R1* in North America, South-East Asia and Australia

The original R yDNA can have existed very early in Europe, and moved south during the last ice age.

The geneticists' current age estimates for R1b - and this is what we are dealing with here - "are all more recent than the Last Glacial Maximum" (Wikipedia). However, the ice bridge theory would require R1b being in Western Europe during the LGM at the latest. That is what I am wondering about: when did R1b appear in Western Europe?

The R population adapted the cold climate, and part of them moved across the Atlantic. By sea. Just following the hunt. Eskimo's still do that. Why couldn't Europeans do that? It's easy to camp on ice fields, and move on the next day.
Of course they had small boats, canoe type vessels. They weren't able to sail open ocean, but they could travel through calm waters along the ice.

Yes. But only till abt. 17000 BP. After that, there was no ice. ... Unless we do indeed accept that they might have had the possibility to sail in the open.

At least it's a fact that a lot of R yDNA moved from central Europe to the British Isles and Ireland. And it would be only natural if they went beyond that.

I'd be curious if there are any estimates as to how old R1b in the British Isles is?

wolfswald
 
I'd be curious if there are any estimates as to how old R1b in the British Isles is?

That's a very tough question, especially considering the fact that it probably came over in multiple waves. For example, R1b-S116* probably showed up before R1b-L21, which probably showed up before significant levels of R1b-U106. Since R1b-S116* is the oldest, I would guess that it could have arrived with the Beaker culture, or maybe even earlier. The Grooved Ware culture before the Beakers was Britain-local, so it is less likely to have significant levels of R1b IMHO. And even the Beakers I would suspect to have higher levels of I2b than we see among Western Europeans today. R1b-U106's modern correlation with Germanic peoples suggests a Dark Ages origin in Britain for it, or at least most of it. R1b-L21 is less clear but could be linked to the Celtic expansion, maybe. But all of this is unresolved.

Either way, I think we can agree that regardless of when R1b first showed up in Britain, it is unlikely to have become dominant in Britain until relatively late, like with the rest of Western Europe.
 
Haplogroup R1 in the Americas

I'm very annoyed that on wikipedia that y-chromosome haplogroup R1 is indigenous to the Americas. Geneticist Hammer and other geneticist wrote an article in 2004 stated that haplogroup r1 was a result of admixture of European settlers. The haplogroup r1 that has been found in Native Americans is actually haplogroup R1b, and not realted to any R1 lineages in Asia. Only haplogroup Q and C are indigenous to the Americas whose ultimite origins are in Asia.
 
The ancient X lineage may have existed in Siberia, but died out, though not before coming over to America with Ancient migrations.

Seems to explain the whole thing, especially if we consider R1 the "male counterpart" to X (which we can KIND OF assume). Indo-Europeans used to inhabit vast areas of central Asia and likely followed the Siberian mongoloids in their journey over the icebridge in NorthEastern Asia.

Clovis technology though I think came at a much earlier date. And the people who brought it likely died out (and therefore contributed little to nothing to the Native American gene pool in North America). And the people who brought it were paleolithic Cro-Magnon (carriers of HP I).

So Indo-Europeans DID come to America, but they had nothing to do with the Clovis arrowheads. Another piece of evidence of this that no Native Americans used clovis arrowheads at the time of Columbus's arrival.
 
Clovis technology though I think came at a much earlier date. And the people who brought it likely died out (and therefore contributed little to nothing to the Native American gene pool in North America). And the people who brought it were paleolithic Cro-Magnon (carriers of HP I).

No way it's Cro-Magnon I. The apparently Near Eastern mtDNA (like X2) that ended up in the Americas had a common launching point with the older European X2's in Asia; the odds that they launched from Europe is low.

If you're proposing that Clovis Culture originated from farther west than later migrations into the Americas, then J or E1b or G or T or even IJ (this is getting late for IJ though) would all be more realistic suggestions than I IMHO. Either way, Native American Y lineages got reduced to mostly just Q (Siberian origin) and some C.

So Indo-Europeans DID come to America, but they had nothing to do with the Clovis arrowheads. Another piece of evidence of this that no Native Americans used clovis arrowheads at the time of Columbus's arrival.

See Herbert's post... this supposedly native R1 is a false alarm. There's no evidence of eastward migration of Indo-Europeans into the Americas. And X (lacking in Central Asia) isn't linked strongly to R1 (strong in Central Asia).
 
See Herbert's post... this supposedly native R1 is a false alarm

Hmm sorry I didn't see it.

I see your point, but then how are the clovis arrow-heads explained away?
 
Hmm sorry I didn't see it.

I see your point, but then how are the clovis arrow-heads explained away?

I think there was an obvious cultural shift, but I'm not claiming to know whether or not there was a corresponding Y-DNA haplogroup replacement. It could have been one Q culture replacing another Q culture, although the lack of correspondence between Y-DNA Q and mtDNA X outside of the Americas is confusing. But I would still be surprised if Clovis wasn't mostly Q, or at least mostly C.
 
Actually, American academia or the 'establishment' is very open to this possibility. This very topic has been out in the open here for probably close to 20 years.

I've earned several degrees in Anthropology in the United States and I can assure you, the establishment shows extreme prejudice against the Solutrean Hypothesis to the point of ignoring it if at all possible. It is considered politically incorrect, in part, because many racists on both sides of the debate are compelled to twist it to their own ends. Sad.
 
Hi all,

I've been reading this thread, and many like it, and I'm getting that cheesy horror flick feeling. You know the one where there's a guy in a cabin in the woods reading a scary story to a bunch of college girls and it turns out that the story he is reading is actually about them; but none of the girls realize it?

You guys are talking about a lot of data here and what is going on *appears to me* to be blatantly obvious. I'm not a scientist, so forgive me, but let me just ask it this way:

What if R* haplroup, the "progenitor" of R1b, if you will, came in from Asia a very long time ago. Who cares how. Then suppose this population in the Americas entered a proverbial genetic bottleneck (who cares how). Then suppose that an antecedent, call it P, led to a new haplogroup called R*, which led to R1b. Now suppose a heck of a lot time passed and the genetic bottleneck lifted. Now supppose a new population came in, who cares how, from Asia. Call it Q. Lets say Q and R didn't get along. Suppose R got pushed to the Atlantic and learned what most mariners today know very well: it is a *hell* of a lot easier to get into a boat and go east to Europe than it is to go west to the Americas. And that good ole, warm conveyor belt will dump you out reliably on the west coast of Ireland, north coast of Scotland and Iberia.

Now, if we go back and actually read about those spears and the Clovis deal, along with the datings going back to 21 kbp in VA of people who sure looked a heck of a lot like R1b pure breds, all the data fits right in, right? I've asked this a thousand times and never gotten a cogent answer.

Yes, I know about the "conventional" understanding of R moving east to west. The Bell Beaker phenom is like one of those cheesy horror stories. Read it. It's obvious it went from west to east. It was colonization ... everywhere. Read about the Tokians. They were all tall, very, very white and redheaded, just like the poor saps that got torched in caves in Nevada. And please don't accuse me of bias because I think I actually do at least understand the rudiments of evolution and know that genes over 5000 years ago have little to do with anyone living today. I've also asked that question and no one can explain to me how we *know for sure* that R moved westward. I don't think it did. And that part reminds me of linguistics games; the proverbial cognate that implies directionality is not as easy to identify as they make it sound. Someone, please lift the bane of my intellectual woes, thanks for your time ;)

- kk
 
I've earned several degrees in Anthropology in the United States and I can assure you, the establishment shows extreme prejudice against the Solutrean Hypothesis to the point of ignoring it if at all possible. It is considered politically incorrect, in part, because many racists on both sides of the debate are compelled to twist it to their own ends. Sad.

How did you earn "several degrees in Anthropology". I earned one vanilla degree and a professional degree and it almost killed me. Anyhoo,

I think the truth lies between. The "problem" with academia is that there is an overemphasis on quantity over quality. If I can stack a pile of studies high enough that's all some people care about. But the "quality" of the evidence is at least as important (I would argue more so).

If you find two of the only examples in the world at that time of bi-facial arrow heads on the opposite shores of the same pond there might be a connection. Similarly, if the same dating methods you used to conclude that there was an east to west migration are used to confirm that the dates on one coast are several thousand years too early for your east to west hypothesis, your causality train might need to be re-hitched. Forget linquistics and “piles” of “evidence”. See how this works? We don’t even need to confirm the absolute dates, just the relative dates. Nice.
This is why if you enter any western court room you’ll notice that judges have a tendency to want to take a peek at your evidence before you enter it. It’s called probative value, a stuck-up term for “quality”. Allowing people to enter whatever they want is a waste of time. Unfortunately, the quality of peer-review is compromised, which is where I think you’ve found a kernel of truth. Sorry, but that’s my opinion.
There’s a thing called the Conjunction Rule of probability theory that says that unless the information you have to add is pretty certain by itself (has probative force), the simpler explanation is usually the correct one. Juxtapose that with the Genetic Fallacy, that says ignoring evidence of good probative value is likewise an error. Nice.

- kk
 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384887/


Dual origins of Native Americans

Our results support and extend the hypothesis of at least two major male migrations from Asia to the Americas. The first migration brought haplogroup M3 Y chromosomes from Chukotka to the Americas. The founder haplotype of this lineage, M3(10-11-11-10), was derived from the southern Middle Siberian haplotype M45(10-11-11-10) during the latter’s migration through Chukotka and across the Bering Land Bridge down into North, Central, and South America. The southern Middle Siberian origin of this initial migration is further supported by the presence of M45(10-11-11-10) and of the closely related haplotype M45(10-11-10-10) in the Tuvan population. This population currently lives near the geographic center of Asia, in the region of arid steppes between Mongolia and the Sayan Mountains. Thus, the first Siberian migration into the Americas arose in southern Middle Siberia.
The Tuvans and three other populations from the Upper Yenisey region west of Lake Baikal (the Tofalars, Buryats, and Yenisey Evenks) also harbored the ancestral Tat-C haplotypes. Thus, the Tuvans contain remnants of the source of both major male expansions from central Asia into Siberia. The earlier M45 migration, which acquired the M3 variant in northeastern Siberia, moved into the Americas. The later Tat-C migration reached the northeast Siberian coast but did not enter the Americas. Both migrations also moved westward into Europe. Indeed, the dispersal of the Tat-C haplogroup most likely accounts for the clustering of Y chromosomes from certain Middle Siberian populations with those of Europeans rather than with those of other Siberians or East Asians (Santos et al. 1999).
The M45 haplogroup is divided into two subhaplogroups, M45a from Middle Siberia and M45b from eastern Siberia. These two lineages are distinguished by the M173 variant in the eastern Siberian M45b lineage as well as by different microsatellite alleles. The M45a subhaplogroup connects Middle Siberians with the North, Central, and South American Amerinds. The M45b/M173 subhaplogroup connects eastern Siberians with the North and Central American Na-Dene and surrounding Amerinds (fig. 3).
The distinctive form, frequency, and distribution of the M45b subhaplogroup confirms that two separate migrations occurred. The M173 marker is only found in the M45 Y chromosomes of the eastern Siberians and North and Central American natives and not in those of the Middle Siberians or South Americans. Furthermore, three of the distinct North and Central American M45 haplotypes (M45[*,M173][11-11-11-11] and M45*[12-11-11-11]) are only shared with the populations of the Lower Amur and the Sea of Okhotsk region (fig. 3).
This second Siberian migration also corresponds with the distribution of the S4Y-T macrohaplogroup (Karafet et al. 1999). In our study, the S4Y-T haplogroup marker, the RPS4Y-T, was detected in a single Navajo, but it had previously been seen in additional northern Amerind and Na-Dene Native Americans (Bergen et al. 1999; Karafet et al. 1999). Moreover, our data demonstrate that the Native American RPS4Y-T haplogroup originated in the eastern Siberian populations of Kamchatka and the Lower Amur River basin. The extended RPS4Y-T haplotype of our Navajo sample differs from a Lower Amur RPS4Y-T haplotype by just one mutational step but differs from those of southern Middle Siberia by three steps. Thus, the Native American RPS4Y-T Y chromosomes also came from eastern Siberia, along with the M45b chromosomes. These two haplogroups provide compelling evidence that there was a second male migration to North America from the eastern Siberian regions of Kamchatka and the Lower Amur River. This eastern Siberian RPS4Y-T lineage can be traced back to East Asia, where highly diversified RPS4Y-T haplotypes have been found (B. Su and L. Jin, unpublished data).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384887/figure/FG1/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384887/figure/FG2/

[h=3]Comparison of Y-Chromosome and mtDNA Data[/h]Our identification of two major male migrations into the New World—one from southern Middle Siberia, bringing Y-chromosome haplogroups M45a and M3, and a second from eastern Siberia, bringing haplogroups M45b and RPS4Y-T—correlates well with previous conclusions about the maternal migrations that brought mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C, and D to the Americas. Since all Siberian migrations necessarily came through northwestern North America, the more southern distribution of the M45a and M3 lineages versus the M45b and RPS4Y-T lineages indicates that the southern Middle Siberian migration predated the eastern Siberian migration.
The Y-chromosome M45a and M3 lineages, together with the mtDNA haplogroups C and D and the Amerind sublineages of mtDNA haplogroup A, are all found together in southern North America as well as in Central and South America. Furthermore, the M45a Y chromosomes—which are the precursors to the Native American M3 lineage—and the mtDNA haplogroups C and D are at their highest frequencies in southern Middle Siberia, with the M3 lineage and the Amerind mtDNA haplogroup A sublineages both being present in Chukotka. Hence, the first Native American migration must have originated in southern Middle Siberia, traversed Chukotka, and entered the Americas. If we assume that the Amerind Y-chromosome lineages arrived together with mtDNA haplogroups C and D, then this migration occurred ∼20,000–30,000 years before present (YBP) (Schurr et al. 1999).
Similarly, the Y-chromosome haplogroups M45b and RPS4Y-T, along with the sublineage of mtDNA haplogroup A defined by the control-region sequence variant 16192T and the RsaI polymorphism at np16392, are defining features of the Na-Dene of northwestern North America. Furthermore, the M45b and RPS4Y-T Y-chromosome lineages are found at their highest frequencies in the Lower Amur and Sea of Okhotsk regions of eastern Siberia, having originated earlier in Southeast Asia (B. Su and L. Jin, unpublished data). This implies that a major component of the Na-Dene migration arose in southeastern Siberia. Likewise, the precursor of the haplogroup A 16392 RsaI sublineage, defined by the control-region variant 16192T, has been observed in Chukotka and Kamchatka (Schurr et al. 1999), which border on the Sea of Okhotsk. Assuming that the mtDNA haplogroup A 16192T sublineage arrived in the Americas together with the Y-chromosome lineages M45b and RPS4Y-T, then this migration came from southeastern Siberia at ∼7,000–9,500 YBP.
In conclusion, there appears to be a striking correspondence between Siberian and Native American Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroup distributions, and, hence, they must have been associated during trans-Beringian migrations. The results strongly suggest that both males and females came to the New World in at least two coherent waves of migration, the first arising in southern Middle Siberia and the second arising later from southeastern Siberia.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384887/figure/FG3/
 
the point is, is it R1a/R1b or R1* ?
R1a/R1b may come from European colonizers, R1* comes from stone age Central Asia
that goes for both, America and Australia
 
about mtDNA x :
with wich Y-haplogroup is x associated in Eurasia?
what subclade of x is there in America?
does this same subclade exist in Eurasia? where?
 
The M173 marker is only found in the M45 Y chromosomes of the eastern Siberians and North and Central American natives and not in those of the Middle Siberians or South Americans.

M173 is R1

R1a, distinguished by several unique markers including the M420 mutation, is a subclade of Haplogroup R1, which is defined by SNP mutation M173. Besides R1, R1 also has the subclades R1b, defined by the M343 mutation, and the paragroup R1*. There is no simple consensus concerning the places in Eurasia where R1, R1a or R1b evolved.

M420 is R1a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M420_(Y-DNA)
 
So I'm confused Oriental, is it now believed that R1a and/or R1b settled the Americas through the Bering Sea land bridge/ice packs? Are they both now part of the "main flow" of y-DNA through Siberia into the Americas?
 
Oriental, the dates on the ncbi link are 2001/2002. I'm thinking this is a strain of Q rather than R. Wouldn't there have been major press if American Indian Q was reclassified as R1?
 
http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/...96e136-ff59-457a-885b-fd8e74706c6e-A63356.jpg

Here is an image of a Cree Indian. He certainly looks European.

Since Native Americans were hunter-gathers essentially stone-age people their R1 genes didn't experience much mutation unlike in Central Asia and Europe. The pastoral life style bypassed them as well as the metal ages, mead and liquor consumption, etc. The date of the publication doesn't invalidate their findings. We just have to wait for the update. I know when I bought technical books waiting for the latest edition I found only less than 5% were new or additional material while the price went up 20%. 95% of my old technical books were good enough. We are oversold on getting the latest.
 

He doesn't look European to me...

Since Native Americans were hunter-gathers essentially stone-age people their R1 genes didn't experience much mutation unlike in Central Asia and Europe. The pastoral life style bypassed them as well as the metal ages, mead and liquor consumption, etc.

AFAIK the only major impact on mutation rates on the Y chromosome within a population is rate of childbearing. Is there some literature demonstrating an impact from, say, metal and alcohol?

The date of the publication doesn't invalidate their findings. We just have to wait for the update. I know when I bought technical books waiting for the latest edition I found only less than 5% were new or additional material while the price went up 20%. 95% of my old technical books were good enough. We are oversold on getting the latest.

I don't know of any studies that demonstrate an ancient R1* present in Native American populations. Malhi 2008 included R in their percentages but said that they were evidence of European admixture. Indeed, I would expect some tribes like the Cherokee to have much greater European admixture than others, like the Navajo... and the R frequencies correspond correctly.

So, find me some ancient R1* before you make too much out of 2002 studies. I'll help you start: Cherokee and Algonquian samples, two of the highest tribal groups in terms of their R1 frequencies.
 

This thread has been viewed 67698 times.

Back
Top