around the time of that guy in China you mentioned. Q comes from the P line. Google yDNA P and you will see that the P paragroups are located in India/Iran. The LGM may have changed their original latitude but I think longitude wise it probably didnt change things nearly as much given that climate/environmental zones tend to be divided by latitude more in Eurasia.

Rather than dwell on the racial aspect, which is essentially too early to understand due to a lack of autosomal DNA samples from early enough, its more productive to look at what may have happened to the y lines.

One thing that could be argued is that if an R* guy was present in 24000BP, calibrated or not, and he was within a culture that was present in Siberia from roughly 30000BC-20000BC then we could ask if ancestral P was also present there in the millenia before this R guy. I would say yes it appears that the culture he was in was present in Siberia from 30000BC which is too early for R of any kind by most estimates. So, I would say it would be possible to tentatively infer that some P people were present in Siberia among his local ancestors. They may also have been driven south with the LGM. There were clearly non-R P guys still around who led to the Q people around the LGM. However, modern distributions are clear that non-R, non-Q P people largely ended up in the India/Iran area when the northern areas were abandoned in the LGM.

I think there is a picture that P or a subset of it expanded into Siberia around 30000BC and R arose there a few millenia later but still mixed in with many P elements. During the LGM R and most P headed south but one P line leading to Q headed for the ocean to the east not far from Japan, mixed with peoples in that are before expanding both into the Americas and back west into Siberia around the LGM.

The latter may be shown archaelogically by the appearance of microblade groups with a much more mobile way of living and ability to settle far to the north. This is dated earliest in Japan, not an island at the time, and expanded soon to the Americas and back into Siberia where it arrived after a couple of millenia of little to no human settlement during the worst of the LGM. These people clearly mixed with much more ancient groups in the far east that this R guy does not seem to have and also clearly adapted to be able to settle in incredibly cold areas never settled before during the ice age.

The story that is emerging is far too interesting to get sidetracked into trying to work out racial characteristics of the palaeolithic based on just 2 or 3 samples from Eurasia. That might come in time but not yet. What I would note from other blogs is that this guy does not have far eastern autosomal characteristics but rather a mix somewhere between Europeans, Siberians and native Americans. Some guy also apparently run some of the data through Oracle and came up with this R guy as resembling a mix of about a third similar to peoples around Iran/indian subcontinent and two thirds the Udmurt Uralic people of Russia. I known you are very race interested so this is a description of the latter from Wiki - I think you will like the description of this R ancestor's modern best match :0)

Anthropologists relate Udmurts to the Urals branch of Europeans. Most of them are of the middle size, often have blue or gray eyes, high cheek-bones and wide face.[citation needed] The Udmurt people are not of an athletic build but they are very hardy.[6] and there have been claims that they are the "most red-headed" people in the world.[7] Additionally, the ancient Budini tribe, which is speculated to be an ancestor of the modern Udmurts, were described by Herodotus as being predominantly red-headed.


Q is definitely exclusively Mongoloid. R1a, R1b, and R2 are exceptions neither was widespread in Europe till just 5,000ybp. What descendants of P are popular in south Asia and Iran besides R1a1a1b2 Z93 and we know it has only been there for 3,000-3,500 years. Do you also notice P's nephews N and O are also exclusively in Mongoloid people. I don't understand why you are so stubborn to believing a Y DNA or mtDNA haplogroups is connected to the human families autosomal DNA finds. We already have a 42,000 year old mtDNA B4'5 sample in China with other Genetic info to show it is most related to Modern Mongoloids and today mtDNA B is exclusively in Mongoloid people so 30,000BC is not that long ago and no way could you say Y DNA P was in the ancestor family of Caucasians and Mongoloids.

alan
10-20-2013, 11:33 PM
Data will build up on this sort of thing. Its just that its not really there yet in the sort of quantities needed. Eurasia over the last 40000 years is a big place and that is a heck of a long time. There are so few samples dating to the early days that its guessology for all of us. It will probably all become much clearer over the next few years. Its part of the fun guessing all of this but we all have to admit that a lot can happend in 40000 years. Look at European y DNA. Who would have guessed that so much of it is down to a group, R, who only really made an impact from about 6000 years ago? Probably lots of surprises yet to come.

I am not disagreeing that incipient phenotypes may have started to emerge fairly early in geographical areas. I just dont feel we know how this came about, where or the timing. I also wonder if in these discussions people are not at crossed purposes because people are using different terms like Siberian, east Asian, oriental etc. Quite a lot of these Siberian Uralic peoples are actually pretty much European looking. Its not so much an arguement as to when oriental phenotypes originated in China or the extreme far east but more of a question about when they appear in Siberia, central Asia etc and whether they were dominant or just an element.


Since Europeans, Near easterns, and north Africans group in Autosomal DNA and mtDNA. And all have the same Caucasian skull shape, body build, body hair, facial hair, and other physical traits. It makes sense to say that goes back to before the first settlers arrived in Europe probably at least 60,000 years. I don't like taking the stance we will never know when phenotypes first appeared because there is a lot of evidence for ideas of when they did. Since red hair exists in Samaritans and autosomal DNA results from all of them in globe13 showed 0% distinctly European north Euro its probably not a European source and red hair could have originated in early Caucasians. Since genes connected with blue eyes is not exactly European and is mainly in other Caucasians(click here (http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-color-of-eyes-at-least-17-herc2.html)) same for blue eyes and probably all non brown eyes.

What do you mean by phenotypes had just started to separate recently. Looking at mtDNA there has been a split between Caucasians and Oceania Mongoloid for at least 60,000 years. Also I am sick of people connecting Caucasians or just Europeans to Mongoloids just because both live in Eurasia. Autosomal DNA has proven they are very related to Oceania not Caucasians so there is no proto Caucasian Mongoloids. You don't have to talk like everything is mystery you can connect common traits with common ancestors in DNA to figure stuff out.

alan
10-20-2013, 11:56 PM
Actually it is funny when you do google images for Urdmurt people. They really do look very red haired. Very European looking too. Mind you they are mainly N people and very very little R1b.


There were many human groups who arrived in east Asia vastly earlier than Q. I am not surprised that a 42000 year old sample from China may have local characteristics but that proves the point that the characteristics were there long before Q arrived. Q is a latecomer to that region, perhaps less than half the age of groups like O may have been in China since around the time of that guy in China you mentioned. Q comes from the P line. Google yDNA P and you will see that the P paragroups are located in India/Iran. The LGM may have changed their original latitude but I think longitude wise it probably didnt change things nearly as much given that climate/environmental zones tend to be divided by latitude more in Eurasia.

Rather than dwell on the racial aspect, which is essentially too early to understand due to a lack of autosomal DNA samples from early enough, its more productive to look at what may have happened to the y lines.

One thing that could be argued is that if an R* guy was present in 24000BP, calibrated or not, and he was within a culture that was present in Siberia from roughly 30000BC-20000BC then we could ask if ancestral P was also present there in the millenia before this R guy. I would say yes it appears that the culture he was in was present in Siberia from 30000BC which is too early for R of any kind by most estimates. So, I would say it would be possible to tentatively infer that some P people were present in Siberia among his local ancestors. They may also have been driven south with the LGM. There were clearly non-R P guys still around who led to the Q people around the LGM. However, modern distributions are clear that non-R, non-Q P people largely ended up in the India/Iran area when the northern areas were abandoned in the LGM.

I think there is a picture that P or a subset of it expanded into Siberia around 30000BC and R arose there a few millenia later but still mixed in with many P elements. During the LGM R and most P headed south but one P line leading to Q headed for the ocean to the east not far from Japan, mixed with peoples in that are before expanding both into the Americas and back west into Siberia around the LGM.

The latter may be shown archaelogically by the appearance of microblade groups with a much more mobile way of living and ability to settle far to the north. This is dated earliest in Japan, not an island at the time, and expanded soon to the Americas and back into Siberia where it arrived after a couple of millenia of little to no human settlement during the worst of the LGM. These people clearly mixed with much more ancient groups in the far east that this R guy does not seem to have and also clearly adapted to be able to settle in incredibly cold areas never settled before during the ice age.

The story that is emerging is far too interesting to get sidetracked into trying to work out racial characteristics of the palaeolithic based on just 2 or 3 samples from Eurasia. That might come in time but not yet. What I would note from other blogs is that this guy does not have far eastern autosomal characteristics but rather a mix somewhere between Europeans, Siberians and native Americans. Some guy also apparently run some of the data through Oracle and came up with this R guy as resembling a mix of about a third similar to peoples around Iran/indian subcontinent and two thirds the Udmurt Uralic people of Russia. I known you are very race interested so this is a description of the latter from Wiki - I think you will like the description of this R ancestor's modern best match :0)

Anthropologists relate Udmurts to the Urals branch of Europeans. Most of them are of the middle size, often have blue or gray eyes, high cheek-bones and wide face.[citation needed] The Udmurt people are not of an athletic build but they are very hardy.[6] and there have been claims that they are the "most red-headed" people in the world.[7] Additionally, the ancient Budini tribe, which is speculated to be an ancestor of the modern Udmurts, were described by Herodotus as being predominantly red-headed.

Fire Haired
10-21-2013, 12:18 AM
Alan those Siberian(do you mean Finnish and Sami) Uralic people if they look European which I doubt then their part European DNA will prove that. East Asian phenotype appeared in central asia and Siberia when ever the ancestors of modern people arrived there or another Mongoliod people who had the phenotype and lived there before them. A Phenotype also spreads with genetics everyone with red hair is related.

alan
10-21-2013, 01:16 AM
They are Uralic, genetically and linguistically related to Finns I believe. I have heard they are about a third east Asian autosomally. They do look European though. If there is east Asian in them too then it is subtle. Basically Europeans and Asiatic phenotypes just slowly blend into each other today with a very considerable mixed zone. Ancient DNA seems to strongly suggest there was a lot of western DNA as far east as Siberia very early as well as a very early Siberian element mixed in with east Europeans. Its a continuum and seems to have been like that for a very long time.


Alan those Siberian(do you mean Finnish and Sami) Uralic people if they look European which I doubt then their part European DNA will prove that. East Asian phenotype appeared in central asia and Siberia when ever the ancestors of modern people arrived there or another Mongoliod people who had the phenotype and lived there before them. A Phenotype also spreads with genetics everyone with red hair is related.

AJL
10-21-2013, 01:26 AM
^ Indeed, in certain autosomal projects, Asian DNA spreads fairly far west into Europe. To attempt to divide Eurasia, which is after all one large land mass, into two distinct bodies will always be an issue.

parasar
10-21-2013, 02:36 AM
Sorry, but you didn't really go out on a limb with that one. Every study and poster over the last 8 years has said that haplogroup R originated somewhere in central Asia. Heck, even my first National Genographic test (2008) had this pinned down pretty good...

786

My speculation on the Y of Markina Gora 14 was in line with this find.


... My thinking (no proof, but only due to an association with mtDNA U) is that the Kostenki Markina Gora IV was P or R.


Though I still think the association is more with the Balangodese/Vedda of Lanka (due the pronounced nasal notch) than with Central Asians.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47021000/jpg/_47021484__mg_0199-1.jpg

lgmayka
10-21-2013, 03:08 AM
Q is definitely exclusively Mongoloid...Do you also notice P's nephews N and O are also exclusively in Mongoloid people.
Your sweeping generalizations are very incorrect. About 40% of Lithuanians and Latvians belong to yDNA N, yet they have essentially zero East Asian autosomally. Both Q and N are found at low percentages across northern and eastern Europe, with no practical correlation to autosomal East Asian.

There are rare, ancient offshoots of Q and N in Europe that are apparently not present in Asia at all.

alan
10-21-2013, 03:24 AM
I should probably add that modern Siberian is also mixed up with a lot of other later eastern stuff too. However, it seems pretty clear to me that R is an offshoot of something central Asian and many of the paragroups of R*, R1* P etc are in areas like Iran and south central Asia today. It hard to establish original latitude due to the LGM effect of clearing everyone southwards but I think the longitude of these paragroups suggests central Asia was where P came from and that R was part of P's expansion through north central Asia and Siberia. Its also pretty clear from archaeology that R correlates with middle upper Palaeolithic intrusions in Siberia and was preceeded by early Upper Palaeolithic groups of a different nature and also fled south in the LGM and was succeeded by different later upper Palaeolithic groups from the east. So, I dont think these early R Siberians would have left any modern genetic traces in Siberia. So, they do not seem to have been Siberians in any modern ethnic sense. There is no continuity. It was probably not until at least 10000-150000 years later in P297 form or that of its main local subclade M73 that R1b got anywhere near north central Asia again and even then it was probably well west of Siberia.


They are Uralic, genetically and linguistically related to Finns I believe. I have heard they are about a third east Asian autosomally. They do look European though. If there is east Asian in them too then it is subtle. Basically Europeans and Asiatic phenotypes just slowly blend into each other today with a very considerable mixed zone. Ancient DNA seems to strongly suggest there was a lot of western DNA as far east as Siberia very early as well as a very early Siberian element mixed in with east Europeans. Its a continuum and seems to have been like that for a very long time.

Anglecynn
10-21-2013, 11:59 AM
I don't know if this has already been posted here, from http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2013/10/paleoamericanodyssey-tweets-on-24000.html


#paleoamericanodyssey tweets on 24,000-year old Mal'ta Siberian
I had blogged about this conference a year ago, and a few people seem to be tweeting from it.

Here is one intriguing tweet:
Wllierslev: 24,000-yr-old Siberian Mal'ta person geneticall similar to native amer and west eurasians. No east asian #paleoamericanodyssey
and another:
Willerslev: Native Americans formed by an admixture of east Asian ancestors and the ancestors of western Eurasians #paleoamericanodyssey
and another:
Willerslev: Based on genomes, "the Mal'ta is much darker if you want than the iceman (Otzi)" #paleoamericanodyssey
I'll be occasionally looking at the #paleoamericanodyssey tag, but feel free to point to any other interesting tweets from the conference in the comments.

UPDATE:

From the Met:
The Mal'ta tradition is known from a vast area spanning west of Lake Baikal and the Yenisey River. The site of Mal'ta, for which the culture is named, is composed of a series of subterranean houses made of large animal bones and reindeer antler which had likely been covered with animal skins and sod to protect inhabitants from the severe, prevailing northerly winds. Among the artistic accomplishments evident at Mal'ta are remains of expertly carved bone, ivory, and antler objects. Figurines of birds and human females are the most commonly found items.
From a review article:
Debetz (1946) identified the remains of “nothern Asian Mongoloids” at the site of
Afontova Gora 2; they included a fragment of the frontal bone. Mongoloid features had
been originally acknowledged in the skeletal remains of a child found at the site of
Malta. Alexeev (1998, 323) in his later publication was more cautious, stating that this
area was “inhabited by a population of Mongoloid appearance.”

parasar
10-21-2013, 02:53 PM
It would be interesting what type of R he belong to .I believe the time period is too early to have R1a,R1b or R2 around . Anyway R existed then along with haplogroup U and that too near to a place where many consider to be birthplace of R .
Also the autosomal analysis(if the info is correct) does not show any significant east asian(shown as a mix of udmurt(~65%) and pakistani(~35% ) input but we have to keep in mind that it is just a best fit and expecting to have a good match with modern population will be ridiculous .

One of the reports mentions elements seen in modern Oceanians. "appears genetically like a mix between modern Europeans, Amerindians and Oceanians." http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/
But no East Asian https://twitter.com/sw4mi/status/390972003311575040

I was wondering with the amount of nuclear dna they were able to read, whether the resolution would permit determination of the type of R. If it was movement from Europe eastwards then I would guess R1-Z93, otherwise R2-M479.

alan
10-21-2013, 03:32 PM
I think in terms of who was there long before R or Q in east of Eurasia, this paper has a lot of useful info

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1310/1310.3897.pdf

Groups like D, C, O and N, all seem to have preceded Q and R to the far east and presumably were accompanied by my DNA groups.

Although in the past it was claimed that remains from the sites of Afontova Gora II and Mal'ta contain the first evidence of Mongoloid features in Siberia, circa 21,000 years BP. It is to be noted that the cultures that these sites give their names too are dated c. the LGM and later and recent redating of most of the sequence of strata at Afontova Gora II places it much later than originally thought, well after the-LGM maybe nearly 10000 years after our R man. So, although Russian archaeological literature is often rather confused about absolute dating, it seems that the allegedly mongoloid remains from the Afontova Gora II site is much later than our R man with the LGM and a major change in culture separating the two.

.
This excellent recent paper http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/cfsa-publications/Graf-JAS2009-36-694.pdf analysised all teh RC dates, chucked out the dodgy ones and come up with a chronology for the Enisei river valley middle and later upper Palaeolithic as roughly

Middle upper Palaeolithic culture c. 29000-23000BC
LGM Hiatus c. 23000-19000BC
Late upper palaeolithic culture 19000BC onwards.

So it would seem if the quoted age of 24000BP or c. 22000BC that if our R man had been at Afontova rather than Mal'ta he would look like a late survivor of the middle upper palaeolithic group living just as the LGM drove people out. A date like that seem very unlikely for the late upper palaeolithic cultures as they didnt commence for a further 3000 years. So, again this clearly puts the alleged early mongoloid remains at Afontova Gory 2 on the other, recent, side of the LGM. So, as far as I can untangle the skeletal remains are from different periods and cultures and the mongoloid one would appear from the late dates at the Afontova Gory 2 site to have date to 10000 years after our R man at Mal'ta.

So much for Afontova, a dig about looking for the latest chronological data is for Mal'ta suggests that the sequence of cultures at Mal'ta at Lake Baikal is not the same as Afontova. See post below.

jdean
10-21-2013, 04:36 PM
So it would seem if the quoted age of 24000BP or c. 22000BBC that our R man looks like a late survivor of the middle upper palaeolithic group living just as the LGM drove people out. A date like that seem very unlikely for the late upper palaeolithic cultures as they didnt commence for a further 3000 years. So, again this clearly puts our man on one side of the LGM and the alleged early mongoloid remains at Afontova Gory 2 on the other, recent, side of the LGM. So, as far as I can untangle the skeletal remains are from different periods and cultures and the mongoloid one would appear from the late dates at the Afontova Gory 2 site to have date to 10000 years after our R man.


Many thanks for this post Alan

Looking through the web there appears to be a lot of conflicting information about the cultures in this area.

Have you any idea about the pre LGM culture, I get the impression the semi subterranean huts and deft ivory carving are from the post LGM period ?

parasar
10-21-2013, 07:17 PM
"ADMIXTURE showed West Eurasian, Amerindian and Southeast Asian (Pacific) components. No East Asians again ... He didn’t say anything about the subclades during the presentation. I’m not hiding anything. he may have left it for the actual Nature paper ... what about the other ancient genome, from Afontova Gora? ... He said it showed the same genetic markers as Mal’ta." http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/10/paleoamerican-odyssey-conference-ancient-malta-dna-back-migrations-to-the-old-world-and-hallway-discussions/



1. "Map showing Afontova Gora (27) [R and U] and Mal'ta (29) [R and U], both circled."

Photo: Abramov et al. (1984)
http://donsmaps.com/images26/northernussrpaleolithicimage001bsm.jpg
http://donsmaps.com/afontovagora.html

2. Krasnoyarsk [R1a1 and "SNapShot assay coding SNPs allowed classification as hg U"]
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/KeyserDNASiberianKurgan2009Fig1.gif

3. The Diversity of Y-Chromosome Lineages in Indigenous Population of South Siberia [R1a1]
"R1a1 component in Russian and South Siberian populations (11 380±3200 and 11 270±4070 years, respectively) The time of divergence between these populations is 10 310± 3140 years. Thus, our data suggest a very old age of the R1a1 lineages of the Y chromosome in the gene pool of indigenous South Siberian populations and a significant divergence of this component from that of the East European genetic pool. Further insight into the evolutionary history of the R1a1 haplogroup may be provided by new data on the variation of STR loci of the Y chromosome in the Iran Indian subcontinent populations."

"Recent findings about the peopling of northern Asia reconstructed by archaeologists suggest that anatomically modern humans colonized the southern part of Siberia around 40 thousand years ago (kya) and the far northern parts of Siberia and ancient Beringia, a prerequisite for colonization of the Americas, by approximately 30 kya"
U (10.2%)
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0032179

Much like in Europe, we get a sense of some continuity in the last ~30000 years.

parasar
10-21-2013, 09:39 PM
I am intrigued to see the South East Asian component in the finds, maybe this theory (albeit dated) of Rahul Sankrtyayan's has something to it.

792
From Rahul Sankrtyayan’s – Madhya-Asia ka Itihas (Rahula Sankrityayana, 'Madhyasiya Ka Itihas', 2 Vol., Patna, 1956-57 http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/sankrit.htm )

In the map above he is showing the country of what he calls the home of the “Shak-Arya” - the northern part later became the area of the nomadic Shak and the southern part that of the more settled Arya after the latter absorbed the advanced Munda-Dravid (his term for a widespread non-IE umbrella) culture.

Rahul Sankrtyayan saw the sequence as follows:

He says that in the Archaeolithic (>30000ybp, Upper Paleolithic?) there was a migration of humans from south-east and/or south asia to central asia.

Two cultures developed in the region from descendants of these migrants by the early neolithic – one that of the Shak-arya another of the Munda-dravids. The former occupied the region circumscribed in the map (which includes the Altai as is termed by him - Uttara Patha) while the latter occupied the Indus region & Iran during 7000 to 5000bc. This means that he makes Iran and Indus non-IE during the 7000-5000bc time frame.

At the end of that period (Microlithic) the whole of central asia from Finland/Ural to India changes in character and the Shak-aryas migrate to Europe.

In the late Neolithic/3000bc the Shak-aryas return from Europe and split Asia into two – northern Finno-Ugric and southern Dravids (Iran & India). It is during their period in Europe - 5000 -3000bc - that the centum/satem split occurs. After returning to Central Asia in 3000bc, the southern part become the Iranic-Indic aryas by absorbing the advanced culture of the Iranian highlands and Indus valley while the northern Shaks retained their nomadic lifestyle. The northern Shaks who are related to the Aryas make periodic incursions into the Aryan areas in the historical period and leave a significant imprint on the sub-continent.

Rahul Sankrytyayan is informed in his analysis mainly by Soviet archaeologists and their studies on cave shadow preserved remains.

alan
10-21-2013, 10:24 PM
Mal'ta has taken me some time to get my head round as there is just so much gibberish and mixtures of wrong dates, dates BP, calbibrated, uncalibrated etc. It is also true that the Mal'ta site is muti phased despite a culture (the Mal'ta- Buret) being named after it and nearby place with similar finds. I understand though that the Malta site has three phases:

1. one at the end of the very end of the middle upper palaeolithic which elsewhere is placed around 23000BC although this might vary a little by area.

2. One which sounds rather like it took off in the LGM - this is apparently one that has the figurines and possible resemblances to Gravettian of west Eurasia.

This is different from the chronology of Enisei river valley that I posted on in relation to Afontova above. Seems like at Mal'ta a possible intrusion happened from the Europe in the LGM while at Afontova and the Enisei valley there was abandonment in the LGM. I had hoped there would be a unified south Siberian sequence and chronology but there doesnt seem to be. I suppose that the difference may be that although further east, Mal'ta in the Lake Baikal area is also significantly more southern than Afontovo in the Enisei valley. That may explain a long period of abandonment in the LGM at Afontova but a new culture arriving with the LGM at Mal't

That makes a date of 24000BP for an R man in Mal'ta much more complex to work out as it right on the boundary period between the middle upper palaeolithic culture phase at Mal'ta and the late upper Palaeolithic/LGM phase associated with the figurines etc. So, it suddenly seems a lot less clear to me what culture our R man at Mal'ta dating to 24000BP lies in - its right on the interface between the two phases. The wooliness in chronology in archaeological papers from Russia in the past doesnt help. Maybe it really was an interface period and that may explain the mix.

J Man
10-21-2013, 10:35 PM
What I find most interesting about this is that mtDNA haplogroup U again has been shown to have had such a massively wide spread of distribution during the Upper Paleolithic...From Western Europe in the far West to Siberia in the East!

lgmayka
10-21-2013, 11:59 PM
3. The Diversity of Y-Chromosome Lineages in Indigenous Population of South Siberia [R1a1]
"R1a1 component in Russian and South Siberian populations (11 380±3200 and 11 270±4070 years, respectively) The time of divergence between these populations is 10 310± 3140 years. Thus, our data suggest a very old age of the R1a1 lineages of the Y chromosome in the gene pool of indigenous South Siberian populations and a significant divergence of this component from that of the East European genetic pool. Further insight into the evolutionary history of the R1a1 haplogroup may be provided by new data on the variation of STR loci of the Y chromosome in the Iran Indian subcontinent populations."
That paper (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublicatio n%2F225182392_The_diversity_of_Y-chromosome_lineages_in_indigenous_population_of_So uth_Siberia%2Ffile%2F79e415089bd2981802.pdf&ei=NL9lUpiQM6G62AWi6YD4Bg&usg=AFQjCNHxQHWsY9k8BEw29uRCyG1GqM1WIA&sig2=Quk3yLQE9rzYwy-8d5X-EQ&bvm=bv.55123115,d.b2I) uses the infamous Zhivotovsky fudge factor. Divide those ages by at least 2, and perhaps 3, to get unbiased estimates.

alan
10-22-2013, 12:00 AM
tell you what, the child in me really is happy to have an ancestor chasing mammoth around rather than the south Caspian tortoise and goat hunter I thought it was. :0 )

Only kidding. Both are probably true. Pre-LGM yes an R guy was chasing mammoths in Siberia but I suspect he must be R*. I still believe this group essentially fled south in the LGM and headed to Iran and towards India etc. R1* and R2 probably echo two different choices - south-west to Iran or south towards India.

alan
10-22-2013, 02:07 PM
I have been digging around for more info on the chronology and cultural sequence at Malta.

This is a review in French of a French language book on the subject of upper palaeolithic Siberia. I think the book may have some details on the Malta site.

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/bspf_0249-7638_2002_num_99_2_12681


I found another review of radiocarbon of the Siberian upper palaeolithic. Its about 10 years old but it does include the Lake Baikal sites like Malta.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/.../3547

The tables at the end of the report relating to the RC database are interesting as it includes on pages 25-25 several from various strata at Malta and one from Buret. They seem to be uncalibrated BP dates. They seem to centre around 21000 uncalibrated BP although stretching half a millenia either way. Using the online calibration tool Calpal http://www.calpal-online.de/ these dates would likely come in centred around 23000-24000 years BP when calibrated. That suggests that the date being quoted in the leaks in in line with the main group of radiocarbon dates from Malta when calibrated.

The main cluster of dates at Malta relate to two stata - one called the main cultural layer centres on c. 23000 BP after calibration. The other is called level 8 and appears to be from the slightly older level just below called Strata 8. This is apparently a little older and comes out about 24000BP, the quoted date. However, as I posted before Malta is much harder to interpret without the details than Afontova because at the former there is a long break in occupation during the LGM but at Malta the 'main cultural layer' seems to start at the LGM with very little beaker, if any, between it and the preceding strata 8. That makes it hard to interpret. I kind of want to be able to latch onto the main Malta-Buret culture material because its so impressive but I dont think I with the level of leaked detail its possible to interpret whether it falls into this or just before and what degree of replacement of population happened in between seems obscure to me until I get my hands on a site report for Malta written in modern times.


Here is yet another relatively recent broader overview on the complexities of the Siberian palaeolithic chronology, noting how it varies quite a lot from area to area. This interestingly notes how very much earlier microblade technology was in some parts of Siberia (pre-LGM) compared to the post-LGM spread in the west Siberian plain.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/.../2729‎

parasar
10-22-2013, 02:41 PM
Some notices on the R1a1 in the Udmurt:

"Although we do not have the 49a,f classification of the Hg3 Y chromosomes and that of the Eu19 Y chromosomes in the Mari and Udmurt populations [4], it is likely that these Y chromosomes carry the 49a,f Ht 11 similarly to the Eu19/49a2,f Ht 11 found in India and China." http://www.historycy.org/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=4537

Udmurt Table 1 37.2% R1a1 (Eu19) http://carswell.com.au/wp-content/documents/the-genetic-legacy-of-paleolithic-homo-sapiens-in-extant-europeans.pdf

Underhill found the %age to be about half that with 2.1% M458 - Udmurts (Russia) 141 18.4 16.3 2.1 http://volgagermanbrit.us/documents/Underhill_et_al_full.pdf

alan
10-22-2013, 03:01 PM
Without simple up to date papers on the sequences at Mal'ta and Afantova Gory 2 its a little hard to interpret. The basic picture seems clear enough at Afontova Gory 2 in that the LGM abandonement of the site created a long gap between a middle upper palaeolithic site and the late upper palaeolithic site. I am assuming that the concept of Afontova culture relates to the pre-LGM group. At the Mal'ta site its a case that a middle upper palaeolithic culture was replaced with little break by a later upper palaeolithic culture which appeared at the LGM. From what I can make out the concept of a Mal'ta-Buret culture comes from this second group - the one with the figurines. At one time in the literature the Afontova culture and the Mal'ta-Buret culture were seen as potentially variations of the same thing or at least contemporary. However, from what I can see of the sequences of cultures and dates, this is hard to see as still a valid concept and may be outmoded nowadays. I say that because the Afontova cultures seems to be ended by the LGM while the classic figure making Mal'ta-Buret culture seems to only appear at thee LGM. So, all I will say is beware old papers and books on this. The only common thread between the two sites I can see is that c. both had pre-LGM cultures of late middle upper Palaeolithic tradition that seem to have soon ended after the arrival of the LGM - cultural change/replacement at Mal'ta and abandonment for several 1000 years of the LGM at Afontova. So, if R is present at both sites c. 24000BP then it seems to me that this can only relate to the very end of the middle upper palaeolithic groups at both sites as the LGM arrived c. 23000BC. If it is present only at Mal'ta then that is a pain because 24000BP i(assuming this is a calibrated date) s right at the start f the LGM and the interface between the middle upper palaeolithic and late upper palaelithic groups at Mal'ta. The date slightly favours the former as far as I can see but short of seeing a site report of modern vintage on this, that is about as far as I can go for now.

jdean
10-22-2013, 04:14 PM
If the Mal'ta-Buret culture wintered out in the area wouldn't that make them a less likely candidate for producing R ?

alan
10-22-2013, 06:20 PM
I wonder if the dna is from the child burials found at Mal'ta and referred to in a few summaries? This would have been a handy summary if it wasnt just a sample

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4615-1191-5_25#page-1


A paper on diet isotopes in palaeolithic humans includes Mal'ta 1. This is stated to be from one of the child burials. Interestingly it notes the RC date as 19,880 ±  160 uncal BP which when calibrated using calpal comes out as  23816 ± 342 BP, very close to the leaked age of the R person pf 24000BP. This comes out as 21866 ± 342 CAL BC for people like me who dont like BP. So lets call it 22000BC for short.

A date of 22000BC/24000BP is so similar the R person must be from the child burial already known unless they have found another from the same date. Again its just before the LGM and right at the period of change from the middle upper palaeolithic to the upper palaeolithic group.

jdean
10-22-2013, 06:54 PM
Seems likely doesn't it.

I see they mention a high level of fish in the diet but I'm sure Jean or somebody else has mentioned you pretty much had to eat a lot of fish of you wanted to live that far north and had dark skin.

Does anything interesting pop out of the results as far as you’re concerned ?

alan
10-22-2013, 08:10 PM
Date on the diet isotope paper states the young burial at Mal'ta dates to 19,880 ±  160 uncal BP. So I had another look at the other paper which lists all the dates from Mal'ta. None match exactly but the date that most resembles it is a rather late one in stratum 8 which is problematically younger than the main culture layer which is generally younger than stratum 8. So, I am not too sure what to conclude. I have never seen a detailed paper on the excavation strata so I am trying to tease out what I can with a blindfold on. This makes it very hard to understand the exact cultural association. That is very annoying as there are interesting cultural and environmental shifts happened at this very time at the Mal'ta site. However the young burial does seem to be of pretty well exactly the same date as the 24000 cal BP quoted for the R person in the recent leaks. Surely the same individual?

alan
10-22-2013, 08:29 PM
That kind of riverine diet is also known to potentially effect radiocarbon dates by centuries, even a millenia or so, and is very difficult to correct for. However, even that would not change the general LGM context.


Seems likely doesn't it.

I see they mention a high level of fish in the diet but I'm sure Jean or somebody else has mentioned you pretty much had to eat a lot of fish of you wanted to live that far north and had dark skin.

Does anything interesting pop out of the results as far as you’re concerned ?

hyrr hqfdi
10-22-2013, 08:52 PM
"ADMIXTURE showed West Eurasian, Amerindian and Southeast Asian (Pacific) components. No East Asians again ... He didn’t say anything about the subclades during the presentation. I’m not hiding anything. he may have left it for the actual Nature paper ... what about the other ancient genome, from Afontova Gora? ... He said it showed the same genetic markers as Mal’ta." http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/10/paleoamerican-odyssey-conference-ancient-malta-dna-back-migrations-to-the-old-world-and-hallway-discussions/



1. "Map showing Afontova Gora (27) [R and U] and Mal'ta (29) [R and U], both circled."

Photo: Abramov et al. (1984)
http://donsmaps.com/images26/northernussrpaleolithicimage001bsm.jpg
http://donsmaps.com/afontovagora.html

2. Krasnoyarsk [R1a1 and "SNapShot assay coding SNPs allowed classification as hg U"]
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/KeyserDNASiberianKurgan2009Fig1.gif

3. The Diversity of Y-Chromosome Lineages in Indigenous Population of South Siberia [R1a1]
"R1a1 component in Russian and South Siberian populations (11 380±3200 and 11 270±4070 years, respectively) The time of divergence between these populations is 10 310± 3140 years. Thus, our data suggest a very old age of the R1a1 lineages of the Y chromosome in the gene pool of indigenous South Siberian populations and a significant divergence of this component from that of the East European genetic pool. Further insight into the evolutionary history of the R1a1 haplogroup may be provided by new data on the variation of STR loci of the Y chromosome in the Iran Indian subcontinent populations."

"Recent findings about the peopling of northern Asia reconstructed by archaeologists suggest that anatomically modern humans colonized the southern part of Siberia around 40 thousand years ago (kya) and the far northern parts of Siberia and ancient Beringia, a prerequisite for colonization of the Americas, by approximately 30 kya"
U (10.2%)
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0032179

Much like in Europe, we get a sense of some continuity in the last ~30000 years.

The R1a1 in Siberia probably has the same source as R1a1 in India and all of asia. Migration of proto Indo Iranian speakers out of Russian Yamna culture 5,000ybp. The Andronovo people in south Siberia 3,800-3,400ybp we already have y DNA R1a1 from them and obviously European population with pale skin, light hair, and typical European mtDNA haplogroups U5a, U2e, U4. The out of India hypothesis which was based on modern diversity has been proven wrong with the phylogenetic tree of R1a. Showing that India and Asia has very low diversity almost all R1a under R1a1a1b2 Z93 and its ancestral subclades are more common around Ukraine and Russia. Origins of R1a1a in or near Europe (aka. R1a1a out of India theory looks like a dud (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2011/11/origins-of-r1a1a1-in-or-near-europe-aka.html). So R1a1 was almost definitely introduced into Siberia by Andronovo people or other Indo Iranians just 3,800-5,000ybp.

hyrr hqfdi
10-22-2013, 08:55 PM
Seems likely doesn't it.

I see they mention a high level of fish in the diet but I'm sure Jean or somebody else has mentioned you pretty much had to eat a lot of fish of you wanted to live that far north and had dark skin.

Does anything interesting pop out of the results as far as you’re concerned ?

Native Americans ancestors lived in Siberia around 24,000ybp and would have been extremely dark skinned. We cant assume how much northern climate effects people with light or dark skin.

hyrr hqfdi
10-22-2013, 08:58 PM
Some notices on the R1a1 in the Udmurt:

"Although we do not have the 49a,f classification of the Hg3 Y chromosomes and that of the Eu19 Y chromosomes in the Mari and Udmurt populations [4], it is likely that these Y chromosomes carry the 49a,f Ht 11 similarly to the Eu19/49a2,f Ht 11 found in India and China." http://www.historycy.org/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=4537

Udmurt Table 1 37.2% R1a1 (Eu19) http://carswell.com.au/wp-content/documents/the-genetic-legacy-of-paleolithic-homo-sapiens-in-extant-europeans.pdf

Underhill found the %age to be about half that with 2.1% M458 - Udmurts (Russia) 141 18.4 16.3 2.1 http://volgagermanbrit.us/documents/Underhill_et_al_full.pdf

If you want a lot of Y DNA and mtDNA info of many populations in west Eurasia and north Africa just go to Eupedia. It would make sense Udmurts have a lot of R1a1. The reason is that is where R1a1a1b1 Z283 spread to eastern and central Europe from with the ancestral languages of Balto Slavic. R1a1a1b2 Z93 spread out of that area with ancestral language to Indo Iranian. This is the area almost all modern R1a1 paternal lines traces back to 6,000 years ago.

ADW_1981
10-22-2013, 09:02 PM
The R1a1 in Siberia probably has the same source as R1a1 in India and all of asia. Migration of proto Indo Iranian speakers out of Russian Yamna culture 5,000ybp. The Andronovo people in south Siberia 3,800-3,400ybp we already have y DNA R1a1 from them and obviously European population with pale skin, light hair, and typical European mtDNA haplogroups U5a, U2e, U4. The out of India hypothesis which was based on modern diversity has been proven wrong with the phylogenetic tree of R1a. Showing that India and Asia has very low diversity almost all R1a under R1a1a1b2 Z93 and its ancestral subclades are more common around Ukraine and Russia. Origins of R1a1a in or near Europe (aka. R1a1a out of India theory looks like a dud (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2011/11/origins-of-r1a1a1-in-or-near-europe-aka.html). So R1a1 was almost definitely introduced into Siberia by Andronovo people or other Indo Iranians just 3,800-5,000ybp.

What does this have to do with anything? It's quite possible and likely that the light eyes, MC1R mutations occurred sometime after 24,000 ybp anyways. I think most agree on this, and it would certainly be the case if you tie at least some of these mutations to the result of farming diet in northern climates. The people with the most depigmentation are not R1a1a populations such as Scandinavia, or Eastern Europe, but rather R1b rich populations of NW Europe. They also have the highest incidence of red hair.

hyrr hqfdi
10-22-2013, 09:17 PM
What does this have to do with anything? It's quite possible and likely that the light eyes, MC1R mutations occurred sometime after 24,000 ybp anyways. I think most agree on this, and it would certainly be the case if you tie at least some of these mutations to the result of farming diet in northern climates. The people with the most depigmentation are not R1a1a populations such as Scandinavia, or Eastern Europe, but rather R1b rich populations of NW Europe. They also have the highest incidence of red hair.

I was making the point their the source of R1a1 in Siberia. Also about light eyes it is much older than Neolithic. The reason is autosomal DNA groups dominate in European hunter gathers samples(some pre Neolithic) correlates very closely to the distribution of light eyes and hair in Europe(Fire Haired made this point earlier). Farming in the Neolithic age only spread to far southern Sweden and Norway and did not spread to the far northeast Baltic. Central Scandinavia, Finland, and northeast Baltic have the highest amount of light eyes in Europe. I doubt you can explain diets and eye color change and be so sure about it. It seems more like that Europe before farming looked most like people in Latvia, Russia, and Scandinavia. But that is just my opinion based on autosomal DNA of European hunter gathers and their closest modern relatives.

alan
10-22-2013, 09:45 PM
Actually I just managed to check that the RC date for the burial from the isotope paper is not from the same sample as the other very similar date I noted below. The latter is from animal bone from stratum 9. However, that doesnt change the fact that the date from the child burial when calibrated is the same as the R person in the leaks and probably are the same individual assuming no new bodies have been excavated. In fact the burial was a youth to which a baby had been added.


Date on the diet isotope paper states the young burial at Mal'ta dates to 19,880 ±  160 uncal BP. So I had another look at the other paper which lists all the dates from Mal'ta. None match exactly but the date that most resembles it is a rather late one in stratum 8 which is problematically younger than the main culture layer which is generally younger than stratum 8. So, I am not too sure what to conclude. I have never seen a detailed paper on the excavation strata so I am trying to tease out what I can with a blindfold on. This makes it very hard to understand the exact cultural association. That is very annoying as there are interesting cultural and environmental shifts happened at this very time at the Mal'ta site. However the young burial does seem to be of pretty well exactly the same date as the 24000 cal BP quoted for the R person in the recent leaks. Surely the same individual?

alan
10-22-2013, 10:20 PM
I think talking about R1a, R1b, light eyes/hair racial stuff etc is probably premature in 22000BC. I do not imagine that the gepgraphical phenotypical traits had emerged. We cannot look at very very late hunters 10000 yearrs later who we have extracted ancient DNA from and back project all of that to pre-LGM times. At best the selective and other proccessess involved in changing phenotype between lets say generic SW Asian ancestors not long out of Africa c. 40000BC and the groups of hunters we see say 8000BC or so was only partly under way. I have often read that early modern humans (or cro magnons as they used to be called before the term was abused by forward projecting it) do not fit any modern race and have elements of modern European, SW Asian, Native American and even African peoples. I also do not think ice age conditions would select for depigmentation. The climate was severe with lots of glare etc and I expect the people probably did have a complexion somewhere like central Asians or native Americans. I actually think a more likely period of extreme sunlight deprivation but temperate climate that might of led to depigmentation is the Mesolithic when only rivers and shores would have given respite from forrest from eye to eye. The biomass was also getting smaller. Also, in the Neolithic there could have been very strong selection in times of crisis due to the Neolithic diet. This effect could have been especially strong in the cloudier and wetter, more agriculturally marginal areas of Europe. I dont really buy much into the idea of ice age hunters being blonde. Late hunters in the woods and farmers living in marginal areas but I just do not see the selective advantage for ice age hunters of the tundra etc.

alan
10-22-2013, 11:43 PM
Just noticed German Dziebel when asked today said he understood that both the Mal'ta and Afontova sites were yDNA R and mtDNA U. If that is the case its mighty interesting. The quoted date of 24000 cal BP sounds more like Mal'ta to me though. Afontova was abandoned 1000 years earlier as far as I understand and not reoccupied for nearly 10000 years.

I understand that an adult and a couple of juveniles were found at Afontova.

hyrr hqfdi
10-23-2013, 12:09 AM
I think talking about R1a, R1b, light eyes/hair racial stuff etc is probably premature in 22000BC. I do not imagine that the gepgraphical phenotypical traits had emerged. We cannot look at very very late hunters 10000 yearrs later who we have extracted ancient DNA from and back project all of that to pre-LGM times. At best the selective and other proccessess involved in changing phenotype between lets say generic SW Asian ancestors not long out of Africa c. 40000BC and the groups of hunters we see say 8000BC or so was only partly under way. I have often read that early modern humans (or cro magnons as they used to be called before the term was abused by forward projecting it) do not fit any modern race and have elements of modern European, SW Asian, Native American and even African peoples. I also do not think ice age conditions would select for depigmentation. The climate was severe with lots of glare etc and I expect the people probably did have a complexion somewhere like central Asians or native Americans. I actually think a more likely period of extreme sunlight deprivation but temperate climate that might of led to depigmentation is the Mesolithic when only rivers and shores would have given respite from forrest from eye to eye. The biomass was also getting smaller. Also, in the Neolithic there could have been very strong selection in times of crisis due to the Neolithic diet. This effect could have been especially strong in the cloudier and wetter, more agriculturally marginal areas of Europe. I dont really buy much into the idea of ice age hunters being blonde. Late hunters in the woods and farmers living in marginal areas but I just do not see the selective advantage for ice age hunters of the tundra etc.

I don't understand why I have heard people say Cro magnon didn't have Caucasian or whatever traits but have no sources. We have mtDNA from Cro magnon so far only Caucasian U and possibly HV's and RO's popped up. From what I have always heard they had Caucasian skull shape. Cro magnon are to recent to say they did not have a Caucasian skull shape or the Skulls are not well enough preserved to see distinct features. Why do you keep connecting Mongoloid to Caucasian it is Oceania and Mongoloid. It seems you have this idea of mystery when it comes to human history. You assume distinct racial features did not arrive till recently and that any Y DNA N could have been in early Caucasians and early Mongoloids. And you keep assuming its Mongoloids who connect with Caucasians when they actually connect with Oceania.

Since it is true there is a connection with light hair and eyes in Europe to North Euro which we know through ancient DNA comes from pre farming Europeans. Who can probably trace back to pre LGM(before 26,600ybp) Europeans probably even farther back. We can definitely say that Europe 11,000ybp was all pale skinned(of course nothing is 100% for sure) also that Europeans had very high amounts of light hair and eyes possibly mainly. It would also make sense that all the Europeans migrating out of southern refuges already looked like this and mixed with each other. What I am trying to say is there is a really good chance Europe has looked that way for who knows how long possibly over 20,000 years. There is so much time 10,000's of years they could have developed those features. I think it is not smart to assume it is very recent. But really we will never know unless we get 100's of inviduals pigmentation genes from across Europe from many different ages and even then you can say we don't really know.

lgmayka
10-23-2013, 01:50 AM
The people with the most depigmentation are not R1a1a populations such as Scandinavia, or Eastern Europe, but rather R1b rich populations of NW Europe.
If you are referring to pale skin, your statement is debatable at best (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.svg) . If you are referring to hair color (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Light_hair_coloration_map.PNG) or eye color (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Light_Eyes_in_Europe.png), your statement is simply incorrect.

parasar
10-23-2013, 02:59 AM
I was making the point their the source of R1a1 in Siberia. Also about light eyes it is much older than Neolithic. The reason is autosomal DNA groups dominate in European hunter gathers samples(some pre Neolithic) correlates very closely to the distribution of light eyes and hair in Europe(Fire Haired made this point earlier). Farming in the Neolithic age only spread to far southern Sweden and Norway and did not spread to the far northeast Baltic. Central Scandinavia, Finland, and northeast Baltic have the highest amount of light eyes in Europe. I doubt you can explain diets and eye color change and be so sure about it. It seems more like that Europe before farming looked most like people in Latvia, Russia, and Scandinavia. But that is just my opinion based on autosomal DNA of European hunter gathers and their closest modern relatives.

It is still not clear to me that the query - "What does this have to do with anything?" - was answered. The R+U sample from Siberia has been reported to be relatively dark pigmented (at least genetically). So the pigmentation issue seems not to be relevant to these 24000ybp older Baikal samples. If by some chance these sample turn out to be R1a1-Z93 or R2-M479 (one of which IMO is very likely). it will actually undermine your point.

Jean M
10-23-2013, 10:00 AM
I don't understand why I have heard people say Cro magnon didn't have Caucasian or whatever traits but have no sources...Since it is true there is a connection with light hair and eyes in Europe to North Euro which we know through ancient DNA comes from pre farming Europeans.

Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups do not control colouring. mtDNA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA ) is completely separate from the 23 pairs of chromosomes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomes ) that code for the creation of your body. One pair of those chromosomes in a male is the X and Y. The Y-chromosome ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome ) codes "make a male". It does not carry genes for colouring. The genes for colouring are on other chromosomes. The genes for colouring do not have any effect on skull shape.

The Y-chromosome is passed down from father to son. The other chromosomes recombine DNA from both your parents. So over several generations, a male child could look very different from the ancestor whose Y-DNA he carries. A good example is the blond, blue-eyed Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, whose Y-DNA comes from a dark-haired, dark-eyed Turkish great grand-father http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson

Early Homo sapiens had evolved genes to create a dark skin, because the species has lost most of its hair, which in related species gives protection from the UV rays in the sun. Picture a gene which says "make melanin". Melanin is the colouring agent. Sometimes there would be a mutation (a mistake in replication of DNA) which stopped that gene from working. If that happened in Africa or some other place near the equator, it would be bad for the person born with it, so they would likely have fewer surviving descendants than people with the normal gene. But as Homo sapiens travelled to more northern parts, the gene saying "make melanin" was not as vital. So people born with a mutation would not be at such a disadvantage. In fact in really cloudy climates, and if the person was not eating a lot of oily fish, it could be an advantage to be paler, which would make it easier to generate vitamin D from the sun. So eventually, over thousands of years, those people living in northern climates became paler.

I've simplified things a bit to make this post concise. See Who do you look like? for more: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/looks.shtml . See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics for a non-technical introduction.

alan
10-23-2013, 05:53 PM
There was clearly a long period of selection etc that took us from the first moves out of Afrrica of the European lineages to late hunters. At the start of waves like Auriganician and Gravettain they probably were no different from someone living in the Levant. By the Mesolithic its fair to say a lot of the north Euro autosomal DNA traits had developed. All I am saying is we do not know at what point between the arrival of Aurignacians or Gravettians and the late hunter periods that these changes took place. Its s 20 or 30 millenia period between the arrival of the first waves of hunters inro Europe , preumably not yet with European pigmentation, and the late hunter period when hunting and farming were both present in different parts of the world. All I am saying is noone knows when these traits developed across that 20-30 thousand year period. They probably developed slowly in situ in Europe but we have no idea the pace or sequence of the changes between generic modern humans from SW Asia and distinct north European autosomal late hunter types. Do you know how far this process ha gone in say 40, 30 an 20 , 25, 10 thousand years ago? How many samples of hunters autosomal DNA do we have before 10000BC within Europe? A hunter close to 10 thousand BC had gone through 20 or 30 thousand years of autosomal DNA selection of various types so its idiotic to try and back project a late hunters autosomal DNA as a proxy for someone 20-30 thousand years earlier. I am not treating anything as mystery. I just do not make massive leaps without evidence.


I don't understand why I have heard people say Cro magnon didn't have Caucasian or whatever traits but have no sources. We have mtDNA from Cro magnon so far only Caucasian U and possibly HV's and RO's popped up. From what I have always heard they had Caucasian skull shape. Cro magnon are to recent to say they did not have a Caucasian skull shape or the Skulls are not well enough preserved to see distinct features. Why do you keep connecting Mongoloid to Caucasian it is Oceania and Mongoloid. It seems you have this idea of mystery when it comes to human history. You assume distinct racial features did not arrive till recently and that any Y DNA N could have been in early Caucasians and early Mongoloids. And you keep assuming its Mongoloids who connect with Caucasians when they actually connect with Oceania.

Since it is true there is a connection with light hair and eyes in Europe to North Euro which we know through ancient DNA comes from pre farming Europeans. Who can probably trace back to pre LGM(before 26,600ybp) Europeans probably even farther back. We can definitely say that Europe 11,000ybp was all pale skinned(of course nothing is 100% for sure) also that Europeans had very high amounts of light hair and eyes possibly mainly. It would also make sense that all the Europeans migrating out of southern refuges already looked like this and mixed with each other. What I am trying to say is there is a really good chance Europe has looked that way for who knows how long possibly over 20,000 years. There is so much time 10,000's of years they could have developed those features. I think it is not smart to assume it is very recent. But really we will never know unless we get 100's of inviduals pigmentation genes from across Europe from many different ages and even then you can say we don't really know.

Jean M
10-23-2013, 06:51 PM
By the Mesolithic its fair to say a lot of the north Euro autosomal DNA traits had developed..

What is the evidence for this? Which autosomal traits? Not Lactase persistence for sure. As far as I know, no-one has published any data on colouring from Mesolithic Europeans. So we only have the estimates of the ages of specific mutations, most of which are post-Mesolithic.

alan
10-23-2013, 07:14 PM
What I am trying to say, and I am sure you agree with, is that selection and other factors went on for a long long time, perhaps are still going on, and back projection of autosomal DNA from later hunters to very early modern humans is silly. There does seem to be some evidence that later hunters in Europe had some things in common in terms of autosomal, mt DNA etc so perhaps by then 20000 years of selection or more had created some patterns. My point is that this is a cumulative thing based on 10s of millennia of change and its crazy to think these changes all took place rapidly after humans entered Europe which sees to be what some people are implying. After all there has too be a long intermediate stage between generic humans of 40000 years ago and late hunters. I am not talking about pigment. I havent heard anything about pigment genes in Palaeolithic hunters. I am trying to discourage people from making unwarranted leaps of faith on stuff like that.


What is the evidence for this? Which autosomal traits? Not Lactase persistence for sure. As far as I know, no-one has published any specific data on colouring from Mesolithic Europeans.

Jean M
10-23-2013, 07:41 PM
There does seem to be some evidence that later hunters in Europe had some things in common in terms of autosomal, mt DNA etc

As I explained above, mtDNA has nothing to do with colouring.

On autosomal DNA, the La Braña-Arintero Mesothic individuals did not match any modern Europeans. So much forum fanfare greeted the finding that they were more similar to modern northern Europeans than Southern Europeans that anyone could be forgiven for imagining that these two hunters of 5000 BC looked just like the Irish you see every day! :) But that is not what was published. According to a Spanish news story earlier this year ( http://leonoticias.com/frontend/leonoticias/El-CSIC-Trata-De-Hallar-Por-Primera-Vez-El-Genoma-Humano-Com-vn120073-vst306 ), Carles Lalueza-Fox and his team are working night and day to decode the whole genome of these well-preserved individuals. So we should know their colouring eventually. At the moment we simply do not know.

lgmayka
10-23-2013, 08:15 PM
On autosomal DNA, the La Braña-Arintero Mesothic individuals did not match any modern Europeans.
As we have discussed before, this is primarily because they had neither Neolithic, nor Indo-European, nor Siberian admixture. Thus, they do not match any modern European population, because all modern Europeans have one or more such admixtures. Secondarily, the Mesolithic samples have a component which, in modern terms, looks East African. This may be a remnant from the Paleolithic.

Dienekes writes (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/mesolithic-iberians-la-brana-arintero.html):
---
Due to the small number of SNPs, I pooled the two Mesolithic individuals into a single composite one; the K7b admixture proportions are: 9.3% African and 90.7% Atlantic_Baltic, which appears consistent with the position of the individuals in the European PCA plot. The sub-1,000 SNPs in common with the K7b do not give me a lot of confidence in the minority element, but, in any case, the high Atlantic_Baltic figure is what I would expect and appears consistent with the similarly high Atlantic_Baltic figure of the Swedish Neolithic hunter-gatherers.


UPDATE II: Using the K12b, the results are: 45% Atlantic_Med, 41.6% North_European, 10.3% East_African, 1% Sub_Saharan.
---

The Mesolithic samples were most certainly not from another planet.

Anglecynn
10-23-2013, 08:21 PM
As we have discussed before, this is primarily because they had neither Neolithic, nor Indo-European, nor Siberian admixture. Thus, they do not match any modern European population, because all modern Europeans have one or more such admixtures. Secondarily, the Mesolithic samples have a component which, in modern terms, looks East African. This may be a remnant from the Paleolithic.

Dienekes writes (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/mesolithic-iberians-la-brana-arintero.html):
---
Due to the small number of SNPs, I pooled the two Mesolithic individuals into a single composite one; the K7b admixture proportions are: 9.3% African and 90.7% Atlantic_Baltic, which appears consistent with the position of the individuals in the European PCA plot. The sub-1,000 SNPs in common with the K7b do not give me a lot of confidence in the minority element, but, in any case, the high Atlantic_Baltic figure is what I would expect and appears consistent with the similarly high Atlantic_Baltic figure of the Swedish Neolithic hunter-gatherers.


UPDATE II: Using the K12b, the results are: 45% Atlantic_Med, 41.6% North_European, 10.3% East_African, 1% Sub_Saharan.
---

The Mesolithic samples were most certainly not from another planet.

That's important. It's more that they fall outside the range of modern variation, due to events which have affected every modern person in that particular region in the modern period. And of course different areas were affected differently, so some show more or less similarity to these people. In theory, many modern Europeans could be descended primarily from either Neolithic or Mesolithic populations, but the fact that they are all a mixture of both makes the old Mesolithic person an outlier, because there are no comparable people that share their lack of ancestry from a certain historical event. More of a continuous thing than a discrete 'Match' or 'Not a match' thing.

Jean M
10-23-2013, 08:29 PM
The Mesolithic samples were most certainly not from another planet.

Er. Did anyone think they were? :)

Jean M
10-23-2013, 08:34 PM
It's more that they fall outside the range of modern variation, due to events which have affected every modern person in that particular region in the modern period. And of course different areas were affected differently, so some show more or less similarity to these people. In theory, many modern Europeans could be descended primarily from either Neolithic or Mesolithic populations, but the fact that they are all a mixture of both makes the old Mesolithic person an outlier, because there are no comparable people that share their lack of ancestry from a certain historical event. More of a continuous thing than a discrete 'Match' or 'Not a match' thing.

Absolutely.

What we are discussing here though is specifically pigmentation genes. These are trivial genetically, in terms of the amount of DNA involved. I have no idea whether they were included in the relatively limited sample of autosomal DNA extracted initially. If they were not, then we simply do not have that information in any form. Right?

Anglecynn
10-23-2013, 08:46 PM
Absolutely.

What we are discussing here though is specifically pigmentation genes. These are trivial genetically, in terms of the amount of DNA involved. I have no idea whether they were included in the relatively limited sample of autosomal DNA extracted initially. If they were not, then we simply do not have that information in any form. Right?

Ah i thought Alan had said he was moving on to talking about autosomal components on their own instead. It would certainly be interesting to see these people's pigmentation genes, as it would shed some light on potential human activity since that period, as we know to some degree modern distributions of these genes, however autosomal genetics as a whole is a lot more useful. It's true that it would be risky to make assumptions if we don't have the data, although speculation is just speculation. I'm not all that interested in pigmentation but i'm sure it could turn out to be very useful.

alan
10-23-2013, 10:36 PM
Of course I understand mt DNA or y DNA doesnt have anything to do with colouring. All they indicate is patlrinear and matrilinear lineages. They are useful tracking devices of a sort, may tell something about relationships between populations but they tell us nothing directly about physical aspects. All of that is based on inference - much of it a leap of faith. There is simply next to no data on this sort of thing from the Palaeolithic and people jumping to conclusions about what someone looked like in 40,000, 30,000, 20,000BC in Europe are doing this on almost no data. I wish people would just leave this kind of phenotype stuff alone for now as their is far too little evidence except for far latter periods. Maybe in the future evidence will come to light but its very premature to discuss now. Its also seems to bring nordicists with golden haired noble savage fantasies out of the woodwork. Its weird how something of very little functional use like hair colour obsesses people.




As I explained above, mtDNA has nothing to do with colouring.

On autosomal DNA, the La Braña-Arintero Mesothic individuals did not match any modern Europeans. So much forum fanfare greeted the finding that they were more similar to modern northern Europeans than Southern Europeans that anyone could be forgiven for imagining that these two hunters of 5000 BC looked just like the Irish you see every day! :) But that is not what was published. According to a Spanish news story earlier this year ( http://leonoticias.com/frontend/leonoticias/El-CSIC-Trata-De-Hallar-Por-Primera-Vez-El-Genoma-Humano-Com-vn120073-vst306 ), Carles Lalueza-Fox and his team are working night and day to decode the whole genome of these well-preserved individuals. So we should know their colouring eventually. At the moment we simply do not know.

jdean
10-23-2013, 10:56 PM
I wish people would just leave this kind of phenotype stuff alone for now as their is far too little evidence except for far latter periods. Maybe in the future evidence will come to light but its very premature to discuss now. Its also seems to bring nordicists with golden haired noble savage fantasies out of the woodwork. Its weird how something of very little functional use like hair colour obsesses people.

Amen !!!!!!

alan
10-23-2013, 10:59 PM
What I am trying to say, maybe not very well, is a hunter gather in 30 or 20 thousand BC is not going to have the same make up as a late hunter wandering about northern Europe or the steppes at a time when farming was arising elsewhere. If genes all remained frozen in time we would all be identical world over. What makes peoples regionally distinctive probably took 10s of millenia. All we see in samples of late hunters is the tail end of 20 or 30 thousand years of selection, bottlenecks, founder effects etc etc. We cannot expect these very late hunters to be genetic proxy's for 30 thousand years ago. Everyone was a hunter-gatherer before farming and they all came to Europe from SW Asia ultimately so a lot of change in genetics actually happened in Europe and we have no idea of the pace of this. So, taking a late hunter from 4000BC or whatever to represent likely genetics or phenotypes way back in the Palaeolithic is just daft IMO

alan
10-23-2013, 11:13 PM
The notion that Upper Palaeolithic/early modern humans are distinctively European is based on dodgy use of very late skulls from eastern Europe and using the term Cro Magnon as a label a type of broad short faced robust but long headed skulls of that period in that area. This IMO is a bad idea to use a term originally applied to early moderns in western Europe and apply them to people from a different area and dating to 20000 years later.

This is why the term Cro Magnon is no longer used to describe the early modern humans - basically the term has been corrupted, stolen and the meaning changed. Again - same warning as before - too much is being back projected from hunters or nomads of 8000 or 4000BC in a misguided way of inferring what people were like 20000 years earlier. I have seen the original upper Palaeolithic early modern humans facial reconstructions and they range wildly in features from what looks like European to Native American-ish to Indian suncontinent to slightly African. I have also heard it stated that early modern humans in western and central Eurasia simply do not fall into racial categories of today - probably because these races had not formed yet as we know them.


I don't understand why I have heard people say Cro magnon didn't have Caucasian or whatever traits but have no sources. We have mtDNA from Cro magnon so far only Caucasian U and possibly HV's and RO's popped up. From what I have always heard they had Caucasian skull shape. Cro magnon are to recent to say they did not have a Caucasian skull shape or the Skulls are not well enough preserved to see distinct features. Why do you keep connecting Mongoloid to Caucasian it is Oceania and Mongoloid. It seems you have this idea of mystery when it comes to human history. You assume distinct racial features did not arrive till recently and that any Y DNA N could have been in early Caucasians and early Mongoloids. And you keep assuming its Mongoloids who connect with Caucasians when they actually connect with Oceania.

Since it is true there is a connection with light hair and eyes in Europe to North Euro which we know through ancient DNA comes from pre farming Europeans. Who can probably trace back to pre LGM(before 26,600ybp) Europeans probably even farther back. We can definitely say that Europe 11,000ybp was all pale skinned(of course nothing is 100% for sure) also that Europeans had very high amounts of light hair and eyes possibly mainly. It would also make sense that all the Europeans migrating out of southern refuges already looked like this and mixed with each other. What I am trying to say is there is a really good chance Europe has looked that way for who knows how long possibly over 20,000 years. There is so much time 10,000's of years they could have developed those features. I think it is not smart to assume it is very recent. But really we will never know unless we get 100's of inviduals pigmentation genes from across Europe from many different ages and even then you can say we don't really know.

AJL
10-24-2013, 02:10 PM
What I am trying to say, maybe not very well {...}

I suspect the problem was your interlocutor, not you.

Jean M
10-24-2013, 02:23 PM
I suspect the problem was your interlocutor, not you.

Me? No I understood Alan's basic point and agree with it. What I didn't understand was the reason for citing the Mesolithic as the point at which North Europeans look as they do today. Alan and I have a longstanding disagreement on this. I have promised him a pint of Guinness if he ever manages to prove that the first people to enter Ireland had blue eyes. :)

AJL
10-24-2013, 02:28 PM
Me? No I understood Alan's basic point and agree with it. What I didn't understand was the reason for citing the Mesolithic as the point at which North Europeans look as they do today. Alan and I have a longstanding disagreement on this. I have promised him a pint of Guinness if he ever manages to prove that the first people to enter Ireland had blue eyes. :)

No, his interlocutor in the other message, "hyrr hqfdi" (who was Fire Haired attempting to circumvent his ban).

{EDIT} Never mind, that was the next message. Disregard my previous post.

alan
10-24-2013, 05:48 PM
I am not committed to that idea. Its just that its hard to see how a recessive thing like light eyes can become so big in an area like Ireland, well off the beaten track of European migration, without it either being early or to do with a population replacement or intrusion with a massive demographic advantage. So, either the hunter-gatherers or the first farmers could explain this IMO. I just see it as bordering on impossible that lights was not established on one or other of these phases. I dont think there is any chance that it could be due to later waves on the whole.

I personally feel anyway that by 3750BC when Ireland was settled that the Neoltithic people had long ceased to be totally separate from the hunter-gatherers as they had apparently been in earlier times. So, the setters may have had a lot of Meso in them before even arriving in Ireland. I saw an analysis of the Gok 2 TRB farmer which put a rather different spin on him and made a lot of his ancestry Meso. according to the person interpreting the data. I wouldnt be surprised if the final waves of farmers around the northern maritime fringes c. 4000BC onwards turn out to have a significant amount of Meso. in them and contrast with the earlier farmers further south. I know its a different part of the genome but the recent mt DNA study by by Brandt, Haak et al showed a pattern that would allow for periods of incorporation of more Meso. lines from at least 4500BC. There could have been another period of local incorporation too of those who had not taken part in the initial 2 or 3 centuries of success before the farmers hit the skids in Ireland and the culture changed from the continental model. Time will tell.


Me? No I understood Alan's basic point and agree with it. What I didn't understand was the reason for citing the Mesolithic as the point at which North Europeans look as they do today. Alan and I have a longstanding disagreement on this. I have promised him a pint of Guinness if he ever manages to prove that the first people to enter Ireland had blue eyes. :)

alan
10-24-2013, 05:52 PM
You threw me with that word. I have only really heard it used myself for the go-betweens used between the paramilitaries in Ireland and the guys trying to get them to decommission their weaponry. I googled it and see now it just means someone taking part in a conversation.


I suspect the problem was your interlocutor, not you.

alan
10-24-2013, 05:59 PM
I dont like to dabble in the races thing but has anyone any thoughts on the weird rectangular low orbits of early modern humans in Eurasia? So many have the same orbits. Anyone got any idea what that orbit shape translates into in the flesh?

Jean M
10-24-2013, 06:46 PM
I personally feel anyway that by 3750BC when Ireland was settled ...

I'm not letting you wriggle under the wire with that one! :) The pint of Guinness was offered for proof of the very first Homo sapiens footfall in Ireland being attached to blue eyes i.e. those few Mesolithic foragers who came your way.

AJL
10-24-2013, 07:32 PM
You threw me with that word. I have only really heard it used myself for the go-betweens used between the paramilitaries in Ireland and the guys trying to get them to decommission their weaponry. I googled it and see now it just means someone taking part in a conversation.

Wow, I never heard it in that sense (though it was a high-budget word, I should probably stay away from those to avoid confusion anyway).

mcg11
10-24-2013, 08:06 PM
I disagree with your assertions re: mongoloid origin. My reference for this is a paper extracted from a book by Professor Rhys Carpenter, called climate and history. In that paper he asserts that there was a corridor all the way from France to Siberia during the last Ice Age. This corridor was a passageway for game to follow in search of food, and they were followed by the Hunter/gatherers of western Europe at that time. So, I would suggest that its the other way around and the analysis of their genetic profile seems to support that contention. Note that the book was: Discontinuity in Greek Civilization.

Jean M
10-24-2013, 09:42 PM
Here we go - Science has the full story. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6157/409.full


SANTA FE—Where did the first Americans come from? Most researchers agree that Paleoamericans moved across the Bering Land Bridge from Asia sometime before 15,000 years ago, suggesting roots in East Asia. But just where the source populations arose has long been a mystery.

Now comes a surprising twist, from the complete nuclear genome of a Siberian boy who died 24,000 years ago—the oldest complete genome of a modern human sequenced to date. His DNA shows close ties to those of today's Native Americans. Yet he apparently descended not from East Asians, but from people who had lived in Europe or western Asia. The finding suggests that about a third of the ancestry of today's Native Americans can be traced to "western Eurasia," with the other two-thirds coming from eastern Asia, according to a talk at a meeting* here by ancient DNA expert Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen. It also implies that traces of European ancestry previously detected in modern Native Americans do not come solely from mixing with European colonists, as most scientists had assumed, but have much deeper roots....

In his talk, Willerslev argued that the ancient genome "can actually explain a lot of these inconsistencies," by offering glimpses of prehistoric populations before more recent migrations and other demographic events blurred the picture.

The genome comes from the right upper arm bone of a boy aged about 4 years, who lived by Siberia's Belaya River. Those who buried him adorned his grave with flint tools, pendants, a bead necklace, and a sprinkling of ochre. In the 1920s, Russian archaeologists discovered the burial and other artifacts near a village called Mal'ta, which gave the celebrated site its name. Willerslev and co-author Kelly Graf of Texas A&M University in College Station, traveled to the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Russia, where the boy's remains are housed, and took a bone sample.

Willerslev reported that the team was able to sequence the boy's genome, and also to radiocarbon date the bone. The team then used a variety of statistical methods to compare the genome with that of living populations. They found that a portion of the boy's genome is shared only by today's Native Americans and no other groups, showing a close relationship. Yet the child's Y chromosome belongs to a genetic group called Y haplogroup R, and its mitochondrial DNA to a haplogroup U. Today, those haplogroups are found almost exclusively in people living in Europe and regions of Asia west of the Altai Mountains, which are near the borders of Russia, China, and Mongolia....

The talk sparked lively exchange, and not everyone was ready to buy the team's scenario, at least until they can read the full paper, which is in press at Nature. "This is a lot to hang on one skeleton," Mulligan says. Willerslev said during the discussion that his group is now trying to sequence the genomes of skeletons "further west." ...

The new findings are consistent with a report published in Genetics last year (and almost entirely ignored at the time) that used modern DNA to conclude that Native Americans have significant—and ancient—ties to Europeans. "Our group is very excited to see this," says Alexander Kim, who works with geneticist David Reich at Harvard Medical School in Boston and represented the group at the meeting. Reich's team found that populations they identified as Native American ancestors in Asia apparently also contributed genes to populations in northern Europe. Thus, both studies suggest a source population in Asia whose genes made their way east all the way to the Americas, and west, all the way to Europe.

alan
10-24-2013, 11:05 PM
There is ALWAYS wriggle room :0) It will be very tricky to find the first person in Ireland's grave given that there is only one formal Mesolithic grave site ever found covering the 4000 year period and it was cremations. I cannot see me getting the pint under those terms. Your money's safe.

Ireland though did have a pretty tricky position with the sea getting wider and wider after the Mesolithic arrival and then for several thousand years went its own way in splendid isolation with its weird late Mesolithic technology. So, whoever did slip into the island in the early Mesolithic probably created a very small breeding group. I am expecting webbed feet, two heads, wicker banjos etc with all the cousin love that must have been going on before the farmers arrived. I think I once read that Ireland was really only just viable and no more for a Mesolithic breeding network. Rather than typical colour of eyes I would be wondering more about typical number of eyes after 4000 years of interbreeding of fellow descdendants of a few small bands


I'm not letting you wriggle under the wire with that one! :) The pint of Guinness was offered for proof of the very first Homo sapiens footfall in Ireland being attached to blue eyes i.e. those few Mesolithic foragers who came your way.

alan
10-24-2013, 11:07 PM
Am very impatient to know more. Where the heck is Julian Assange when you need him lol?

Jean M
10-24-2013, 11:08 PM
The new findings are consistent with a report published in Genetics last year (and almost entirely ignored at the time) that used modern DNA to conclude that Native Americans have significant—and ancient—ties to Europeans. "Our group is very excited to see this," says Alexander Kim, who works with geneticist David Reich at Harvard Medical School in Boston and represented the group at the meeting. Reich's team found that populations they identified as Native American ancestors in Asia apparently also contributed genes to populations in northern Europe.

The paper in question is Patterson 2012.


We single out from Table 5 the score for French arising as an admixture of Karitiana, an indigenous population from Brazil, and Sardinians. The Z-score of 218.4 is unambiguously statistically significant. We do not of course think that there has been substantial gene flow back into Europe from Amazonia. The only plausible explanation we can see for our signal of admixture into the French is that an ancient northern Eurasian population contributed genetic material to both the ancestral population of the Americas and the ancestral population of northern Europe. This was quite surprising to us, and in the remainder of the article this is the effect we discuss.

Richard A. Rocca
10-24-2013, 11:22 PM
Here we go - Science has the full story. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6157/409.full

There is also a podcast (between minutes 21:00 and 30:00):

http://podcasts.aaas.org/science_podcast/SciencePodcast_131025.mp3

- They will sequence genomes from further west
- The sequence was taken from bone, so it looks like some of the challenges of working with ancient Y-DNA are getting resolved.

jdean
10-24-2013, 11:44 PM
WOW !!!!

WOW WOW WOW : )

soulblighter
10-25-2013, 12:53 AM
There is also a podcast (between minutes 21:00 and 30:00):

http://podcasts.aaas.org/science_podcast/SciencePodcast_131025.mp3

- They will sequence genomes from further west
- The sequence was taken from bone, so it looks like some of the challenges of working with ancient Y-DNA are getting resolved.

Willerslev should catch the next flight to Delhi and pick up some bones in Farmana. The Indians and Japanese seem to be in hibernation so far....
By the way, thanks for the link!

parasar
10-25-2013, 03:08 AM
Here we go - "Yet the child's Y chromosome belongs to a genetic group called Y haplogroup R, and its mitochondrial DNA to a haplogroup U. Today, those haplogroups are found almost exclusively in people living in Europe and regions of Asia west of the Altai Mountains, which are near the borders of Russia, China, and Mongolia...."

Is this R R1b by any chance?
Because if it just R*-M207, then I having trouble understanding the "Yet" part for R. After all 24kybp is close to the posited branching age of both R and Q.

"Haplogroup P diverged into Q and R at ~24.1 kya, slightly before the LGM."
Fig 1 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1310/1310.3897.pdf
Looks like about 1000 years separates the emergence of R-M207 and Q-M242
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G-47CuvgUzg/Ul7YmkNcYMI/AAAAAAAAJO0/QbG8MRvvhmA/s1600/china.jpg

parasar
10-25-2013, 03:49 AM
http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/10/ancient-malta-and-afontova-gora-dna-again/

Eske Willerslev presented an interesting paper on ancient DNA from the Mal’ta and Afontova Gora sites in South Siberia (24,000 and 17,000 YBP). Apart from the fact that Eske was supposed to report on ancient DNA from the Anzick (Clovis) site in North America and not on Mal’ta in Siberia and that he’s somewhat of a controversial figure in genetic circles, his paper may be the major breakthrough in our understanding of the prehistory of Siberia in the past 20 years. Pending further testing, Willerslev assigned the Mal’ta sample to hg U (mtDNA) and hg R (Y-DNA). This is the earliest attestation of these haplogroups in Siberia suggesting that these West Eurasian lineages were much more widely distributed in Eurasia in pre-LGM times and common in Eastern Eurasia, too. The results are consistent with the finding of hg U2 in 30,000-year-old Kostenki remains in Central Russia and support the pattern whereby the earliest ancient DNA samples (Tianyuan Cave in China with hg B, Kostenki with hg U2 and now Mal’ta with hg U) have so far turned up members of mtDNA macrohaplogroup R. While the dates of all these samples are consistent with 50,000 YBP chronological frame proposed by geneticists for the divergence of mhg R, it’s still noteworthy that not only is the most downstream mtDNA macrohaplogroup also the most widely spread among human populations, but also that it seems to be more wide-spread in the past than now.

Another surprising finding reported by Willerslev is that the Mal’ta autosomal sample falls between West Eurasians and American Indians (and is not close to East Asians) in a PCA plot and that ADMIXTURE analysis decomposes the Mal’ta sample into a West Eurasian, South-Central Asian and American Indian components (again without the (North)East Asian component). This suggests that a) in pre-LGM times there were no East Asians but there were Amerindians and modern East Asians may be a product of post-LGM re-expansion and an overlay on top of the more ancient population strata with ties to the New World and West Eurasia. On Willerslev’s TreeMix diagram, there’s a gene flow vector connecting the Mal’ta sample with American Indians (which Willerslev, on totally spurious grounds, interpreted as suggesting a migration to the New World and not the other way around, as the finding of an Amerindian-like component in West European populations indicates) but, in mtDNA and Y-DNA terms, the connection is not direct as mtDNA hg U is a sister clade to hg B (frequent in the Americas) and Y-DNA hg R is a brother clade to hg Q (pervasive in the Americas).

Very importantly, the Mal’ta sample did not turn up any of the common American Indian mtDNA and Y-DNA markers tentatively suggesting that neither Y-DNA hg Q (found in such Siberian populations as Kets), nor mtDNA hgs A, B, C, D and X were present in South Siberia in pre-LGM times. From an out-of-America perspective, their current presence in Siberia may represent a back-migration from the Americas in post-LGM and early Holocene times. It’s also possible that some of the instances of Y-DNA hg R found in North America do not derive from post-Columbian admixture but in fact go back to pre-LGM times.

Rathna
10-25-2013, 04:14 AM
"It’s also possible that some of the instances of Y-DNA hg R found in North America do not derive from post-Columbian admixture but in fact go back to pre-LGM times".

This is the interesting thing I spoke about many times:
1) hg R in North American Indians has been tested as R-M269 and interpreted like an introgression from Europeans. If not, R-M269 would be very ancient, probably more than the same Zhivotovsky method would calculate.
2) I have always found in South American Indians some haplotypes of R very strange that it wasn't possible to attribute them to Hiberians, who lack in large part haplotypes before R-P312 as we know.

And I would want to add that many R-V88 and R1b1 found positive for M269 by FTDNA could make us think to a mutation of M269 happened twice in the haplogroup, also in some R-V88 (see Italian Marchesi) and R1b1 (see Italian Mangino).

Jean M
10-25-2013, 04:41 AM
Is this R R1b by any chance?

I would be astonished to find that it is. The estimated date of R1b is some 10,000 years after this R child lived.


Because if it just R*-M207, then I having trouble understanding the "Yet" part for R.

The authors are saying that this R child had a genetic similarity to Native Americans, yet he carried Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups never considered to be Native American.

parasar
10-25-2013, 04:47 AM
...

The authors are saying that this R child had a genetic similarity to Native Americans, yet he carried Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups never considered to be Native American.

True, but they surely know that that early Q is closer to R-M207 than current R.

Jean M
10-25-2013, 05:01 AM
True, but they surely know that that early Q is closer to R-M207 than current R.

Naturally they will know that. We all knew that. And we all knew that R was thought to have emerged somewhere in Central Asia. But it was thought to have moved westwards without taking any part in the creation of the group that moved across the Bering land bridge. Had clades of R been found in Native Americans completely different from those in Europeans, then it would have been obvious that R had taken part in the early peopling of the Americas. No such Native American R has been found. So R was not suspected of involvement. Indeed it may not itself have been involved. Some autosomal DNA from the Siberian group seems to have made its way across the Bering land bridge, but that does not mean that R survived in the group by the time of arrival in what is now Alaska.

zaender
10-25-2013, 08:58 AM
I understand some people will be against saying there are Race's but its true there are genetic families which you can call races.


You can call it RACE, but you must not! Of course there many differences between people in phenotype and genotype, and we should not ignore them, because they are exciting, but RACE is a concept, implicating a sort of human VALUE, which was declined already by Humboldt at the beginning of the 19th century for very good reasons.

The term INTERMARRIAGE does not make sense at all.

lgmayka
10-25-2013, 03:04 PM
No such Native American R has been found.
Native Americans have plenty of R. But published papers assume, without serious examination, that all Native American R comes from European admixture.

Jean M
10-25-2013, 03:16 PM
Native Americans have plenty of R. But published papers assume, without serious examination, that all Native American R comes from European admixture.

My meaning should have been clear. No Native American R has been found which is distinctly different from the R found in Europeans. If R had come through the Bering land bridge before 15,500 BP, we would not expect its descendants in the Americas to look exactly like European R.

Never mind what the published papers assume. Have FTDNA projects picked up peculiar, non-European R in Native Americans? Do we have even one example of it?

alan
10-25-2013, 03:45 PM
I would bet on R asterisk but is R2 possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M124

Just about old enough and IMO this R child was buried just about at the time when life was really getting challenging climatically and a southwards route may have been one option.

Jean M
10-25-2013, 04:11 PM
I would bet on R asterisk but is R2 possible?

Hardly think Eske Willerslev would be talking in terms of "ancestors of Europeans" if he had found R2 + mtDNA U2a or similar. At least some mention of South Asia would be appropriate in that case! :) It seems most likely that if he had been able to identify any subclade below R* and U*, he would have said so.

Richard A. Rocca
10-25-2013, 04:18 PM
My meaning should have been clear. No Native American R has been found which is distinctly different from the R found in Europeans. If R had come through the Bering land bridge before 15,500 BP, we would not expect its descendants in the Americas to look exactly like European R.

Never mind what the published papers assume. Have FTDNA projects picked up peculiar, non-European R in Native Americans? Do we have even one example of it?

I had that very same thought Jean. The American Indian project at FTDNA is a mess, and surnames are of no use since they are all obviously Anglo-American or Ibero-American. The R haplogroups are almost entirely vanilla WAMH with even some obvious U106+ sprinkled in. Only a single R1 in the project, and with the SNP view not turned on, it is impossible to say what, if anything downstream was ever tested. The person might not even belong in the project as the kit is "Ungrouped".

Rathna
10-25-2013, 04:22 PM
My meaning should have been clear. No Native American R has been found which is distinctly different from the R found in Europeans. If R had come through the Bering land bridge before 15,500 BP, we would not expect its descendants in the Americas to look exactly like European R.

Never mind what the published papers assume. Have FTDNA projects picked up peculiar, non-European R in Native Americans? Do we have even one example of it?

This is a group of haplotypes of admixed Brazilians, where hgs. Q and R are in large part similar, and distinguishable only because the R (of probably Portuguese origin) belong to last clades with DYS392=13 and DYS393=13, but old subclades of R wuldn't be so easily distinguishable. But now YHRD publishes also a SNP test which is useful, even though in many cases many R1b are taken for R1a. Of course the other useful marker is DYS385a,b, but the values 13-14 are found also in R1b1* etc.

N 19 389I 389II 390 391 392 393 385 438 439 437 448 456 458 635 YGATAH4 576 481 549 533 570 643
10 14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11,14 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 17 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
3 14 13 29 24 10 13 13 11,14 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 17 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
3 14 13 29 24 10 13 13 12,14 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 17 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
3 14 13 29 24 11 13 13 11,14 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 16 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
3 14 14 31 24 11 13 13 11,14 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 18 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
3 15 13 29 24 11 13 13 11,14 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 18 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
3 16 13 29 23 11 12 14 15,15 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 15 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
2 13 13 30 24 10 11 13 17,17 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 15 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
2 13 14 30 24 9 11 13 13,14 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 17 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
2 14 12 28 23 10 13 13 11,15 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 17 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

parasar
10-25-2013, 04:34 PM
I would bet on R asterisk but is R2 possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M124

Just about old enough and IMO this R child was buried just about at the time when life was really getting challenging climatically and a southwards route may have been one option.

R2-M479 is possible, but as Jean says, it is more likely no currently known terminal marker was seen. Currently we do not know of any confirmed R-M207 (xR1, R2).
Though following the same logic - no mention of South Asia & "ancestors of Europeans" - it is possible the sample is R1b as South Asia is chock full of R2-M479 and R1-M417 and mtDNA U.

South Central Asia was mentioned only in an Admixture context as noted above in this thread.
"Another surprising finding reported by Willerslev is that the Mal’ta autosomal sample falls between West Eurasians and American Indians (and is not close to East Asians) in a PCA plot and that ADMIXTURE analysis decomposes the Mal’ta sample into a West Eurasian, South-Central Asian and American Indian components (again without the (North)East Asian component)."

Jean M
10-25-2013, 04:37 PM
it is possible the sample is R1b

Not in this universe Parasar. ;)

Rathna
10-25-2013, 04:39 PM
This sample is very likely E-M81:

2 13 14 30 24 9 11 13 13,14 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 17 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

parasar
10-25-2013, 04:45 PM
I had that very same thought Jean. The American Indian project at FTDNA is a mess, and surnames are of no use since they are all obviously Anglo-American or Ibero-American. The R haplogroups are almost entirely vanilla WAMH with even some obvious U106+ sprinkled in. Only a single R1 in the project, and with the SNP view not turned on, it is impossible to say what, if anything downstream was ever tested. The person might not even belong in the project as the kit is "Ungrouped".

I agree, each and every confirmed R looks Europe derived. Plus nothing much can be gleaned from that singleton Guaymi R1a sample. http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~tgschurr/pdf/Schurr%20&%20Sherry%202004.pdf

alan
10-25-2013, 04:51 PM
True although its age does suggest it came into being just before in an R line legging it south so its interestingly close in time to this guy in time and an interesting part of the story around this time of this burial. The date of the burial is slightly into the LGM while the age of R2 is estimate just before so maybe the start of the patterning of R happened within the generations around this burial. The R burial chap seems to have stayed in the grimmer conditions in the north as the R2 lines headed south.

I was chewing over and trying to work out what exact layer this burial came from. I thought he might be from the tail end of the middle upper palaelothic groups in the area but I am not sure now. He may be from the early part of the succeeding upper palaeolithic cultural phase which is the main cultural layers of the Ma'lta culture. The RC dates across the two phases overlap so its hard to say from papers that discuss layers and dates. However, my impression now is that the burial is from the main Mal'ta culture. I hope the archaeological aspect is not brushed over in the paper in the same way as happened at Kromsdorf. If it doesnt have an archaeologists interpretation within the paper it will be disappointing as it will lose a little of its big picture value. I would also like to see some discussion of the origins of the cultural layer the burial is within. It wouldnt kill them to have an archaeological section in the paper.

Reading between the lines, the middle upper Palaeolithic culture was replaced or transformed by the upper palaeolithic culture around this time at this site but not at the Afonovka site where it was abandoned at the LGM for several millenia before eastern micro blade elements arrived. So, the two sites seem to have differing histories. IF the burial is from this late upper palaeolithic culture that is present at Mal'ta but not Afonovka then the nature of the culture and its origins will be a major aspect of interest. There have been comparisons of Malta upper palaeolithic culture and Gravettian but ideas on this change a lot. If this culture really was very new at the time of the burial and the burial belonged to it, it would be interesting to speculate where the culture's origins were.


Hardly think Eske Willerslev would be talking in terms of "ancestors of Europeans" if he had found R2 + mtDNA U2a or similar. At least some mention of South Asia would be appropriate in that case! :) It seems most likely that if he had been able to identify any subclade below R* and U*, he would have said so.

Rathna
10-25-2013, 05:08 PM
236089 Coleman Miller, b. 1840 Unknown Origin R
12 24 15 11 12-15 12 12 13 14 13 28 16 9-9 11 12 26 14 19 30 11-12-15-15 10 11 21-21 16 15 18 19 32-37 12 12

This sample from the American Indian FTDNA Project whom Richard Rocca spoke about, labelled R, is probably R-V88+ and may have come from everywhere, even though doesn't match any haplotype found so far. Why not from Beringia?

jdean
10-25-2013, 05:09 PM
I had that very same thought Jean. The American Indian project at FTDNA is a mess, and surnames are of no use since they are all obviously Anglo-American or Ibero-American. The R haplogroups are almost entirely vanilla WAMH with even some obvious U106+ sprinkled in. Only a single R1 in the project, and with the SNP view not turned on, it is impossible to say what, if anything downstream was ever tested. The person might not even belong in the project as the kit is "Ungrouped".

If you're talking about kit no. 252419 he's also in the Hayes project.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/hayes/default.aspx?section=ysnp

also he's an exact match with one of the Z14+ folks in the Stedman DNA project, though of course at 12 loci that's not saying much.

Unfortunately I can't find Kit no. 236089 (who's MDKA has a fairly European name) in any project with SNP reports switched on.

However http://predictor.ydna.ru/ predicts this kit to be R1b1*-P25*(xP297) with 100% certainty, which is interesting in itself since I didn't know this system broke R1b down at all.

AJL
10-25-2013, 05:20 PM
236089 Coleman Miller, b. 1840 Unknown Origin R
12 24 15 11 12-15 12 12 13 14 13 28 16 9-9 11 12 26 14 19 30 11-12-15-15 10 11 21-21 16 15 18 19 32-37 12 12

This sample from the American Indian FTDNA Project

It is dangerous to start concocting theories based on a single kit whose Y ancestor is "Unknown Origin."

Rathna
10-25-2013, 05:26 PM
Why not to think that some R1b1* found in the Isles are the far relatives of those ancient Europeans who migrated to Central Asia and after to America?

122414 Lumsden Scotland R1b1
13 25 15 10 13-16 12 12 11 14 13 29 15 9-10 11 12 26 15 19 29 12-12-16-16 11 11 21-21 15 17 19 16 34-34 12 11

236089 Coleman Miller, b. 1840 Unknown Origin R
12 24 15 11 12-15 12 12 13 14 13 28 16 9-9 11 12 26 14 19 30 11-12-15-15 10 11 21-21 16 15 18 19 32-37 12 12

alan
10-25-2013, 05:48 PM
I was reassured to see that what I understand are out of date ideas about the Mal'ta culture are indeed interpreted as out of date on this site. This confirms what I had teased out from recent papers that the Mal'ta culture is very localised and dates to the start of the LGM while the Afonovka culture is post-LGM. So, they do not seem to be related at all.

http://www.palanth.com/legacy/index.php?topic=43.5;wap2

Richard A. Rocca
10-25-2013, 05:50 PM
Hardly think Eske Willerslev would be talking in terms of "ancestors of Europeans" if he had found R2 + mtDNA U2a or similar. At least some mention of South Asia would be appropriate in that case! :) It seems most likely that if he had been able to identify any subclade below R* and U*, he would have said so.

On October, 19th, German Dziebel wrote:
"ADMIXTURE showed West Eurasian, Amerindian and Southeast Asian (Pacific) components. No East Asians again."

On October, 24th, German Dziebel wrote:
"ADMIXTURE analysis decomposes the Mal’ta sample into a West Eurasian, South-Central Asian and American Indian components (again without the (North)East Asian component).

When asked about the South-Central Asian component, he answered that: "Unfortunately, I can't say: Eske flipped through that slide too quickly."

So, it is possible that it could go either way.

Jean M
10-25-2013, 06:08 PM
@ Richard

R* is the ancestor of R1 and R2 in Europe and Asia, including South Asia. So matching "components" in modern Europe and Asia is exactly what we would expect of R*. Alan's question was, could this Siberian boy be already differentiated into R2? That seems unlikely to me.

We know that R* is the ancestor of R2. No one is denying it. Alan's speculation of movement from Siberia into South Asia is all absolutely logical. But that does not make this particular specimen in Siberia 24,000 years ago R2, any more than it makes it R1b-U152 or R1a-Z280 or any other European descendant of R*.

alan
10-25-2013, 06:37 PM
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/.../2729‎


Hope this link to a Siberian palaeolithic chronology paper works.

I am getting the feeling from other papers that the RC dates at Mal'ta suggest that our R guy was actually at the end of the upper palaeolithic main sequence at the site. I have calibrated some of the other dates supposed to be from the main classic Mal'ta culture layer and he seems to come right at the tail end of this period living as he apparently did c. 24000 years ago. Most of the other dates are consistently a bit older. Perhaps one of the last generation to stop off there before a long hiatus of use of the site. It would be very interesting if the burial was of a group who visited for many centuries but who shortly after the burial abandoned visiting the site. That is the strong impression I get from the RC dates. I have heard he was badly malnurished in some old papers so it would make sense if this marked the last act before abandoning the area.

Richard A. Rocca
10-25-2013, 06:56 PM
@ Richard

R* is the ancestor of R1 and R2 in Europe and Asia, including South Asia. So matching "components" in modern Europe and Asia is exactly what we would expect of R*. Alan's question was, could this Siberian boy be already differentiated into R2? That seems unlikely to me.

We know that R* is the ancestor of R2. No one is denying it. Alan's speculation of movement from Siberia into South Asia is all absolutely logical. But that does not make this particular specimen in Siberia 24,000 years ago R2, any more than it makes it R1b-U152 or R1a-Z280 or any other European descendant of R*.

Well I know that, and I know you all know that. :biggrin1:

I simply said we would have to wait to see what kind of 'R' it really is. But at some point, R* split off and formed R2* (which likely occurred tens of thousands of years before the existence of R1b-U152 or R1a-Z280), so the possibility of the Siberian boy being R2, however improbable, still exists.

alan
10-25-2013, 08:32 PM
I cannot help myself posing less likely alternatives to the most likely scenario. Its a habit that I find useful. I do think its R* but I see no real difference between a late R* person c. 22000BC and a very early R2 guy. The dating fits either and at that stage we dont know where they were distributed and we cannot assume that they had the autosomal patterns of the main concentrations of R1 or R2 groups today resemble what they were like 24000 years ago.

R2 seems to be quite a lot older than R1 - I think its 25000 years ago against 18500. That is a difference of around 25%. So, either R1 was on a line that remained R* for a lot longer than R2 or they have had different histories with R1 struggling somewhat compared to R2 during the LGM - something that may makes sense when you consider the better climes that R2 may have reached compared to the rest of early R. Certainly the age of R1 seems suspiciously similar to the end of the LGM while R2's age dates close to the start of the LGM.

Actually given the age of 24000BP for the burial which implies he hung around in terrible climatic conditions into the LGM for some time I have just convinced myself that he wasnt an R2. Still I am glad I raised it and thought about it as I am happier in dismissing the R2 possibility now - well 95 percent anyway.



Well I know that, and I know you all know that. :biggrin1:

I simply said we would have to wait to see what kind of 'R' it really is. But at some point, R* split off and formed R2* (which likely occurred tens of thousands of years before the existence of R1b-U152 or R1a-Z280), so the possibility of the Siberian boy being R2, however improbable, still exists.

Rathna
10-25-2013, 11:44 PM
It is dangerous to start concocting theories based on a single kit whose Y ancestor is "Unknown Origin."

Yes, probably you are right. From the samples of YHRD seems very likely that these are R-V88+ of African origin, even though they don't match any known haplotype of African R-V88+. But the scattered presence of this haplotype overall in America shouldn't make us exclude a possible Amerindian origin.

236089 Coleman Miller, b. 1840 Unknown Origin R
12 24 15 11 12-15 12 12 13 14 13 28 16 9-9 11 12 26 14 19 30 11-12-15-15 10 11 21-21 16 15 18 19 32-37 12 12

1 15 14 28 24 11 13 12 12,15 12 12 14 19 15 16 24 12 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 SRY10831

1 of 1431 United States [African American] African - Afro-American North America

15 14 28 24 10 13 12 12,15
1
1 15 14 28 24 10 13 12 12,15 12 12 14 19 15 15 23 12 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 SRY10831

of 142 New Providence, Bahamas [Bahamian] Admixed North America

15 14 28 24 11 13 12 12,16
1
1 15 14 28 24 11 13 12 12,16 12 12 14 18 14 16 23 12 12 -1 -1 -1 10 -1 SRY10831.2

1 of 445 Brasilia, Brazil [Admixed Brazilian] Admixed Latin America

alan
10-25-2013, 11:47 PM
There is a minefield of fairly recent papers on the Siberian Palaeolithic sequence that is very contradictory and confusing. This one however is probably the best one and best to bear in mind when reading the other ones that have different views.

http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/cfsa-publications/Graf-JAS2009-36-694.pdf

It comes out pretty strongly on the LGM period as leading fairly soon to a massive population decline/displacement. This is probably worth bearing in mind when considering the context of the Mal'ta R burial. This paper broadly agrees with what I found looking at the dates from that site, calibrating them etc. There seemed to be an early upper Palaeolithic phase then after a very long period with not much evidence of settlement another phase just before and overlapping the start of the LGM. The burial seems to be one of the last convincing dates before the LGM created a long hiatus. That would be my best shot at setting a sketch of this site without actually ever being able to get my hands on a copy of the excavation reports.

What I am still wanting to understand is what the exact nature of the culture the Mal'ta R guy was part of, its origins and how it relates to what was going on elsewhere.

PS- The Wiki page is really bad for this culture

alan
10-26-2013, 10:31 AM
This seems to be a fairly modern summary of the excavations in the 1990s at Mal'ta and how some of the ideas you will see in Wiki and other older or out of date sources were overturned. It also gives some speculation on the connections of the culture

http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/Annrep/1998-9/events.htm#Dr%20Nicolas%20Cauwe



Dr Nicolas Cauwe

To complete the account of conferences and seminars held at the McDonald Institute in 1998–99 we must mention the visit in May 1999 of Dr Nicolas Cauwe of the Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire at Brussels. Dr Cauwe delivered two lectures on aspects of his research, one on his excavations at the famous Palaeolithic site of Mal’ta in Siberia, the other on Mesolithic burials in Belgium.

The Upper Palaeolithic site of Mal’ta (Irkutsk District, Siberia) was excavated between 1928 and 1958 by Professor Gerasimov, from the University of Moscow. These explorations were largely unpublished, however, and the opportunity to participate in new fieldwork was welcomed by Dr Cauwe and his team. Their three seasons (1995–97) at Mal’ta, in collaboration with Irkutsk State University, showed that all the archaeological levels were affected by glacial phenomena. It is therefore impossible any longer to believe in the ethnographical interpretations proposed by Gerasimov in the middle of this century, since in no case does the distribution of artefacts reflect the state of the site at the moment of its abandonment by the Palaeolithic inhabitants. Seven new radiocarbon dates, on bone material collected in 1995, indicate repeated occupations between 25,000 and 21,000 bp. The only comparable site which is currently known is Buret (some kilometres away from Mal’ta). The Mal’ta–Buret Group appears to be an isolated phenomenon, proper to the basin of the Angara river, without known antecedents or descendents. The lithic industries, however, suggest links with the Ienissei basin, Transbaikalia, Mongolia and the Ordos plateau in China, and form the basis for a new understanding of a distinctively central Asian Upper Palaeolithic.

alan
10-26-2013, 02:53 PM
Although the core of the report in focused on a different part of Siberia -Tranbaikal - this thesis is nonetheless very useful as an overview of the Siberian palaeolithic and also has some nice maps that help gets one's head around the geography of the area.

http://www.dissertations.wsu.edu/Dissertations/Spring2010/k_terry_040710.pdf


It is interesting in that it does discuss in the final part the issue of human movement and again raises the scenario that substantial parts of Siberia except perhaps the extreme south were abandoned in the LGM leaving it possible for late upper palaeolithic microblade groups from the south to recolonise large areas that had been abandoned. Our R boy at Mal'ta seems to have belonged to the latest stage of the middle upper palaeolithic traditions that abandoned much of Siberia during the LGM and were later replaced by the microblade groups from the south. I rather fancy that the latter were not R people and more likely the ancestors of the non-R Siberian peoples. So, again it seems that the Mal'ta burial was really the final throws of the middle upper palaeolithic culture of the area. However, I still am a bit unclear as to why the Malta-Buret culture is apparently rather unique.

Richard A. Rocca
10-26-2013, 04:26 PM
Although the core of the report in focused on a different part of Siberia -Tranbaikal - this thesis is nonetheless very useful as an overview of the Siberian palaeolithic and also has some nice maps that help gets one's head around the geography of the area.

http://www.dissertations.wsu.edu/Dissertations/Spring2010/k_terry_040710.pdf


It is interesting in that it does discuss in the final part the issue of human movement and again raises the scenario that substantial parts of Siberia except perhaps the extreme south were abandoned in the LGM leaving it possible for late upper palaeolithic microblade groups from the south to recolonise large areas that had been abandoned. Our R boy at Mal'ta seems to have belonged to the latest stage of the middle upper palaeolithic traditions that abandoned much of Siberia during the LGM and were later replaced by the microblade groups from the south. I rather fancy that the latter were not R people and more likely the ancestors of the non-R Siberian peoples. So, again it seems that the Mal'ta burial was really the final throws of the middle upper palaeolithic culture of the area. However, I still am a bit unclear as to why the Malta-Buret culture is apparently rather unique.

If the Mal'ta group abandoned their position, wouldn't they have gone south, only to re-migrate back north thousands of years later?

palamede
10-26-2013, 06:47 PM
Wikipedia reference to Mal'ta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal%27ta-Buret%27_culture says (ca. 18,000 to 15,000 BP) for datation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal%27ta_Venus says "These figurines are about 23,000 years old."

jeanL
10-26-2013, 08:46 PM
Here is a link to the science press release:

Ancient DNA Links Native Americans With Europe (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6157/409.full)

Some excerpts:



Now comes a surprising twist, from the complete nuclear genome of a Siberian boy who died 24,000 years ago—the oldest complete genome of a modern human sequenced to date. His DNA shows close ties to those of today's Native Americans. Yet he apparently descended not from East Asians, but from people who had lived in Europe or western Asia. The finding suggests that about a third of the ancestry of today's Native Americans can be traced to "western Eurasia," with the other two-thirds coming from eastern Asia, according to a talk at a meeting* here by ancient DNA expert Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen. It also implies that traces of European ancestry previously detected in modern Native Americans do not come solely from mixing with European colonists, as most scientists had assumed, but have much deeper roots.

[...]

Willerslev reported that the team was able to sequence the boy's genome, and also to radiocarbon date the bone. The team then used a variety of statistical methods to compare the genome with that of living populations. They found that a portion of the boy's genome is shared only by today's Native Americans and no other groups, showing a close relationship. Yet the child's Y chromosome belongs to a genetic group called Y haplogroup R, and its mitochondrial DNA to a haplogroup U. Today, those haplogroups are found almost exclusively in people living in Europe and regions of Asia west of the Altai Mountains, which are near the borders of Russia, China, and Mongolia.

[...]

The team proposes a relatively simple scenario: Before 24,000 years ago, the ancestors of Native Americans and the ancestors of today's East Asians split into distinct groups. The Mal'ta child represents a population of Native American ancestors who moved into Siberia, probably from Europe or west Asia. Then, sometime after the Mal'ta boy died, this population mixed with East Asians. The new, admixed population eventually made its way to the Americas. Exactly when and where the admixture happened is not clear, Willerslev said. But the deep roots in Europe or west Asia could help explain features of some Paleoamerican skeletons and of Native American DNA today. "The west Eurasian [genetic] signatures that we very often find in today's Native Americans don't all come from postcolonial admixture," Willerslev said in his talk. "Some of them are ancient."

The talk sparked lively exchange, and not everyone was ready to buy the team's scenario, at least until they can read the full paper, which is in press at Nature. "This is a lot to hang on one skeleton," Mulligan says. Willerslev said during the discussion that his group is now trying to sequence the genomes of skeletons "further west."

alan
10-27-2013, 01:41 AM
From the maps I have seen, a massive area of desert had formed to the south in the LGM that would surely have been fatal to hunter gatherers to cross at that time. It seems to me from those maps that the family of the R boy at Mal'ta may have lost the option of a route south by not migrating a thousand years or two earlier. They kind of got pincered between perishing cold conditions in the north and extreme aridity to the south. If they had left a little earlier they might have made it south before the huge band of deserts formed between Siberia and south Asia. R2 was old enough and has a pattern suggestive of the possibility that it made that journey early enough to beat the desertification. My impression is that the R* ancestral to R1 didnt and couldnt have made that journey as they lingered to the bitter end in Siberia - the Mal'ta boy really is the youngest reliable date for the middle upper palaeolithic culture before the abandonment and could have been practically the last generation to live there. If they abandoned just after - say 22000BC then they had to head west as there was really no other option.

Believe me I didnt think that until this new data emerged. Now we can see the date, the culture, the climatic situation etc that the R boy lived and died in it changes the options a little IMO. It just seems much much more logical for the group at Malta to head west north of the deserts of LGM central Asia. The best option to escape by 22000BC would seem to move along the extreme southern edge of the steppe tundra belt just north of the deserts band in central Asia - I would imagine at roughly the latitude of the southern Urals and what is now the northern part of the Caspian but was then dry land. After they reached the Caspian area - who knows. The Caspian was then much smaller and although deserts lay between the north and south shores, the shore itself surely could be followed. That sea was far smaller in the LGM followed by being vastly larger than today in the immediate post-LGM era. That would make archaeological recovery very problematic as the Caspian LGM shores are under the current sea. So, it seems unlikely we will ever be able to construct what went on around it in the LGM.


If the Mal'ta group abandoned their position, wouldn't they have gone south, only to re-migrate back north thousands of years later?

alan
10-27-2013, 01:42 AM
The wiki and hermitage museum entries are very out of date and confusing for this site/culture.


Wikipedia reference to Mal'ta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal%27ta-Buret%27_culture says (ca. 18,000 to 15,000 BP) for datation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal%27ta_Venus says "These figurines are about 23,000 years old."

Palisto
10-27-2013, 02:26 AM
Here is the original article Surprising aDNA results from Paleolithic Siberia (including Y-DNA R) (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/10/surprising-adna-results-from.html).

According to leaks from the Paleoamerican Odyssey conference, a 24,000-year-old Siberian sample from the Mal'ta archeological site, near Lake Baikal, appears genetically like a mix between modern Europeans, Amerindians and Oceanians...


Based on Dodecad Globe13 and HarappaWorld Native Americans cluster with Europeans.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?86-Dienekes-Anthropology-%28Genetics%29-and-Dodecad-Project-Thread&p=2472&viewfull=1#post2472
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1229-Harappa-Ancestry-Project&p=11790&viewfull=1#post11790

alan
10-27-2013, 02:52 AM
We know a likely R* person was living in local version of the middle upper palaeolithic culture of Siberia around 22000BC. We also know from radiocarbon dates that this was the end for this culture. We also know that this boy was at the tail end of the occupation of the site that had lasted a millennia or two. We also know that in general middle upper palaeolithic cultures had been present in Siberia for about 10000 years before the boy's death. Some say they have a resemblance to European cultures of the period.

This all raises the question as to how widespread was this R* lineage at the time of the boy's death? Was it specific to the Malta-Buret group or was it more general. Well the way I look at it, R*is probably at least 2 or 3000 years older than this burial. Karafet gave a central date of 25000BC and he seems to have slighly underestimated the date of R1 so I would allow for R* to be as old as 30000BC. Regardless R seems to have existed at least 3000 years before the death of the boy at Malta and maybe even a few more millennia earlier than that. That might even make R earlier than any of the Mal'ta-Buret culture dates. I actually have a hunch that the Mal'ta-Buret cultures represent people displaced there by the LGM c. 24000BC from somewhere further even worse effected.

Jean M
10-27-2013, 10:56 AM
Both assumptions by Eske Willerslev may prove incorrect if taken in literal terms.

1. Our likely R* boy in Siberia may have shared some autosomal characteristics with modern Native Americans simply because he shared same with people not too distantly related who carried Y-DNA Q, rather than his immediate family being part of the trek into North America.

2. Our likely R* boy in Siberia died about age 4, so he personally was not an ancestor of any Europeans. Whether any of his immediate family survived to trek westwards to the Caspian, we don't know. Fairly closely related bands of hunters on the steppe could have divided into different refuges as the LGM took hold.

This discovery is one very exciting piece of evidence. I'm going to annoy people once again with my eternal cry "we need more aDNA." :)

Jean M
10-27-2013, 12:19 PM
Gregory Cochran and Razib Khan have weighed in with their comments:

Cochran, The First of the Mohicans 25 October: http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/the-first-of-the-mohicans/


I talked about some pieces of this puzzle earlier: Patterson and Reich found an Amerindian-like component in Europeans, especially northern Europeans. Their first calculations showed such admixture in all Europeans other than Sardinians and Basques: later calculations found that all Europeans had this admixture, with the Sardinians and Basques having the least. Europeans (those they looked at) averaged around 25-35% of this Amerindian-like component. It might be higher in Scandinavia and the eastern Baltic. This is all theory, based on existing populations.

Khan, Burning down the trees in historical population genetics 27 October: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/10/burning-trees-historical-population-genetics/


This begs the question, do any populations exist in an “unadmixed form”? What does that even mean?

alan
10-27-2013, 06:29 PM
What is it with all those hate filled people trying to downplay the nativeness of native Americans. The bottom line is that whatever their genetic mix and whether or not it was partly west Eurasian in type, they still remain the natives. They still have actual ancestry on the soil going back to 14000bc or whatever it is regardless of what the mix was, while descendants of European settlers of the 16th century AD onwards remain just that. Many people have got a bit of both apparently. However, none of that detracts from what happened to the native Americans as a result of the European settlements. Some people seem to think that a more west Eurasian element among them somehow would undermine their distinct nativeness. That is crazy. They still preceded the ancestors of 99% of historic European setters by around 15000 years.

alan
10-27-2013, 07:29 PM
No wonder the native Americans are not keen on ancient DNA when there are people out there who will twist anything to diminish their native status. Maybe Kennewick man would have been tested if it wasnt for people wanting to use it ideologically to diminish their nativeness. Its kind of amazing to see people out there who resent them a few reservations, casinos etc. When you consider what the native Americans lost its really just crumbs. Yes time cannot be turned back now but to try and undermine acknowledgment of the horrible loss they suffered at the hands of Europeans and to undermine their historic nativeness based on twisted logic is sickening.

alan
10-27-2013, 10:17 PM
Of course I am not suggesting every person related to the R boy and Mal'ta west west. Obviously one of the points of the paper is the Amerindian genetic connections. I know that one of the refuges was probably in Altai. Also to enter the Amerindian population some must have not headed west and must have somehow ended up heading east and mixing with east Asians somewhere. So, there must have been relations who stayed headed east at some point. I presume that there may have been a population of R* and maybe the immediate ancestors of Q both sharing the autosomal patterns of the R boy.

Generalissimo
10-27-2013, 11:22 PM
Willerslev will get taken to the cleaners if his paper comes out in Nature and it actually says that Native Americans are 1/3 European or West Eurasian.

Europeans/West Eurasians and Native Americans as we know them today didn't exist when the Mal'ta boy was alive. P-M45, as well as R and Q, were specific to a long extinct population which probably lived in Europe during the Upper Paleolithic, but can't be describe as European in the modern sense.

alan
10-28-2013, 12:58 PM
I think those y lines seem most likely to have been in central Asia and Siberia before the LGM than Europe anyway. After that it seems that P, R*, R2 and Q were displaced in different directions by the LGM. However I would still feel the current date would suggest that if R made it into Europe at all during the pre-Neolithic era then it would only be the extreme east end.

I have been reconsidering the exact first fall of R* or R1* into the fringes of Europe. Lets say that Siberian R* took the route west to escape the squeeze between the northern deterioration and the desertification of he area to their south. That journey seems very likely to have been under way by 22000BC around the time the R boy was buried. An original location in Siberia may explain why R does not look likely to be a significant player in pre-Neolithic Europe.

An exit from a starting point in Siberia of the P, R and Q groups with R heading west also can be considered in more detail. I think R's presence in a non-Gravettian type group in Siberia as late as 22000BC explains why it didnt impact much if at all on pre-Neolithic Europe. If we consider the LGM conditions then the reasons for this become clearer. East and West Europe in the LGM were disconnected for a period due to the pincer expansions of the Scaninavia and Alpine glaciars and very harsh conditions in between. This would have been a barrier or major disincentive to spread west until the end of the LGM. So, I dont think there is much possibility of R spreading into western Europe during the LGM. Only at the end of the LGM does the Badegoulian suggest renewed contacts between east-central and western Europe. I dont think this relates to R. R at the time of the Badegoulian would have probably been in R* or very early R1* form and there is not much of a suggestion of this in the west. In general I doubt very much that R relates to the east Gravettian. I think its most likely that even after migration west the ancestral R* line leading to R1* remained on the Europe/Asia interface area.

As I posted before our present concept of north and south Caspian isnt really totally valid in the LGM as that sea was much much smaller that today at that time

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LK0O4XYbxUU/UZz4STLvPZI/AAAAAAAAA1Y/VBNCSYYBhoM/s1600/Pre-and-post-flood-size-of-the-Black-and-Caspian-Seas.png

The Caspian at that time - known as the Atelian Sea - was much smaller and even the northern shore, now under the middle of the sea, was roughly at the latitude of the Aqtau in in south-west Kazakhstan on its east side and the Azerbaijan-Russia border area at the Caucasus on the west side. So, I do not think we need to get too fussed about the idea of whether it was the north of south shores of the Caspian as modern geography was not relevant. Furthermore, this is all flooded today (and enormous areas beyond this were flooded temporarily in the immediate post-LGM) so the chances are we will, short of amazing underwater archaeological discoveries. never find the cultural identity of the LGM Caspian dwellers. I would comment though that other than the shore itself, the eastern side of the Caspian was a desert in the LGM and would not have been attractive. The northern shore would have been the sort of steppe tundra that would have been an attractive spot by people adapted to similar conditions. The south and west shores were a rather different environment, warmer but with only a small plain, mountains and a different type of fauna. There are no traces of the shoreline settlement because it is now under the Caspian. I would find it a little difficult to believe that there was major difference in culture among people focussed on the Caspian shores given that it was much smaller then. However, we may never know. The only indications we may have is of the post-LGM groups who were pushed out by the expanding Caspian in the post-LGM period and whose remains are not under water or buried by deposits of the temporary massive post-LGM expansion of the sea. So, IMO the initial retreat west of the R* line that led to R1* may be beyond recovery.

Towards the end of the LGM R1* probably arose around the much shrunken Caspian shores somewhere. Then if you look at that map linked above again you can see the incredible expansion that would have displaced groups from the Caspian deep into Russia up to around Samara and Volgograd, north-west Kazakhstan, the north Caucasus, east Azerbaijan, west Turkmenistan and north Iran. It is likely to me that the early R1* peoples displaced may best be looked at around these shores of the maximum Caspian expansion immediately post-LGM.

It is unclear to me if this expansion commenced the distinction between R1a and R1b patterns although it is tempting to think so. The shores of this maximum expansion period include areas like Samara, Volgagrad, the north and east Caucasus as well as north Iran which ring bells in terms of R1a and b distribution. It is just possible that this led to R1a being placed around Samara and R1b around the north and east Caucasus and north Iran.

However, it may not be as simple as that. Very early R1a and b groups might have existed already during this post-LGM expansion and may have not been divided into simple zones separate from each other. The evidence for this IMO is that old R1b-P25* groups and old R1a groups are both found in the south of the Caspian which suggests an early subsets of both R1a and b around the Caspian were pushed in the southerly direction. There is IMO evidence that sunsets of both were also driven north. P25* groups could have been pushed wide apart from each other by the expansion of the Caspian too with P25* paragroups being left in Iran etc and P297* arising from P25* elements who were pushed north and north-west. Certainly the oldest clade of P297 is M73 which looks like it may have started in the south Urals area to me. I suspect P297 was pushed north towards the Urals and west into the north Caucasus because Iran appears to have P25* but no P297* which is hard to explain otherwise. All of this is pre-farming and the placing of R1b and R1a beyond the early farming zone is essential to make sense of its non-branching and bare survival from perhaps 15000BC to 5000BC and later.


Willerslev will get taken to the cleaners if his paper comes out in Nature and it actually says that Native Americans are 1/3 European or West Eurasian.

Europeans/West Eurasians and Native Americans as we know them today didn't exist when the Mal'ta boy was alive. P-M45, as well as R and Q, were specific to a long extinct population which probably lived in Europe during the Upper Paleolithic, but can't be describe as European in the modern sense.

alan
10-28-2013, 01:28 PM
One other point I would make of the possible location of late R* and early R1* groups under the centre of the present Caspian in the LGM is that a body of water like this may have been attractive to the R groups. Isotopes and other data suggests that the Mal'ta boy had a very substantial fish component in his diet. So, they may have been well adapted to fishing as well as hunting mammoth, Reindeer etc that is attested at Malta, Buret and other pre or earlyLGM groups in southern Siberia. So, the Caspian Sea may have been attractive for a number of reasons to Siberians who chose to head west in the early LGM. Certainly the evidence of modern populations would suggest that some Siberian groups headed to the Altai plains as a kind of refuge (perhaps the ancestors of Q) but I get the strong impression that R* headed west while R2 headed south-west. What I would say is that R* people heading west in the LGM probably couldnt have headed south due to the desert until they reached the Caspian. Only when the Caspian was reached did the body of water and its shores allow survival conditions that would allow a move southwards through the desert latitudes of north central Asia. It was not a big sea at the time so once its NW corner of the sea was reached, perhaps travelling along the fringe between the steppe tundra to the north and desert to the south, R* could suddenly easily move south along its shores, something that would seem very difficult to do before reaching that longitude due to the central Asian LGM deserts.

I am going to consider the route west from the Balkai/Angara/Yenesie area towards the Caspian shorty. Two things immediately strike me

1. The historic east-west routes through Sibeia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_River_Routes
However, changes in rivers and damming of them during the LGM would need to be considered. Also, east-west portage between these largely south-north flowing rivers would still have been very large and what was viable on boats and horses in the historic period may not have been viable on foot in the LGM.

2. Whether the Aral Sea to the south of these routes could have been an intermediate point on that journey in the LGM. I imagine this sea was much smaller in the LGM.

3. The environments in the LGM. The devil would be in the detail but the desert block to the south seems consistent on maps of the period I have seen.

I would add that our lost LGM Caspian dwellers may have been quite distinct from both the Gravettian and Epigravettian groups in the Ukraine and SE Europe. I think its overwhelmingly likely that they were haplogroup I people.

alan
10-28-2013, 03:43 PM
I have been looking at the river systems in southern Siberia to the west. It seems to me based purely on modern river valleys (which admittedly is a dangerous assumption) that the logical route west using river valleys would involve going down the upper Yenisei to the plains of Altai (a known refuge in the LGM), then following the upper Ob until it branches off with the Om or Ob until it meets the Irtysh system which appears to link to the south Urals area etc. Superficially that route would keep a person north of the mountains and deserts of south central Asia to the south but at the same time about as far south as one can go in the lowlands to the north.

Again, this map shows where the area of Lake Baikal, the upper Yenesie and Angora area where the R* population sat in the LGM. The southern route was a dire option. The nearest escape for someone who left it as late as the people at Mal'ta would seem to the lowland area of Altai to the west which was near the start of the steppe-tundra zone which was harsh but teeming with animal resources. Again the south just doesnt seem an option for those who waited until the LGM and R2's southerly location and older date than R1 may suggest it managed to head south just before the LGM made that impossible. Moving south would only seem to have become an option once the Caspian was reached (note the latter is misrepresented on this map - it was in fact far smaller than today's while this map wrongly shows the post-LGM very expanded Caspian).

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/euras(2.gif

parasar
10-28-2013, 04:01 PM
Just noticed German Dziebel when asked today said he understood that both the Mal'ta and Afontova sites were yDNA R and mtDNA U. If that is the case its mighty interesting. The quoted date of 24000 cal BP sounds more like Mal'ta to me though. Afontova was abandoned 1000 years earlier as far as I understand and not reoccupied for nearly 10000 years.

I understand that an adult and a couple of juveniles were found at Afontova.

Afontova Gora samples are reported to be from 7000 years after Mal'ta.

"Eske Willerslev‘s paper was on ancient DNA from the Mal’ta and Afontova Gora sites in South Siberia (24,000 and 17,000 YBP, respectively) ... controversial figure in genetic circles, his paper may be the major breakthrough in our understanding of the prehistory of Siberia in the past 20 years."
http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/10/ancient-malta-and-afontova-gora-dna-again/

alan
10-28-2013, 05:28 PM
Its complicated because both of these sites have multiple phases across the upper palaeolithic albeit not exactly in synch. However, in this particular case the Malta sample was from the very end of the middle upper palaeolithic phase early in the LGM whilem although Afontova also had a similar although early abandoned phase, the sample at that site is from the post-LGM re-occupation phase by microblade using late upper palaeolithic groups. This means the Malta R boy and the allegedly 'mongoloid' Afontova person are from different periods separated by the LGM. So it would not be expected that they would be of similar genetics. Have you heard anything about the findings from the Afontova person. I expect him to be non-R.


Afontova Gora samples are reported to be from 7000 years after Mal'ta.

"Eske Willerslev‘s paper was on ancient DNA from the Mal’ta and Afontova Gora sites in South Siberia (24,000 and 17,000 YBP, respectively) ... controversial figure in genetic circles, his paper may be the major breakthrough in our understanding of the prehistory of Siberia in the past 20 years."
http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/10/ancient-malta-and-afontova-gora-dna-again/

parasar
10-28-2013, 05:31 PM
Unfortunately, archaeological records alone with the lack of human skeletal remains are inconclusive about the anthropological traits, which were characteristic for the Upper Paleolithic Siberian population. East Asian features thought to have been derived from early modern East Asians exist in the tooth from the Denisova Cave in the Altai region and in human remains from the Afontova Gora II site and indicate that the East Asians had moved into southwestern Siberia by 21,000 B.P. or even earlier (Alekseev 1998). Yet, the Upper Paleolithic artifacts from the 23,000-year-old Mal’ta site near Lake Baikal in south-central Siberia (Medvedev et al. 1996) have been found in association with skeletal remains that bear similar morphology with contemporary anatomically modern humans teeth from Europe thus providing the evidence for links between Siberia and the West during the Upper Paleolithic. Thus, on assuming that during the Upper Paleolithic the population of South Siberia was closely related to other East Asian populations, then during the Neolithic, admixture with populations from Eastern Europe probably occurred. The prevalence of European features among steppe zone inhabitants of Tuva, Altai, Khakassia, and West Mongolia became the most significant since the Bronze Age or even earlier (Alexeev and Gohman 1984; Alexeev 1989). The boundary of the Eastern European influence is clearly fixed at Lake Baikal. To the east of Baikal no palaeoanthropological find bears any traces of European admixture (Alekseev 1998).
http://malyarchuk-bor.narod.ru/olderfiles/1/HumGenet_Y_06.pdf

We now know that the Denisova Cave tooth came from a very divergent lineage:

Using DNA extracted from a finger bone found in Denisova Cave in southern Siberia, we have sequenced the genome of an archaic hominin to about 1.9-fold coverage. This individual is from a group that shares a common origin with Neanderthals. This population was not involved in the putative gene flow from Neanderthals into Eurasians; however, the data suggest that it contributed 4–6% of its genetic material to the genomes of present-day Melanesians. We designate this hominin population ‘Denisovans’ and suggest that it may have been widespread in Asia during the Late Pleistocene epoch. A tooth found in Denisova Cave carries a mitochondrial genome highly similar to that of the finger bone. This tooth shares no derived morphological features with Neanderthals or modern humans, further indicating that Denisovans have an evolutionary history distinct from Neanderthals and modern humans. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/nature09710.html?pagewanted=all

And,

The microsatellite data show that the O3-M122 haplotypes in southern East Asia are more diverse than those in northern East Asia, suggesting a southern origin of the O3-M122 mutation. It was estimated that the early northward migration of the O3-M122 lineages in East Asia occurred ∼25,000–30,000 years ago, consistent with the fossil records of modern humans in East Asia.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707630213


How do the above comport with what Alekseev posited?


The Mesolithic people of eastern Europe are definitely descendants of Upper Paleolithic populations i.e. massive bones, tall, broad face, and well developed nasal bones. However, from Kostenki* the skeletal remains depict Mongoloid features similar to remains from Choukoutien and Eastern Asia.
Noted by editor*"Kostenki was discussed in lecture 3. Reconstruction of the skeletal remains produces a strong adult with a combination of morphological features. Most informing is a strong development around the nose that is not typical for Europoid but similar to east African populations; however, Negroid nasal bones are flat while these from Kostenki IV are strong.
In this reference to Kostenki, Alexeev claims the skeletal remains have Mongoloid features. Therefore, the remains from Kostenki must have a combination of morphological features. Of importance is that Alexeev mentions Mongoloid features similar to remains from Choukoutien. Weidenreich's 1935? preliminary report is on the Sinanthropus population of Choukoutien. Thus at Kostenki is found a Europoid with some Negroid and some Mongoloid features. Arutiunov comments that the Upper Cave at Kostenki contains remains quite like modern humans."


Both Kostenki II and Kostenki XIV produced burials of Upper Paleolithic man ... The head from Kostenki XIV is the best preserved; no bones were destroyed except for the end of the nasal bone which had been crushed by the investigator. Reconstruction reflects a very strong adult individual with a combination of morphological features. The nose is very broad, similar to African or Australian. This strong development around the nose is not typical for Europoid but is similar to East African populations; however, Negroid nasal bones are flat while Kostenki XIV is strong. This find is a combination of features whose origin is different from other groups.

Thus, at Kostenki, we have both stone and bone tools and sculptures as well as houses, female figurines similar the "Venus of Villendorf", and the remains of Upper Paleolithic man ... from Kostenki XIV we have a tall adult exhibiting a combination of strong physical features which differ from typical Europoid. http://www.drummingnet.com/alekseev/ChapterIV.html



Afontova Gora II is located in Siberia and is the only site in Siberia to produce Upper Paleolithic remains. The find is a small piece of a child's skull, the central face and forehead, revealing a less developed nasal bone as contrasted to a strongly developed nasal bone for Europoids. This weak nasal bone is typical for Mongoloids.
http://www.drummingnet.com/alekseev/ChapterV.html

parasar
10-28-2013, 06:45 PM
Its complicated because both of these sites have multiple phases across the upper palaeolithic albeit not exactly in synch. However, in this particular case the Malta sample was from the very end of the middle upper palaeolithic phase early in the LGM whilem although Afontova also had a similar although early abandoned phase, the sample at that site is from the post-LGM re-occupation phase by microblade using late upper palaeolithic groups. This means the Malta R boy and the allegedly 'mongoloid' Afontova person are from different periods separated by the LGM. So it would not be expected that they would be of similar genetics. Have you heard anything about the findings from the Afontova person. I expect him to be non-R.

No, just what has been sketchily reported.

Nevertheless, putting it all together - R, U, Negroid/Australoid nasal base, some mongoloid features, etc, makes me think of a number of populations from South Asia. It is no longer the prevalent type in the Indo-Gangetic plains, but still exists all over India and is not to be confused with Tibeto-Burman mongoloids or even the Austro-Asiatic mongoloid type.
I will not be surprised if my ancestors were of this type - Gond (cf. the coined term Gondwanaland) - at one time. Even experts have had difficulty figuring whether folk like the Gond are Australoid, Dravidian, or Mongoloid.
http://www.ecoindia.com/tribes/gonds.html
http://www.ecoindia.com/gifs/gonds-tribe1.jpg
http://www.indiamike.com/files/images/09/62/11/dhurma-gond.jpg
http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/00895/nd17PeriscopeGondWo_895089e.jpg
SYMBOL OF BELONGING:A Gond woman displays the tattoo on her arm.PHOTO: S. HARPAL SINGH
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-miscellaneous/tweaking-traditions/article2807051.ece

alan
10-28-2013, 06:51 PM
I find that quote 'Yet, the Upper Paleolithic artifacts from the 23,000-year-old Mal’ta site near Lake Baikal in south-central Siberia (Medvedev et al. 1996) have been found in association with skeletal remains that bear similar morphology with contemporary anatomically modern humans teeth from Europe' very interesting although I am cautious because past writes did tend to make up nonsense about racial characteristics.

If true then that is interesting it is interesting that the R boy had European type features. I think it looks like the Europe-Asia divide did not exist then in racial terms and if there were incipient racial/phenotypical boundaries they were not the same as today. There seems to be a fair bit of evidence that up until the LGM there was a genetic continuum from Europe right through Siberia. I dont know if the word European is appropriate any more for that group as its more than that.

The east Asian person at Afonosova was associated with a technological phase that was a reoccupation from the south. However this is post-LGM. Then there is the rather exotic looking Kostenki who looked very south Asian/Polynesian. He dated to 30000 years ago, pre-LGM. Despite his exotic looking appearance his mtDNA was U2. I think in pre-LGM times phenotypical patterns were barely developing and there must have been a generic modern Eurasian human type. There seems to be no RC date for him and the quoted 30000 year date seems vague to say the least. It would make sense to me if he is either from the Aurignacian level as some quotes seem to indicate or is an early Gravettian migrant as the quoted date might indicate. Either way he may preserve an ancestral phenotype from the south.


http://malyarchuk-bor.narod.ru/olderfiles/1/HumGenet_Y_06.pdf

We now know that the Denisova Cave tooth came from a very divergent lineage:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/nature09710.html?pagewanted=all

And,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707630213


How do the above comport with what Alekseev posited?


Noted by editor*"Kostenki was discussed in lecture 3. Reconstruction of the skeletal remains produces a strong adult with a combination of morphological features. Most informing is a strong development around the nose that is not typical for Europoid but similar to east African populations; however, Negroid nasal bones are flat while these from Kostenki IV are strong.
In this reference to Kostenki, Alexeev claims the skeletal remains have Mongoloid features. Therefore, the remains from Kostenki must have a combination of morphological features. Of importance is that Alexeev mentions Mongoloid features similar to remains from Choukoutien. Weidenreich's 1935? preliminary report is on the Sinanthropus population of Choukoutien. Thus at Kostenki is found a Europoid with some Negroid and some Mongoloid features. Arutiunov comments that the Upper Cave at Kostenki contains remains quite like modern humans."

http://www.drummingnet.com/alekseev/ChapterIV.html



http://www.drummingnet.com/alekseev/ChapterV.html

alan
10-28-2013, 07:04 PM
I think though we have a number of issues. Firstly there is an allegedly phenotypically Europoid type at Malta c. 22000BC. Then there is a Kostenki guy who is U2, apparently of hot weather phenotype but who actually has not been RC dated. If he was really 30000 years old then he could be an early Gravettian immigrant from the south. Its very unclear though what his date is. I would feel that there were a lot of generic modern humans with southern type ancestral features in the early upper palaeolithic and this could have been refreshed again by later waves from the south by Gravettians etc. The evidence for dating of mongoloid features is pretty vague too and the Afonotova guy is post-LGM. I personally think that pre-LGM humans may have retained a lot of their ancestral tropical traits and I have read that many times. Reconstructions tend to show that the individuals in the upper palaeolithic do not fit neatly into a racial group. IMO races or regional phenotype patterns may have only really commenced in the LGM when people were pushed apart and into refugia and subject to varying forces.

The pre-LGM generic modern humans may have been somewhere in between all modern races. The really early modern human skulls in Eurasia often have a very distinct look with those deep set rectangular orbits. I understand that that shape of orbits is also an ancestral tropic thing and today more associated with subsaharan Africans.


No, just what has been sketchily reported.

Nevertheless, putting it all together - R, U, Negroid/Australoid nasal base, some mongoloid features, etc, makes me think of a number of populations from South Asia. It is no longer the prevalent type in the Indo-Gangetic plains, but still exists all over India and is not to be confused with Tibeto-Burman mongoloids or even the Austro-Asiatic mongoloid type.
I will not be surprised if my ancestors were of this type - Gond (cf. the coined term Gondwanaland) - at one time. Even experts have had difficulty figuring whether folk like the Gond are Australoid, Dravidian, or Mongoloid.
http://www.ecoindia.com/tribes/gonds.html
http://www.ecoindia.com/gifs/gonds-tribe1.jpg
http://www.indiamike.com/files/images/09/62/11/dhurma-gond.jpg
http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/00895/nd17PeriscopeGondWo_895089e.jpg
SYMBOL OF BELONGING:A Gond woman displays the tattoo on her arm.PHOTO: S. HARPAL SINGH
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-miscellaneous/tweaking-traditions/article2807051.ece

alan
10-28-2013, 07:08 PM
I sort of agree that there must have been generic modern humans of type intermediate between those known today and possessing ancestral tropic traits back in the early upper palaeolithic of Europe and Asia.


I think though we have a number of issues. Firstly there is an allegedly phenotypically Europoid type at Malta c. 22000BC. Then there is a Kostenki guy who is U2, apparently of hot weather phenotype but who actually has not been RC dated. If he was really 30000 years old then he could be an early Gravettian immigrant from the south. Its very unclear though what his date is. I would feel that there were a lot of generic modern humans with southern type ancestral features in the early upper palaeolithic and this could have been refreshed again by later waves from the south by Gravettians etc. The evidence for dating of mongoloid features is pretty vague too and the Afonotova guy is post-LGM. I personally think that pre-LGM humans may have retained a lot of their ancestral tropical traits and I have read that many times. Reconstructions tend to show that the individuals in the upper palaeolithic do not fit neatly into a racial group. IMO races or regional phenotype patterns may have only really commenced in the LGM when people were pushed apart and into refugia and subject to varying forces.

The pre-LGM generic modern humans may have been somewhere in between all modern races. The really early modern human skulls in Eurasia often have a very distinct look with those deep set rectangular orbits. I understand that that shape of orbits is also an ancestral tropic thing and today more associated with subsaharan Africans.

parasar
10-28-2013, 08:31 PM
I sort of agree that there must have been generic modern humans of type intermediate between those known today and possessing ancestral tropic traits back in the early upper palaeolithic of Europe and Asia.

Apparently Kostenki IV was an immigrant as other skeletal remains from UP Europe are quite different.

"The exceptional prognathism and enormous breadth of the piriform opening set the skull apart from all the other Upper Paleolithic skulls of Europe ... published in the atlas of Gerasimov (1964), is highly reminiscent of the modern Papuan, and G. F. Debetz, assessing the morphological type of human from the Kostenki XIV site, considered it to be evidence of the appearance of some group of people of East African origin on the eastern European plain."
http://books.google.com/books?id=e75T03MIp3sC&pg=PA225

http://donsmaps.com/images9/kostenkifig1415bsm.jpg

At the moment, the assemblages in the lowest levels at Kostenki do not have a parallel - they are generically Upper Paleolithic but without close analogue - and researchers are convinced that Kostenki does in fact represent one of the earliest outposts by early modern humans outside of Africa.
http://donsmaps.com/lioncamp.html

alan
10-28-2013, 11:00 PM
Certainly at the start of the Aurignacian and again at the start of the Gravettian it is thought people arrived from the Levant. So, perhaps he is one of the first generation migrants of one of those cultures. Problem is that the burial has not been directly dated and papers are vague about his cultural layer. Until they date the bones its value is diminished.


Apparently Kostenki IV was an immigrant as other skeletal remains from UP Europe are quite different.

"The exceptional prognathism and enormous breadth of the piriform opening set the skull apart from all the other Upper Paleolithic skulls of Europe ... published in the atlas of Gerasimov (1964), is highly reminiscent of the modern Papuan, and G. F. Debetz, assessing the morphological type of human from the Kostenki XIV site, considered it to be evidence of the appearance of some group of people of East African origin on the eastern European plain."
http://books.google.com/books?id=e75T03MIp3sC&pg=PA225

http://donsmaps.com/images9/kostenkifig1415bsm.jpg

http://donsmaps.com/lioncamp.html

Generalissimo
10-29-2013, 10:13 AM
I think those y lines seem most likely to have been in central Asia and Siberia before the LGM than Europe anyway. After that it seems that P, R*, R2 and Q were displaced in different directions by the LGM. However I would still feel the current date would suggest that if R made it into Europe at all during the pre-Neolithic era then it would only be the extreme east end.

Europeans are essentially a mix of Mammoth hunters and Mediterranean farmers. Here's a more complex way of saying the same thing...

http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2012/09/06/genetics.112.145037

The Mammoth hunters and their direct descendants belonged exclusively to mtDNA haplogroup U, and the Mal'ta boy was part of that family, so it's no wonder he was U as well.

So now you have to come up with a plausible explanation why the Mammoth hunters from Europe didn't belong to R, while those from Siberia did, despite the fact that they were both basically the same northern population that eventually formed modern Europeans. That's what you're claiming, right? That at one end of the mammoth steppe there was R, and at the other there wasn't any R, even though this was a contiguous area for humans and other large mammals.

And sorry, I don't buy the well worn excuse that R can't be of pre-Neolithic origin in Europe because it hasn't been found in any European remains prior to the Copper Age. See, the reason it hasn't been found in any Mesolithic or Paleolithic European samples, is because the right samples haven't been tested yet. I'm not aware of any hunter-gatherers having their Y-DNA tested, and until that happens I won't be convinced that R wasn't in Europe before the Neolithic.

Jean M
10-29-2013, 11:55 AM
@ Generalissimo

So you have given up the theory that the natural partner of Y-DNA R was mtDNA H? Must say I think that is very sensible of you.

Generalissimo
10-29-2013, 12:39 PM
{DON'T BE SNIDE/RUDE OR YOU WON'T LAST LONG HERE. READ THE RULES AND FOLLOW THEM.}

parasar
10-29-2013, 12:44 PM
@ Generalissimo

So you have given up the theory that the natural partner of Y-DNA R was mtDNA H? Must say I think that is very sensible of you.
I think that may be possible too - that H was there in Mediterranean Europe with R.

Generalissimo
10-29-2013, 01:00 PM
Hmm...not a truer word spoken, and this was back in early 2012.


So, a South Central European from the late Neolithic has turned out more Middle Eastern than modern inhabitants of the region. You can see that result on the first PCA below (a), where the Iceman (black dot) is closer to the Middle Eastern samples than most modern Italians (orange dots). Unfortunately, the article doesn't resolve why this is so. But one possibility is that almost all modern Europeans, except those from the Mediterranean coastline, have more Mesolithic North European ancestry than Ötzi, pushing them up and right on that PCA, away from the Middle East. In any case, this result makes it tough to argue that the ancestors of most modern Europeans (the Y-chromosome R1a and R1b crowd) arrived on the continent after Ötzi's kind (the Neolithic Y-chromosome G crowd). It appears as if they were already there, at the same time as the Iceman, and probably earlier, and then expanded down into South Europe later, leaving only more isolated areas, like Sardinia and Corsica, relatively untouched.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/otzi-iceman-more-middle-eastern-than.html

parasar
10-29-2013, 02:52 PM
I sort of agree that there must have been generic modern humans of type intermediate between those known today and possessing ancestral tropic traits back in the early upper palaeolithic of Europe and Asia.

Yes I would thinks so too. My understanding is that India was occupied by AMH after occupation of eastern Asia, SE Asia, and Australia, or alternatively evidence of an earlier occupation has not yet been found in India. NW of India (Central Asia, West Asia, Europe) was Neanderthal territory. Therefore my assumption was that colonization of India, West Asia, and Europe occurred from SE Asia. That is why I think we see this tropical type with australoid, negroid, and mongoloid features in the Upper Paleolithic.

See eg. Orsang Man: a robust Homo sapiens in Central India with Asian Homo erectus features http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/87/39/39/PDF/Discovery_of_a_robust_fossil_Homo_sapiens_in_India _final_version.pdf
"Asian like-cromagnoid” ... 50 to 30 ka ... Orsang man can be seen as the oldest Homo sapiens of the subcontinent"

Jean M
10-29-2013, 03:11 PM
Apparently Kostenki IV was an immigrant as other skeletal remains from UP Europe are quite different.

Think you mean Kostenki 14. His mtDNA was U2, in contrast to other samples from UP Europe, which are plain U* or U8, where we have reliable, recent studies. Kostenki 14 is at the European end of a trail through the Caucasus, while other anatomically modern humans entered Europe (it seems) from the Levant via the (then) land bridge west of the Black Sea. Although the material culture of the Caucasus trail is similar to Aurignacian, this group of wanderers may have by-passed the Levant and come more directly from the Asian cross-roads. It is not entirely clear to me.

J Man
10-29-2013, 03:29 PM
Think you mean Kostenki 14. His mtDNA was U2, in contrast to other samples from UP Europe, which are plain U* or U8, where we have reliable, recent studies. Kostenki 14 is at the European end of a trail through the Caucasus, while other anatomically modern humans entered Europe (it seems) from the Levant via the (then) land bridge west of the Black Sea. Although the material culture of the Caucasus trail is similar to Aurignacian, this group of wanderers may have by-passed the Levant and come more directly from the Asian cross-roads. It is not entirely clear to me.

Jean a quick question for you on some ancient samples. You have the two Sunghir samples from Upper Paleolithic Russia on there listed as ''unreliable.'' Some people for some reason think they belong to some subclades of mtDNA haplogroup H. That is highly unlikely correct?

Jean M
10-29-2013, 03:44 PM
Jean a quick question for you on some ancient samples. You have the two Sunghir samples from Upper Paleolithic Russia on there listed as ''unreliable.'' Some people for some reason think they belong to some subclades of mtDNA haplogroup H. That is highly unlikely correct?

See http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1420-Chronology-of-European-mtDNA&p=15891&viewfull=1#post15891
and http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1420-Chronology-of-European-mtDNA&p=15924&viewfull=1#post15924

[added] I have now expanded the explanation of the Sunghir result (or non-result) in the "additional information" column of my table.

parasar
10-29-2013, 03:46 PM
Think you mean Kostenki 14. His mtDNA was U2, in contrast to other samples from UP Europe, which are plain U* or U8, where we have reliable, recent studies. Kostenki 14 is at the European end of a trail through the Caucasus, while other anatomically modern humans entered Europe (it seems) from the Levant via the (then) land bridge west of the Black Sea. Although the material culture of the Caucasus trail is similar to Aurignacian, this group of wanderers may have by-passed the Levant and come more directly from the Asian cross-roads. It is not entirely clear to me.

Thanks! Yes XIV.
While it is true that Kostenki 14 was U2, I am not convinced of any movement from the Levant to Europe in the Upper Paleolithic. The movement was from Europe to the Levant. The entry into Europe, IMO, was from Inner Asia. I explained my reasoning before, a movement from the Levant would have brought L (x M, N) to interior Europe. Since interior Europe does not have any L(x M, N), the movement had to have been from a region where there was no L(x, M, N) and the Levant does not qualify, but Inner Asia does.

Jean M
10-29-2013, 04:13 PM
The movement was from Europe to the Levant.

Not so. There are Levantine sites which are earlier and clearly culturally ancestral to the European Aurignacian.

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I am not saying that anatomically modern humans moved direct from Africa to the Levant and then Europe.

The preferred idea now is that a group of anatomically modern humans left Africa across what is now Arabia to what I call the "Asian crossroads". By that time L3 had given birth to M and N. Some M and N people moved into South Asia from there. In the Asian crossroads N gave birth to R, which gave birth to U. Some U moved from the Asian crossroads to the Levant. From there some U went north into Europe (where it eventually gave birth to U5 and U4). Some U went into North Africa, where it gave birth to U6. Some U remained in the Levant, where it gave birth to U3. Some U remained in the Asian crossroads, where it gave birth to U2.

Some R also moved to the Levant then or perhaps later, where it gave birth to R0, HV and eventually H and V.

Click to enlarge:

850

parasar
10-29-2013, 04:44 PM
Not so. There are Levantine sites which are earlier and clearly culturally ancestral to the European Aurignacian.

The general idea here is that a group of anatomically modern humans left Africa across what is now Arabia to what I call the "Asian crossroads". By that time L3 had given birth to M and N. Some M and N people moved into South Asia from there. N gave birth to R, which gave birth to U - all in this Asian crossroads. SDome U moved from the Asian crossroads to the Levant. From there some U went north into Europe (where it eventually gave birth to U5 and U4). Some U went into North Africa, where it gave birth to U6. Some U remained in the Levant, where it gave birth to U3. Some U remained in the Asian crossroads, where it gave birth to U2. Some R also moved to the Levant, where it gave birth to R0, HV and eventually H and V.

849

I think this map needs some serious revision. As I had noted in my post above there is just no evidence from India prior to Orsang. Which means India did not participate in the AMH occupation of SE Asia and Australia as the map depicts. This actually has been known from the very beginning when the OoA coastal theory was proposed - that India is a complete blank for AMH in the proposed period of coastal migration.

These same folk who entered India in the Upper Paleolithic also entered Europe, and also E and N Africa. Somewhere in East or SE Asia (cf. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/45/19201 ) we should look for the origins of both M and N. Movement of N was the first one followed by M.

This proposal by Mishra, et. al., which while not covering mtDNA M and N explicitly, looks more logical to me. One change I would make is on #3, with the arrow coming into India from Sunda rather than from Southern Africa.
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0069280.g002&representation=PNG_M
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069280#B56

Jean M
10-29-2013, 04:59 PM
I think this map needs some serious revision.

I prefer to follow the experts on this topic. If and when the consensus changes, so will I.

alan
10-29-2013, 05:26 PM
efore Europe were of the P* or even KxLT line.

Jean M
10-29-2013, 05:36 PM
Konstenki man may have related to this as he is often dated to then but that is just a total guess as he appears not to be dated as such...

I have a date for him of 33,250 ± 500 BP, but I'd have to ferret around for the source.

parasar
10-29-2013, 06:10 PM
I have a date for him of 33,250 ± 500 BP, but I'd have to ferret around for the source.
The dating I believe was not iron clad.
"Based on stratigraphic evidence, it is older than 30,000 years but younger than 33,000 years"
"In the absence of direct dating of the skeleton, the stratigraphic position of the pit is the best indicator of the age of the specimen ... Radiometric dates
for this level indicate an age of about 30 ka ... based its stratigraphic context, the maximum age of the skeleton is circa 33 ka1, while the skeleton's association with the Gorodsovian layer III provides a minimum age of around 30 ka."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/MiamiMultiMediaURL/1-s2.0-S0960982209021393/1-s2.0-S0960982209021393-mmc1.pdf/272099/FULL/S0960982209021393/e5c556136674aab5d4a336df3a3dba84/mmc1.pdf
http://email.eva.mpg.de/~paabo/pdf1/Krause_Complete_CurrentBiology_2010.pdf

From Fu et al.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HZ-mvqzoPU8/UUyblc7CAFI/AAAAAAAAIt0/95ff83XouUE/s640/table1.png

They seem to think the Kostenki 14 dating is reliable:

For the direct calculation of the human mtDNA substitution rate we used ten samples. These included six samples (out of a total of 54 ancient modern human remains mentioned above) that were reliably dated and for which complete or nearly complete mtDNA sequences had been generated at a minimum of 3-fold coverage. The remaining four samples came from previously published early modern human mtDNA sequences. The specific sequences we analyzed were Dolni Vestonice 13 and 14, Tianyuan [29], Boshan, Cro-Magnon 1, Oberkassel 998, Kostenki [10], Iceman [30], Saqqaq [31], and Loschbour (Table 1). Radiocarbon dates were calibrated with OxCal 4.1 with the data set INTCAL09.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S0960982213002157#ExperimentalProcedures

alan
10-29-2013, 06:30 PM
I wont pretend to be very up on this but Siberia/Altai were claimed to have the earliest Aurignoid culture dates in Eurasia in some recent papers I have read. I dont have a clue which haplogroups would have been involved. I think it was something like 45000 years ago so that would limit the possibilities and rule out a lot of haplogroups that are just too young. Maybe KXLT or P????? Its so long ago I think its not going to have left much in-situ if anything.

I have been thinking about the implications of R in the tail end of the middle upper Palaeolithic of Siberia. Its hard to really think through this but as far as I can see its not a Gravettian type culture line. I suspect Gravettian is more from the IJ line and a quite separate new intrusion from SW Asia c.30000 years ago that went in I form direct into Europe through Anatolia and the Caucasus and didnt penetrate into Asia. I am suspicious that Konstenki man may have related to this as he is often dated to then but that is just a total guess as he appears not to be dated as such and the cultural sequence seems a bit vague.

I am assuming that the middle upper palaeolithic cultures of Siberia were descended from the early upper palaeolithic Aurignoid ones without further intrusion although I cannot say I am confident about that guess. If that was the case then R had a long period in Siberia and central Asia but was descended froma lineage that had moved into Eurasia in Aurignacian type times, a culture that may have had its incipient roots in Siberia/Altai c. 45000 years ago while haplogroup I might be a later Gravettian line from SW Asia/Levant that moved into Europe via Anatolia and the Caucasus c. 30000 years ago.

The big question mark this raises is what happened to the Aurignacian groups in Europe? After all, they did move, after a significant delay, into Europe compared to Siberia. That would suggest to me that they were not of the IJ type lines and may have been more likely some sort of earlier nearly extinct kxLT descendant. The great split looks to me looks like when IJK split into the Asia and eastward moving looking KxLT on the one hand and the SW Asian/European IJ on the other. The KxLT line just looks very much like an eastward expansion that headed from SW Asia along an eastern trajectory very early judging by its descendants. Many follow a southerly route east. The P paragroups seem to have a south central Asian look but we have to be careful given the effect of the LGM on northern central Asia and Siberia because whoever was there would have been displaced. If I had to guess, I would suggest that the very early upper palaeolithic guys who made it to east Siberia and then Europe were of the P* or even KxLT lines. The Asian branches seem to have done well but in Europe the evidence of KXLT or P-descended lines of 30000 years of age seems poor suggesting that the later arriving Gravettians really did out-compete them and imposed their I lines. The Gravettians didnt make much of an impact outside Europe and SW Asia and may have left the earlier upper palaeolithic peoples to develop their own way in Asia untlimately leading to K, P, Q R*, N, O etc there. IMO the northern members of this group living in Siberia really got the brunt of the LGM.

The issue of races has unfortunately been brought up and I feel the need to briefly address this. The two major branches -KxLt (leading to P, N, O and later R, Q etc) on the one hand and the IJ group share a IJK ancestor around 40-odd thousand BC with the difference that the KxLt line seems to have undertaken an epic journey east from the common source around the Levant soon after while IJ group would seem to have been less wander happy staying around SW Asia until 10 thousand years later. Racially they were one and the same person in c. 45000BC. You could argue that I descended from a group who stayed in SW Asia climes rather late while the Kxlt lines had headed east along southern climes but had made it to southern Siberia very quickly too. They Both must have initially faced only warm or moderate climates initially and shared the downturn too. I do not see any reason to believe that 6000 years in Europe would have turned the Gravettians from SW Asian (perhaps Kotsofeni types??) into the fantasy nordic hunters. If anything you could argue that the hunters in Siberia since 45000BC had a much longer experience of extremes that continental weather could throw at you than the Gravettians in Europe. In general I dont really believe that Eurasians were much different looking from each other for a long long time and I suspect only the driving into refugia in the LGM really even started this process and it was a fairly constant thing that continued well into the Neolithic.

AJL
10-29-2013, 06:36 PM
Could Kostenki IV be a Denisovan? The geography seems plausible and the Denisovan found was dated to about 40k ybp. This might also explain the atypical morphology (the Denisovan component peaks in the South Pacific, I believe).

Jean M
10-29-2013, 06:41 PM
Could Kostenki IV be a Denisovan?

I think you mean Kostenki 14. He is Homo sapiens for sure. He has never been regarded as anything else and his mtDNA is U2. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8435317.stm

851

alan
10-29-2013, 06:41 PM
I think the LGM has created a major problem in simple inference from modern distribution of early branches/paragroups of various haplotypes. I have posted already on why environmental and geographical factors may have made a simple move south on the same latitude impossible in some times and places. I think this could be a particular issue for south-central Siberia when the LGM would have presented them with worsening conditions to the north and desertification to the south, presenting them with limited options - Altai plains, moving much further west etc. This seems particularly a concern with haplogroups P and R IMO.

One line of thought I think is interesting will be the possibility that non-I groups of hunters might be involved in the non-Gravettian, sometimes considered late overlapping Aurignacian, groups that are seen in the upper palaeolithic. I recall there was a site in Russia where Aurignoid groups alternated with Gravettians suggesting that two different groups were around at the same time. I suspect the main European Gravettian marker is I and I wouldnt rule out the very late Aurignoid groups intermittently seen in places like Russia being related more to R than I.

parasar
10-29-2013, 07:39 PM
Could Kostenki IV be a Denisovan? The geography seems plausible and the Denisovan found was dated to about 40k ybp. This might also explain the atypical morphology (the Denisovan component peaks in the South Pacific, I believe).

Highly unlikely to be Denisovan or even Denisovan admixed. I think they came from an area west of the Wallace line (pre-U, perhaps mtDNA R), as populations east of the Wallace line are Denisovan admixed.
If they had had Denisovan admixture, Denisovan components would show some presence in West and South Asians and in Europeans.


The diversity of these genomes indicates that the Denisovan population had a larger long-term average size than that of the Neandertals (6, 7), suggesting that the Denisovans were formerly widespread across mainland East Asia. However, interbreeding with modern humans only appears to have occurred in remote Island Southeast Asia, requiring marine crossings and raising questions about the distribution and fossil record of Denisovans in Island Southeast Asia.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/321.summary

Jean M
10-29-2013, 08:03 PM
Highly unlikely to be Denisovan or even Denisovan admixed. I think they came from an area west of the Wallace line (pre-U, perhaps mtDNA R)

You are referring to Denisovan being mtDNA R? How could they be? Denisovan is an archaic type of Homo, who does not fit into the Homo sapiens mtDNA tree.

parasar
10-29-2013, 09:56 PM
You are referring to Denisovan being mtDNA R? How could they be? Denisovan is an archaic type of Homo, who does not fit into the Homo sapiens mtDNA tree.

Sorry, to clarify, the "they" referred not to the Denisovans but to Kostenki 14's folk.

alan
10-30-2013, 12:07 AM
Think I had problems posting this before but its a good paper on Siberian upper palaeolithic that provides and easy to understandable chronology

http://csfa.tamu.edu/cfsa-publications/Graf-SourPalTrans2009-479.pdf

Generalissimo
10-30-2013, 12:08 AM
So you have given up the theory that the natural partner of Y-DNA R was mtDNA H? Must say I think that is very sensible of you.

First you imply that I have given up on a theory (Y-DNA and mtDNA natural partners?) that I never held in the first place. Then you make a snide remark that it's sensible of me to give up on it. Not nice Jean.

But the real problem here is that you put your hopes on Y-DNA R not being present in Western Europe before the Copper Age, and you even wrote a book about it, so I can see why you're losing your composure.

Did you perhaps mention in your book that two or more very different populations lived in Europe until the Bronze Age, so that testing samples from one of these groups is unlikely to be informative about the others, even if they were neighbors?

I have some background reading that you might find useful.

Admixture date =/= migration date (aka. modern Europeans formed in-situ during the metal ages)

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/migration-date-admixture-date-aka.html

Hunter-gatherers and immigrant farmers lived together for 2,000 years in Central Europe

http://beanproject.eu/article/bean-research-published-science

alan
10-30-2013, 12:16 AM
Oh they must have RC dated him then. Sounds a bit to specific to be a guess!


I have a date for him of 33,250 ± 500 BP, but I'd have to ferret around for the source.

parasar
10-30-2013, 03:17 AM
Oh they must have RC dated him then. Sounds a bit to specific to be a guess!

That is what it seems to say in the Fu paper.
Kotenski 14: (14)C age calBP 37,985 ± 665

alan
10-30-2013, 03:35 AM
I would like to understand better the cultural strata he was found in. I know there are earlier Aurignacian layers but I am not clear on his cultural context. Thats seems to early to be Gravettian,

QUOTE=parasar;17829]That is what it seems to say in the Fu paper.
Kotenski 14: (14)C age calBP 37,985 ± 665[/QUOTE]

parasar
10-30-2013, 04:33 AM
I would like to understand better the cultural strata he was found in. I know there are earlier Aurignacian layers but I am not clear on his cultural context. Thats seems to early to be Gravettian,


The C14 dating would put him in the Aurignacian time-frame while the stratigraphic dating had put him later. Maybe his remains were displaced or the strata re-dated.
"But with the redating, Aurignacian is plausibly much earlier at Kostenki, as early as 40,000 years ago."
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/upper/vishnyatsky_2004_kostenki.html

There is an even older later:
http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/kostenki.htm

Jean M
10-30-2013, 10:38 AM
That is what it seems to say in the Fu paper.
Kotenski 14: (14)C age calBP 37,985 ± 665

I see that I used Maram 2012 for the date of Kostenki 14. You just have to click on my link. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/04/17/1116328109 I recall now that I had a discussion with GailT recently over the date and that is why I put the link into the table.

This paper also provides new dates for the Sunghir specimens.

AJL
10-30-2013, 04:30 PM
I think you mean Kostenki 14.

Right, XIV it is. I was pulling the name from parasar's earlier quotation.

alan
10-30-2013, 05:26 PM
Thanks Jean - very interesting paper. Seems the Kostenki burial does date to around 30000BC and was dug into an Aurignacian layer and then covered over by a later occupation.

This is a great little link that explains the complexities of Kostenki

http://instaar.colorado.edu/uploads/research/projects/kostenki/kostenki-encyclopedia-entry.pdf

What I notice about this article is that it describes both the layers above the burial, layer 3, at Kostenki 14 and the layer below into which its cut first appears as Aurignacian. So, this firmly gives an Aurignacian context to the Kostenki skeleton.

Its a very interesting complex of sites and although hard to generalise there is overall an interesting sequence.

1. Slightly mysterious (pre-40000BC) variety of early upper palaeolithic layers,

2. TEFRA deposits c.40000BC

3. Aurignacian layers centred on c. 30000BC on Teffra (Probably the famous skeleton is part of this phase - not the phase above it as suggested in this paper - there was no gravecut in the phase above)

4. Odd local early-mid upper Palaeolithic layers

5. Gravettian/Kostenki cultural layers C. 23000BC-21000BC with figurines etc

6. Abandoment in worst to LGM 21000-17000BC

7. Resettlement c. 17000BC by mammoth bone house builders

So, that is quite a variety of potential DNA inputs and that is a simplification. Even a handful of ancient Y DNA spread across these cultures could really improve our understanding.


I see that I used Maram 2012 for the date of Kostenki 14. You just have to click on my link. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/04/17/1116328109 I recall now that I had a discussion with GailT recently over the date and that is why I put the link into the table.

This paper also provides new dates for the Sunghir specimens.

alan
10-30-2013, 11:39 PM
Siberia seems to have had a few climate phases that had an impact and may have disrupted human settlement

1. 51000BC-46000BC-warm phase
2. 46000-44500BC-cold phase
3. 44500B-36000BC-warm phase
4. 36000-33000BC-Cold phase
5. 33000-24500BC-warm phase
6. 24500BC-17000BC -cold phase

parasar
10-31-2013, 03:26 PM
I prefer to follow the experts on this topic. If and when the consensus changes, so will I.

Below is Nat Geo's map based on recombinational analysis (based for a large part on Marta Melé's work)
Where would you put the birth of U on this map?

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/attachment/35881.wss?fileId=ATTACH_FILE2&fileName=Geno%20Project%20Human%20Migration%20Map_ print.jpg




http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/25/F1.large.jpg
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/09/01/molbev.msr213.short

Jean M
10-31-2013, 04:38 PM
I adapted the map by Genome Research Limited i.e. the Human evolution research branch of Wellcome Trust Sanger, headed by Dr Chris Tyler-Smith.
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/research/projects/humanevolution/ - you can see their map there. It is similar to the one by National Geographic, in that it reflects the idea that the L3 group out of Africa with descendants today crossed the southern end of the Red Sea from East Africa to what is now Yemen and Oman and from there across the Bab al Mandab.

There was a crossing earlier from North Africa via the Nile Delta into the Levant which left the fossils from Qafzeh and Es Skhul Caves, but the idea that this led to any modern descendants is no longer compelling, though it was still under consideration when Jobling, Hurles and Tyler-Smith published Human Evolutionary Genetics in 2004.

Bear in mind that such maps can only give a very rough approximation of where we think people went. The arrows on the National Geographic map should not be taken as meaning (for example) that a group went all the way to Ahmedabad before some of them broke off to move to Iran and Russia. The National Geographic map does not take into account the archaeological evidence of the two routes into Europe, one via the Levant and the other via the Caucasus. They are not marrying the genetics to the archaeology. The map is based only on modern DNA.

Jean M
10-31-2013, 04:40 PM
Simon J Armitage, Sabah A Jasim, Anthony E Marks, Adrian G Parker, Vitaly I Usik, Hans-Peter Uerpmann, ‘The southern route “Out of Africa”: Evidence for an early expansion of modern humans into the Arabian Peninsula’, Science, 2011 Jan 28;331(6016):453-6.


The timing of the dispersal of anatomically modern humans (AMH) out of Africa is a fundamental question in human evolutionary studies. Existing data suggest a rapid coastal exodus via the Indian Ocean rim around 60,000 years ago. We present evidence from Jebel Faya, United Arab Emirates, demonstrating human presence in eastern Arabia during the last interglacial. The tool kit found at Jebel Faya has affinities to the late Middle Stone Age in northeast Africa, indicating that technological innovation was not necessary to facilitate migration into Arabia. Instead, we propose that low eustatic sea level and increased rainfall during the transition between marine isotope stages 6 and 5 allowed humans to populate Arabia. This evidence implies that AMH may have been present in South Asia before the Toba eruption.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21273486

Jean M
10-31-2013, 05:06 PM
855

The routes into Europe, adapted from Mellars 2011 with additions from Hoffecker 2012.

parasar
10-31-2013, 05:23 PM
I adapted the map by Genome Research Limited i.e. the Human evolution research branch of Wellcome Trust Sanger, headed by Dr Chris Tyler-Smith.
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/research/projects/humanevolution/ - you can see their map there. It is similar to the one by National Geographic, in that it reflects the idea that the L3 group out of Africa with descendants today crossed the southern end of the Red Sea from East Africa to what is now Yemen and Oman and from there across the Bab al Mandab.

There was a crossing earlier from North Africa via the Nile Delta into the Levant which left the fossils from Qafzeh and Es Skhul Caves, but the idea that this led to any modern descendants is no longer compelling, though it was still under consideration when Jobling, Hurles and Tyler-Smith published Human Evolutionary Genetics in 2004.

Bear in mind that such maps can only give a very rough approximation of where we think people went. The arrows on the National Geographic map should not be taken as meaning (for example) that a group went all the way to Ahmedabad before some of them broke off to move to Iran and Russia. The National Geographic map does not taken into account the archaeological evidence of the two routes into Europe, one via the Levant and the other via the Caucasus. They are not marrying the genetics to the archaeology. The map is based only on modern DNA.
"The divergence of a common genetic history between populations showed that Eurasian groups were more similar to populations from southern India, than they were to those in Africa. This supports a southern route of migration from Africa via the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait in Arabia before any movement heading north, and suggests a special role for south Asia in the “out of Africa” expansion of modern humans."

Not necessarily Ahmedabad, but somewhere in southern India is what this analysis seems to indicate.


"we tested whether recombinational diversity was correlated with the geographical distance of Eurasians from South Asia, particularly south India (Figure 5) ..."
http://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/43813/1/tmm.pdf

But as I have mentioned before, to me Recombinational Analysis map looks wrong too as it does not match the physical evidence from the Subcontinent which was a sink not source in the Upper Paleolithic.

Jean M
10-31-2013, 05:42 PM
Not necessarily Ahmedabad, but somewhere in southern India is what this analysis seems to indicate.

No it doesn't. Modern peoples are the end result of moving around for millennia by their ancestors. So you can only get the very roughest sketch of an idea at continental level from modern DNA about the very earliest in that sequence of movements. Modern DNA shows pretty clearly that the movement was out of Africa and that it went to Asia before Europe or the Americas, which is what we would expect from the geography anyway. Since mtDNA M and N come before U, and M dominates in India today, we can see that fits the southern route across the Bab al Mandab.

We don't have to imagine (just because southern India today is full of mtDNA M) that the route then went all the way into southern India before anyone thought to move north. The modern population of India is derived from several waves of people who moved south into it.


But as I have mentioned before, to me Recombinational Analysis map looks wrong too as it does not match the physical evidence from the Subcontinent which was a sink not source in the Upper Paleolithic.

Exactly.

parasar
10-31-2013, 05:54 PM
855

The routes into Europe, adapted from Mellars 2011 with additions from Hoffecker 2012.

Thanks. Yes this would support your thinking.
I was under the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that the oldest European settlement is at Kostenki not in the Balkans.


Archaeological and chronological data from the Kostenki site in Russia have convinced researchers that beneath a previously identified 40,000 year-old Aurignacian component representing Early Modern Humans is an early, previously unknown Initial Upper Paleolithic component, with secure dates at least as early as any other known modern human occupation in Europe. This conclusion supports the notion that Early Modern Humans migrated to central Eurasia and out from Africa before 45,000 years ago, carrying a fully developed Upper Paleolithic tool kit with them. The conclusions are presented in an article in the January 12, 2007 issue of Science magazine, written by a research team led by M. V. Anikovich and A. A. Sinitsyn of the Institute of the History of Material Culture at the Russian Academy of Sciences, and J. F. Hoffecker of the University 0f Colorado-Boulder.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/kostenki.htm

The above was based on:

Radiocarbon and optically stimulated luminescence dating and magnetic stratigraphy indicate Upper Paleolithic occupation—probably representing modern humans—at archaeological sites on the Don River in Russia 45,000 to 42,000 years ago. The oldest levels at Kostenki underlie a volcanic ash horizon identified as the Campanian Ignimbrite Y5 tephra that is dated elsewhere to about 40,000 years ago. The occupation layers contain bone and ivory artifacts, including possible figurative art, and fossil shells imported more than 500 kilometers. Thus, modern humans appeared on the central plain of Eastern Europe as early as anywhere else in northern Eurasia.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5809/223.short

And if the latest date of Kostenki 14 from Fu is correct - Kotenski 14: (14)C age calBP 37,985 ± 665 - then this specimen almost merges into the oldest >40000ybp layer, making it likely that he was descended of those 45000-42000ybp initial settlers.

parasar
10-31-2013, 05:57 PM
No it doesn't. Modern peoples are the end result of moving around for millennia by their ancestors. So you can only get the very roughest sketch of an idea at continental level from modern DNA about the very earliest in that sequence of movements. Modern DNA shows pretty clearly that the movement was out of Africa and that it went to Asia before Europe or the Americas, which is what we would expect from the geography anyway. Since mtDNA M and N come before U, and M dominates in India today, we can see that fits the southern route across the Bab al Mandab.

We don't have to imagine (just because southern India today is full of mtDNA M) that the route then went all the way into southern India before anyone thought to move north. The modern population of India is derived from several waves of people who moved south into it.



Exactly.

Do you have any evidence at all that mtDNA M moved south into India?

Jean M
10-31-2013, 06:05 PM
What is the alternative? Are you saying that you think M was actually born in India?

[Added] Ah! I see from Wikipedia that I have stumbled into one of those protracted geographical tussles over a haplogroup! :\

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_%28mtDNA%29

The African origin theory:
According to Toomas Kivisild (2003)

the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N in India and among non-African mitochondria in general suggests that the earliest migration(s) of modern humans already carried these two mtDNA ancestors, via a departure route over the Horn of Africa."

v The Indian origin theory.
Chandrasekar et al (2009)


Our findings, (for example, deep time depth >50,000 years of western, central, southern and eastern Indian haplogroups M2, M38, M54, M58, M33, M6, M61, M62 and distribution of macrohaplogroup M) do not rule out the possibility of macrohaplogroup M arising in Indian population.

parasar
10-31-2013, 06:50 PM
What is the alternative? Are you saying that you think M was actually born in India?

No, I think it came from outside into India. M must have entered India after N. I had mentioned Sunda as a possibility for the source. But somewhere in Southern China is possible too.
It must have entered either through north-eastern India or the south.This is not inconsistent with the age of M, approximately 20000ybp in Africa and much older in eastern Asia.

"The Indian M haplogroup founder age has been estimated as 66,000±9,000 years. The coalescence age of East Asian M lineages in Northeast India (69,000±7,000 years) is similar to the East Asian (69,000±5000 years by [11] ) age. Coalescence time of macrohaplogroup M in India has been estimated using synonymous mutation rate (3.5×10−8) [56] which is (36,000±3,000 years) less than the estimate (46,000±5,000 years) by [56] for M haplogroup in Asia."
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007447

Jean M
10-31-2013, 06:50 PM
Verónica Fernandes et al., The Arabian Cradle: Mitochondrial Relicts of the First Steps along the Southern Route out of Africa, AJHG, Volume 90, Issue 2, 10 February 2012, Pages 347–355 get us a bit further. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929711005453

parasar
10-31-2013, 07:50 PM
Verónica Fernandes et al., The Arabian Cradle: Mitochondrial Relicts of the First Steps along the Southern Route out of Africa, AJHG, Volume 90, Issue 2, 10 February 2012, Pages 347–355 get us a bit further. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929711005453

Right, and this is what they say about M:

Haplogroup M, on the other hand, is found primarily in the Indian subcontinent and farther east and has a single subclade, M1, that spread back into the Mediterranean region and eastern Africa during the Late Pleistocene
So clearly, M was not in their posited cradle.

For N, they say "N1c represents the earliest, at ∼47 ka old" and overall: "The first branch, N1a′c′d′e′I, comprises a series of subclades (N1a, N1c, N1d, N1e, and I) dating to 46–57 ka ago" which as they mention includes N1d. We have ages of many downstream lines in India calculated to be older than that. IMO, these calculations are not panning out.

We have 40000ybp ancient physical evidence from northern China which is an N derivative B, and this specimen even at that old date was diverged from ancestors of Europeans.
"this early modern human was related to the ancestors of many present-day Asians and Native Americans but had already diverged genetically from the ancestors of present-day Europeans" http://www.mpg.de/6842535/dna-Tianyuan-cave

So even if humans came out of Africa through Arabia (very possible, as the only other options look to be Sainai or Gibraltar - I cannot imagine a trans-oceanic migration at that time), it is much earlier than the 50-60000ybp date given and likely not through India.

parasar
11-01-2013, 03:53 PM
I am intrigued to see the South East Asian component in the finds, maybe this theory (albeit dated) of Rahul Sankrtyayan's has something to it.

792
From Rahul Sankrtyayan’s – Madhya-Asia ka Itihas (Rahula Sankrityayana, 'Madhyasiya Ka Itihas', 2 Vol., Patna, 1956-57 http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/sankrit.htm )

In the map above he is showing the country of what he calls the home of the “Shak-Arya” - the northern part later became the area of the nomadic Shak and the southern part that of the more settled Arya after the latter absorbed the advanced Munda-Dravid (his term for a widespread non-IE umbrella) culture.

Rahul Sankrtyayan saw the sequence as follows:

He says that in the Archaeolithic (>30000ybp, Upper Paleolithic?) there was a migration of humans from south-east and/or south asia to central asia.

Two cultures developed in the region from descendants of these migrants by the early neolithic – one that of the Shak-arya another of the Munda-dravids. The former occupied the region circumscribed in the map (which includes the Altai as is termed by him - Uttara Patha) while the latter occupied the Indus region & Iran during 7000 to 5000bc. This means that he makes Iran and Indus non-IE during the 7000-5000bc time frame.

At the end of that period (Microlithic) the whole of central asia from Finland/Ural to India changes in character and the Shak-aryas migrate to Europe.

In the late Neolithic/3000bc the Shak-aryas return from Europe and split Asia into two – northern Finno-Ugric and southern Dravids (Iran & India). It is during their period in Europe - 5000 -3000bc - that the centum/satem split occurs. After returning to Central Asia in 3000bc, the southern part become the Iranic-Indic aryas by absorbing the advanced culture of the Iranian highlands and Indus valley while the northern Shaks retained their nomadic lifestyle. The northern Shaks who are related to the Aryas make periodic incursions into the Aryan areas in the historical period and leave a significant imprint on the sub-continent.

Rahul Sankrytyayan is informed in his analysis mainly by Soviet archaeologists and their studies on cave shadow preserved remains.

I came across a post by German Dziebel that indeed shows a Earth Diver myth connection between the Mal'ta folk and the Munda.


Earth-Diver is one of the most widely-distributed and well-studied cosmological myths. Found in mostly Uralic-speaking Eastern Europe, in Siberia, in Munda-speaking Northeast India and North America ... Remarkably, very similar figurines are found at the 24,000-year-old Mal’ta archaeological site in South Siberia ... This means that the Earth-Diver motif may go back to pre-LGM times ...

Remarkably, the use of arthropods by the demiurge is a trait shared by Munda-speaking Northeast Indians (see the Berezkin map of Eurasia above) and the Muskogean-speaking Amerindians from the Southeast, both areas being the southernmost extremes of the Earth-Diver distribution.

As the Mal’ta boy is re-writing the prehistory of Eurasia, opportunities are growing for cross-disciplinary integration that would tie together genes and culture into a coherent story.
http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Anthropogenesis-EarthDiverMap.jpg
http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/10/genes-and-myths-ancient-malta-dna-and-the-earth-diver-mythological-motif/

Also,

The fact that EDAR is detected in Munda makes me think that it’s older than usually portrayed (African, Australian and European populations independently lost it under selection?) and represents the early east-to-west migration from East Asia into India and West Asia carrying mtDNA M, N and R lineages and Y-DNA DE, P*, F and C lineages. http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/10/origin-of-indian-austroasiatic-speakers.html

soulblighter
11-01-2013, 04:36 PM
I came across a post by German Dziebel that indeed shows a Earth Driver myth connection between the Mal'ta folk and the Munda.


http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Anthropogenesis-EarthDiverMap.jpg
http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/10/genes-and-myths-ancient-malta-dna-and-the-earth-diver-mythological-motif/

Also,
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/10/origin-of-indian-austroasiatic-speakers.html



I always wondered if the myth of Varaha (bringing earth from the deep water) in Vishnu Purana was inspired by the Munda creation myth: http://www.panchangam.com/varaha.htm while on the flip side, the myth about Singbonga (Munda creator) arising out of a lotus and sitting on it while commanding creatures to dive into the waters to retrieve mud to create the earth, was influenced by the story in the Rig Veda and other Hindu literature regarding Padmanabha (concerning the lotus that is)...

parasar
11-01-2013, 05:22 PM
I always wondered if the myth of Varaha (bringing earth from the deep water) in Vishnu Purana was inspired by the Munda creation myth: http://www.panchangam.com/varaha.htm while on the flip side, the myth about Singbonga (Munda creator) arising out of a lotus and sitting on it while commanding creatures to dive into the waters to retrieve mud to create the earth, was influenced by the story in the Rig Veda and other Hindu literature regarding Padmanabha (concerning the lotus that is)...
Thanks. Yes, they do look very similar.
Many of these myths have some meaning, perhaps pointing to a geologic event.

Vishnu Purana & the Earth Diver Creation Myth http://books.google.com/books?id=9I62BcuPxfYC&pg=PA24
please also see pg 25 the turtle and the four elephants of Native Americans is interesting, as it is exactly the same as what is told in India.

In Hindu mythology the world is thought to rest on the backs of four elephants who stand on the shell of a turtle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_turtles

http://www.ederington.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/turtle.jpghttp://www.ederington.com/category/animals/turtles
http://www.grg.org/charter/Brain12Civilization_files/image001.gifhttp://www.grg.org/charter/Brain12Civilization.htm
http://www.native-science.net/images/Turtle.06.jpg

alan
11-01-2013, 06:22 PM
So, looking at the human y chromosome tree and the geography of the north and south central Asia, I take it the most logical bet for the arrival of the ancestors of R in Siberia is that some P went through Iran and then went through the various former USSR -stan countries avoiding the massively mountanous area to the south? A lot of it is desert now but presumably wasnt 40000 years ago. If so, there should be some sort of ancestral trail. I did come across a number of references to early upper palaeolithic material in Siberia but I am not sure how it links up with material across the ex-USSR -stan countries in central Asia. Clearly there should be some sort of trail.

alan
11-01-2013, 09:01 PM
Trying to look into early upper palaeolithic migration patterns in central Asia is problematic due to the number of writers using the Derevianko type ideas which by definition makes migration less likely to be discussed.

parasar
11-04-2013, 02:53 PM
...

This proposal by Mishra, et. al., which while not covering mtDNA M and N explicitly, looks more logical to me. One change I would make is on #3, with the arrow coming into India from Sunda rather than from Southern Africa.
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0069280.g002&representation=PNG_M
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069280#B56

"A formal taxonomic review defines the early [American] Paleoindian groups as Otomid-Sundadonts and compares conventional paleontological methodology with methods used in physical anthropology" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16176057

parasar
11-05-2013, 08:08 PM
From http://donsmaps.com/malta.html

http://donsmaps.com/images24/maltahermitageplatebacksm.jpg

On one side of the plate we can see three snakes. The snake is rare in northern hemisphere Paleolithic art, presumably because the cold conditions precluded a wide distribution of snakes. In addition, it can be seen that the snakes have very broad heads, as though they belong to the Cobra group - yet Cobras are now known only in southern asian localities.
http://donsmaps.com/images24/cobradistributionmap.jpg


So the puzzle is, are the engravings of cobras, in which case how did the artist ever see them, or is there some other interpretation possible?

Are the illustrations perhaps maps of rivers proceeding from glacial lakes?

alan
11-05-2013, 08:58 PM
Maybe the hunting band had traditional tattoos that were copied generation after generation and originated in better climates some ancestors knew. Also, the middle upper Palaeolithic culture which Malta was a very late generation of lived through a warm period c. 33000-24000BC so maybe the range of these creatures was different then.


From http://donsmaps.com/malta.html

http://donsmaps.com/images24/maltahermitageplatebacksm.jpg

http://donsmaps.com/images24/cobradistributionmap.jpg

jdean
11-05-2013, 10:55 PM
Maybe the hunting band had traditional tattoos that were copied generation after generation and originated in better climates some ancestors knew. Also, the middle upper Palaeolithic culture which Malta was a very late generation of lived through a warm period c. 33000-24000BC so maybe the range of these creatures was different then.

And may be they aren't snakes at all.

Rivers has been offered as an explanation, but they could just be wiggly lines (a pleasing pattern) and off the cuff they don't look to unlike tadpoles : )_

parasar
11-06-2013, 06:30 PM
Can someone confirm if is indeed the case:
"In Native American myth our world is supported by four Elephants standing on the back of a giant Turtle who swims with it through the Sea of Infinity."
http://books.google.com/books?id=9I62BcuPxfYC&pg=PA25