PDA

View Full Version : Ust-Ishim: a 45.000 siberian



epoch
22-10-14, 22:06
The long awaited Ust-Ishim genome has been published. It's DNA is more related to East-Asians than Europeans but equidistant to East-Asians and WHG and MA-1. Y-DNA is K, mtDNA is R*.

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2014/10/high-coverage-genome-from-45000-year.html

The supplementary information show an admixture K=10 run.

Fire Haired14
22-10-14, 23:17
It's probably more related to all Eurasians who aren't west Eurasian, because of "basal Eurasian" ancestry in West Eurasians.

LeBrok
23-10-14, 00:54
The finding that the Ust’-Ishim individual is equally closely related to present-day Asians and to 8,000- to 24,000-year-old individuals from western Eurasia, but not to present-day Europeans, is compatible with the hypothesis that present-day Europeans derive some of their ancestry from a population that did not participate in the initial dispersals of modern humans into Europe and Asia11
What does that mean?

motzart
23-10-14, 01:00
R1b/R1a ancestor is closest to modern east asians and heavily admixed with neanderthal. Tough day R1 pals I still love you.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/674/944/72c.jpg

motzart
23-10-14, 01:02
What does that mean?

It just means that modern Europeans have EEF ancestry.

sparkey
23-10-14, 01:25
R1b/R1a ancestor is closest to modern east asians and heavily admixed with neanderthal. Tough day R1 pals I still love you.

They can keep their "higher resistance to AIDs" and "lower heart disease rates," because we've got patrilineal European ancientness!

Alan
23-10-14, 01:29
R1b/R1a ancestor is closest to modern east asians and heavily admixed with neanderthal. Tough day R1 pals I still love you.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/674/944/72c.jpg


It is slightly closer to East Eurasian than modern West Eurasians, but that also just because modern West Eurasians have additional Basal Eurasian ancestry. But taking ancient West Eurasians like WHG for comparison than it is equal close to them and East Eurasians. Basically Ust-Ishim is the Proto Eurasian before they diverged into West and East Eurasians.

motzart
23-10-14, 02:26
It is slightly closer to East Eurasian than modern West Eurasians, but that also just because modern West Eurasians have additional Basal Eurasian ancestry. But taking ancient West Eurasians like WHG for comparison than it is equal close to them and East Eurasians. Basically Ust-Ishim is the Proto Eurasian before they diverged into West and East Eurasians.

No the study says he is equally as related to MODERN EAST ASIANS as he is to Malta Boy (Who was Mongoloid) and LaBrana. This means he has the same amount of basal Eurasian ancestry as he does modern East Asian. You are 100% incorrect in saying that he was a Proto Eurasian, he was a Proto East Asian.

Alan
23-10-14, 02:42
No the study says he is equally as related to MODERN EAST ASIANS as he is to Malta Boy (Who was Mongoloid) and LaBrana. This means he has the same amount of basal Eurasian ancestry as he does modern East Asian. You are 100% incorrect in saying that he was a Proto Eurasian, he was a Proto East Asian.


I think you need to read the paper again. Even Dienekes commented on that. And how the heck did you come to the conclusion that Mal'ta Boy was Mongoloid if he had only some percentage of East Eurasian related genes and was mostly West Eurasian like? Heck even the populations with the highest modern frequency of ANE are South_Central Asians followed by North Caucasians and Northeast Europeans.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Admixtures-Lazaridis.png


So on what do you base your statement that "Mal ta was Mongoloid"?

Also just in case you didn't knew. LaBrana is WHG sample from West Europe.



However, when an ~8,000-year-old genome from western Europe (La Braña)9 or a 24,000-year-old genome from Siberia (Mal’ta 1)10 were analysed, there is no evidence that the Ust’-Ishim genome shares more derived alleles with present-day East Asians than with these prehistoric individuals (|Z| < 2). This suggests that the population to which the Ust’-Ishim individual belonged diverged from the ancestors of present-day West Eurasian and East Eurasian populations before—or simultaneously with—their divergence from each other.
http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2014/10/high-coverage-genome-from-45000-year.html


Ust'-Ishim is basically a Proto_Eurasian.

motzart
23-10-14, 02:49
I think you need to read the paper again. Even Dienekes commented on that. And how the heck did you come to the conclusion that Mal'ta Boy was Mongoloid if he lacked any Sibirian and East Asian (expect some Southeast Asian) related genes? Mal'ta was 60% North Euro and West Asian like while 25% Amerindian and 10% South Asian like. So on what do you base your statement that "Mal ta was Mongoloid"?

Also just in case you didn't noticed. LaBrana is WHG sample from West Europe.



http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2014/10/high-coverage-genome-from-45000-year.html

马耳他男孩有蒙古人种的头骨,你能 解这更好的中国佬?

You're trying to argue that Y DNA K (x L T), the ancestor of Y DNA O, the dominant Chinese haplogroup, was not proto Chinese? Even though he plots closest to Han Chinese of any population? You are delusional, embrace the fact that your ancestor is East Asian. The facts are here.

Alan
23-10-14, 03:19
马耳他男孩有蒙古人种的头骨,你能 解这更好的中国佬?

You're trying to argue that Y DNA K (x L T), the ancestor of Y DNA O, the dominant Chinese haplogroup, was not proto Chinese? Even though he plots closest to Han Chinese of any population? You are delusional, embrace the fact that your ancestor is East Asian. The facts are here.http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/laughing.gif Oh boy you just don't make sense.

Haplogroup K* is the ancestor of R*, L*, T* (West Eurasian), M (Ancestral South Indians) and sibling of IJ* (West Eurasian) too. So you*re telling me that they were all Proto East Eurasians http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/laughing.gif

What on the Words ANE is mostly West Eurasian, and peaks in South_Central Asians , North Caucasians and Northeast Europeans, is so hard to understand.

Mister the only one who is delusional and should first learn more about genetics is you. I personally would have no problems if my ancestors were East Eurasian, in fact I admire their culture, but I read a "superiority complex" out of your lines and your "arguments" just don't make sense.

In fact I have this theory that the ancestors of Proto Eurasians were some Australoid like people. Just face it Ust'Ishim was Proto Eurasian. Thats how the professionals on genetics label him. Good Night!

Aberdeen
23-10-14, 03:35
No the study says he is equally as related to MODERN EAST ASIANS as he is to Malta Boy (Who was Mongoloid) and LaBrana. This means he has the same amount of basal Eurasian ancestry as he does modern East Asian. You are 100% incorrect in saying that he was a Proto Eurasian, he was a Proto East Asian.

Wrong. He was related to ANE/WHG as well as East Asians. The reason he's related to both Mal'ta Boy and La Brana but not that closely related to modern Europeans is because he doesn't have basal Eurasian (ancient Middle Eastern) ancestry. He's a proto-Eurasian from about the time proto-Eurasian was starting to branch off, so there where no "Mongoloid" or "proto-Chinese" people at that point.

motzart
23-10-14, 05:46
DOESN'T LOOK VERY EUROPEAN TO ME! I spent the $32 on the study and looks like it paid off because I get to be SOOOOO RIGHT.
http://i.imgur.com/gYn3HWy.jpg?1

motzart
23-10-14, 06:08
These deserve their own thread, looks like groups are a older than we previously thought.
http://i.imgur.com/Ma4EtnQ.jpg?1

and for reference

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/haplogroups-timeline.gif

Angela
23-10-14, 06:39
Motzart: These deserve their own thread, looks like groups are a older than we previously thought.

Thanks for posting.

But look at the ones dominant now...look how young they are.

sparkey
23-10-14, 06:50
Not too far from other estimates I've seen, although C seems younger than normal and IJ seems older than normal. What's the methodology?

sparkey
23-10-14, 06:57
DOESN'T LOOK VERY EUROPEAN TO ME! I spent the $32 on the study and looks like it paid off because I get to be SOOOOO RIGHT.

Doesn't look East Asian, though. Looks sort of like a Central/South Asian with an Oceanian grandparent.

Sile
23-10-14, 07:05
http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/laughing.gif Oh boy you just don't make sense.

Haplogroup K* is the ancestor of R*, L*, T* (West Eurasian), M (Ancestral South Indians) and sibling of IJ* (West Eurasian) too. So you*re telling me that they were all Proto East Eurasians http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/laughing.gif

What on the Words ANE is mostly West Eurasian, and peaks in South_Central Asians , North Caucasians and Northeast Europeans, is so hard to understand.

Mister the only one who is delusional and should first learn more about genetics is you. I personally would have no problems if my ancestors were East Eurasian, in fact I admire their culture, but I read a "superiority complex" out of your lines and your "arguments" just don't make sense.

In fact I have this theory that the ancestors of Proto Eurasians were some Australoid like people. Just face it Ust'Ishim was Proto Eurasian. Thats how the professionals on genetics label him. Good Night!

correct is ( karafet 2014) basal R-M207 is in south-east Asia and R1 is central asia ( if this represent west-asian, then ok)

bicicleur
23-10-14, 07:10
DOESN'T LOOK VERY EUROPEAN TO ME! I spent the $32 on the study and looks like it paid off because I get to be SOOOOO RIGHT.
http://i.imgur.com/gYn3HWy.jpg?1

Of course he's more related to east than to west, he is K(xLT). If he were IJK he would be equaly related to both.
But he is not an ancestor to any present population, his tribe was replaced by P1-M45 and probably got extinct.

Sile
23-10-14, 07:12
These deserve their own thread, looks like groups are a older than we previously thought.
http://i.imgur.com/Ma4EtnQ.jpg?1

and for reference

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/haplogroups-timeline.gif

How old is this chart........you don't even have X ydna between NO and K

You dont even have Tand L splitting before X formed

link to new proper June 2014 tree
http://www.phylotree.org/Y/Y_tree_skeleton.pdf

epoch
23-10-14, 08:14
Malta Boy (Who was Mongoloid)

No. The whole surprise of that find was he wasn't, yet he did show affinity to American Indians. Since no trace of East-Asians was found in MA-1, American Indians had to be a combination of Mongolids and ANE.

Maciamo
23-10-14, 08:49
How old is this chart........you don't even have X ydna between NO and K

You dont even have Tand L splitting before X formed

link to new proper June 2014 tree
http://www.phylotree.org/Y/Y_tree_skeleton.pdf

I haven't updated this chart since 2009 or 2010.

epoch
23-10-14, 11:02
I find it interesting that on the map of vegetation types during the LGM a desert appears between areas the two populations (to wit: WHG + ANE and East-Asians) Ust-Ishim is equidistant to reside in.

http://anthro.unige.ch/lgmvegetation/download_page_js.htm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png

bicicleur
23-10-14, 11:31
I find it interesting that on the map of vegetation types during the LGM a desert appears between areas the two populations (to wit: WHG + ANE and East-Asians) Ust-Ishim is equidistant to reside in.

http://anthro.unige.ch/lgmvegetation/download_page_js.htm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png

central-asia is mainly a desert
but along the edge of the mountains there is a corridor, from to Hindu Kush to Siberia
Ust-Ishim is on that corridor, near Siberia

Maciamo
23-10-14, 11:47
DOESN'T LOOK VERY EUROPEAN TO ME! I spent the $32 on the study and looks like it paid off because I get to be SOOOOO RIGHT.


It is pointless to argue whether a 45,000 year-old sample is more East Asian-like, or South Asian-like or European-like... The modern differentiations didn't exist back then. The ancestral componenent of Y-haplogroup should be present in all populations descended from K, that is all Eurasians, Native Americans, as well as a small portion of the North and East African gene pool (via hg R1b-V88 and T).

We already saw something similar with the Malta boy, but more limited to haplogroups R (affinities to Europeans, South Asians and Kalash), with minor components also matching Q and M populations (Native Americans and Papuans, respectively).

Wilhelm
23-10-14, 13:03
DOESN'T LOOK VERY EUROPEAN TO ME! I spent the $32 on the study and looks like it paid off because I get to be SOOOOO RIGHT.
http://i.imgur.com/gYn3HWy.jpg?1

Dude, why pay when you have all the free the Supplementary Info, including the admixture above.

epoch
23-10-14, 21:04
central-asia is mainly a desert
but along the edge of the mountains there is a corridor, from to Hindu Kush to Siberia
Ust-Ishim is on that corridor, near Siberia

But LGM was *after* Ust-Ishim. It was when Mal'ta boy lived his short live. What I mean is that two tundra's appear with a desert in between. That could have *caused* the split between two populations. Just speculation, mind you, on the basis of rather flimsy maps downloaded from the internet. It merely caught my eye.

epoch
23-10-14, 21:36
Shame there is only K=10. It suppresses Lithuanian, i.e. mesolithic affinity. Would be nice to see it done like Lazardis, especially since only at K=20 that admixture run showed MA-1's west-asian affinity to be very much like Kalash.

bicicleur
23-10-14, 22:26
But LGM was *after* Ust-Ishim. It was when Mal'ta boy lived his short live. What I mean is that two tundra's appear with a desert in between. That could have *caused* the split between two populations. Just speculation, mind you, on the basis of rather flimsy maps downloaded from the internet. It merely caught my eye.

there is something strange : when these people entered Siberia, near the Altaï Mountains, they all went east, western Siberia remained rather uninhabited, and those in western Siberia had less sophisticated tools
eastern Siberia must have had better hunting grounds beofre the ice age

motzart
24-10-14, 01:48
I used this high tech modelling software to merge Ust-Ishim's 4 largest populations (Papuan, East Asian (Korean), South Asian (Hindu), and Neanderthal so we can get an accurate image of what he looked like. Science is amazing. Terrifying.
http://i.imgur.com/IUWo2he.jpg

epoch
24-10-14, 14:48
Another noteworthy thing is that Ust-Ishim shows NO Denisovan admixture. While being, relatively speaking, in the neighbourhood of the Denisova cave.

epoch
24-10-14, 15:17
Also noteworthy is that John Hawks considers this indvidual ancestral to no known recent population.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/ancient-genomes/ust-ishim-fu-2014.html



Considering the fact that Ust'-Ishim is equally similar to all Asian and Native American populations and equally similar to the two ancient genomes, Fu and colleagues write this:



This suggests that the population to which the Ust’- Ishim individual belonged diverged from the ancestors of present-day West Eurasian and East Eurasian populations before—or simultaneously with—their divergence from each other.
I would give a strong interpretation to this. It seems unlikely that Chinese (Han) and Andaman Island (Onge) populations could be uniquely descended from this ancient Siberian individual, so Ust'-Ishim is not at the stem of the later diversification of Eurasian people. That means that these later people derive from a different group than that represented by Ust'-Ishim. The initial dispersal of humans into Eurasia contained at least one dead-end population that contributed at most some very small amount of ancestry to living people.

Silesian
24-10-14, 15:53
Another noteworthy thing is that Ust-Ishim shows NO Denisovan admixture. While being, relatively speaking, in the neighbourhood of the Denisova cave.
Eurogenes also pointed out the lack of Denisovan admixture and larger chunks found in Ust-Ishim.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/
Nature 505,43–49(02 January 2014)doi:10.1038/nature12886
Extended Data Table 2: Selected D-statistics supporting inferences about gene flows
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/fig_tab/nature12886_ST2.html

epoch
24-10-14, 22:09
Is the entire genome published? We could use a admixture break down like in lazardis: K=2 to K=20
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/fig_tab/nature13673_SF3.html

motzart
25-10-14, 02:18
I think this is interesting for Y DNA I. There are only a few defining mutations for IJ. 49,000 ybp puts the IJ TMRCA right before the emergence of the first AMH into Europe; which is 44,000-41,000 ybp according to this study. Contemporanous with the Aurignacian culture.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10484.html

epoch
25-10-14, 10:10
there is something strange : when these people entered Siberia, near the Altaï Mountains, they all went east, western Siberia remained rather uninhabited, and those in western Siberia had less sophisticated tools
eastern Siberia must have had better hunting grounds beofre the ice age

If you take a look at the ADMIXTURE runs from MA-1 and AG-2 - dated 42k and 17k years old - you see an increasing amount of North Euro. Let us assume that Usty's population *is* partly ancestral to ANE, than ANE was the result of some sort of admixture, where some of Usty's relatives gave rise to the Kalash part in ANE. But where did all the other affinity go, in that case? Anyway, the idea could be that some Western groups kept moving to the East during the LGM to find the part of Usty's population being cut off from the bulk of Asian population by that desert I mentioned before, and thus giving rise to MA-1 like population.

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/old-world-26-analyses-of-the-malta-and-afontova-gora-genomes/
http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/analyses-of-the-afontova-gora-genome/

Just an idea, mind you. Thinking aloud. Would that mean that the Amerindian part of MA-1 was brought east by westerners?

bicicleur
25-10-14, 10:41
I think this is interesting for Y DNA I. There are only a few defining mutations for IJ. 49,000 ybp puts the IJ TMRCA right before the emergence of the first AMH into Europe; which is 44,000-41,000 ybp according to this study. Contemporanous with the Aurignacian culture.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10484.html

There are only a few defining mutations for IJ.
Indeed IJKLT probably split into IJ K and LT in a few 1000 years, and IJ and K split further soon after.
But how many defining mutations are there for I ?

I'm pretty confident Aurignacian was IJ, but I doubt it was I
Gravettian, 32000 year old is believed to be I

bicicleur
25-10-14, 11:01
Another noteworthy thing is that Ust-Ishim shows NO Denisovan admixture. While being, relatively speaking, in the neighbourhood of the Denisova cave.

Denisovan DNA is only found at some elevated rate in modern populations of Oceania.
That is why the mixing is beleived to have happened with Denisovans living in southeast Asia

These people from Usht Ishim had allready a well developped technology, with better tools than Neanderthals or Denisovans.
That's why they didn't mix with Neanderthal or Denisovan any more.
Instead Neanderthal and Denisovan went extinct.

bicicleur
25-10-14, 11:16
Is the entire genome published? We could use a admixture break down like in lazardis: K=2 to K=20
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/fig_tab/nature13673_SF3.html

no, there is high coverage but no full coverage :

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/ancient-genomes/ust-ishim-fu-2014.html

The new paper is interesting because it is the first modern human we have at high coverage, where the age is sufficient to estimate the number of missing mutations that would be expected in a descendant living today. Even though Ust'-Ishim may have no living descendants, this is a measure of how short his DNA branches are compared to the branches connecting living humans to their common ancestors.

epoch
02-11-14, 13:10
Genetiker has put up a page on Ust-Ishim.

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/analyses-of-the-ust-ishim-genome/

On MDLP World-22 a rather substantial European (or west-eurasian) component starts to show up:



MDLP World-22



24.86% Indian
17.52% East-South-Asian
10.30% Sub-Saharian
7.57% Austronesian
6.59% North-East-European

6.03% West-Asian

5.93% Near_East
4.42% Melanesian
3.60% Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic
2.70% Samoedic
2.60% East-Siberean
2.07% Indo-Iranian
1.22% South-African
1.12% Mesoamerican
0.68% Pygmy
0.67% Arctic-Amerind
0.53% North-Amerind
0.51% Indo-Tibetan
0.39% North-European-Mesolithic
0.33% Paleo-Siberian
0.23% South-America_Amerind
0.11% North-Siberean



However, on MDLP Ancient Roots K17 we see very little EEF, WHG and ANE:



MDLP Ancient Roots K17


29.81% Ancestral_South_Indian
16.83% South_East_Asian
15.37% African_Sub_Saharian
9.02% Melano-Austronesian
7.08% Ancestral_North_Indian
3.60% Ancestral_Mediterranean_EEF
3.54% West_European_HG
3.13% Ancestral_East_Siberian
2.92% Ancestral_East_European_ANE
1.93% Uralic
1.90% Caucasian-Basal
1.60% Amerindian
1.29% Ancestral_West_Siberian
1.01% Ancestral_Sami-Finnic
0.72% Circumpolar
0.12% Archaic_African
0.12% Near-East-Basal

Alan
02-11-14, 16:35
If we take the World 22 results.

We got ~18,5% West Asian, Northeast Euro, Near East, Atl Med Neolithic, North European Mesolithic and Indo_Iranian
~25% Indian.
~20,5% East-South Asian, East/Paleo/North Siberian
~15,5% Austronesian, Melanesian, Samoedic, Pygmy
~2% Amerindian
~10% Sub Saharan African.

So basically an Eurasian individual showing similarities too all major genetic regions of this world.

The k17 results don't make sense seem to have an error because Ust-Ishim is described as very close to WHG and ANE.

motzart
02-11-14, 22:19
If we take the World 22 results.

We got ~18,5% West Asian, Northeast Euro, Near East, Atl Med Neolithic, North European Mesolithic and Indo_Iranian
~25% Indian.
~20,5% East-South Asian, East/Paleo/North Siberian
~15,5% Austronesian, Melanesian, Samoedic, Pygmy
~2% Amerindian
~10% Sub Saharan African.

So basically an Eurasian individual showing similarities too all major genetic regions of this world.

The k17 results don't make sense seem to have an error because Ust-Ishim is described as very close to WHG and ANE.

Genetiker states clearly that:

"The Veddoid South Asian or Indian components were the largest components for Ust’-Ishim for all of the calculators that had such components. The second-largest components tended to be Mongoloid Southeast Asian or East Asian components, which is consistent with Ust’-Ishim belonging to a Y haplogroup that was ancestral to the main Mongoloid Y haplogroup."

How do you manage to get Eurasian out of that?

epoch
02-11-14, 23:34
Genetiker states clearly that:

"The Veddoid South Asian or Indian components were the largest components for Ust’-Ishim for all of the calculators that had such components. The second-largest components tended to be Mongoloid Southeast Asian or East Asian components, which is consistent with Ust’-Ishim belonging to a Y haplogroup that was ancestral to the main Mongoloid Y haplogroup."

How do you manage to get Eurasian out of that?


He basically explains that in the post you quoted.

epoch
02-11-14, 23:42
It is remarked on several places that Tianyuan is also considered equidistant to all Non-Africans. However, his West-Eurasian affinity is smaller and different:

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/more-analyses-of-the-tianyuan-genome/



MDLP World-22



24.62% Veddoid (“Indian”)
21.58% Sinid (“East-South-Asian”)
16.09% Tungid (“East-Siberean”)
14.13% Pacifid (“North-Amerind”)
9.40% North-Indid (“Indo-Iranian”)
7.37% Negroid (“Sub-Saharian”)
3.23% Orientalid (“Near_East”)
1.85% Melanesid (“Austronesian”)
1.53% Mediterranean (“Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic”)
0.19% East-Sibirid (“Paleo-Siberian”)
0.00% Alpine (“West-Asian”)
0.00% Aryan Nordic (“North-East-European”)
0.00% Australid (“Melanesian”)
0.00% Bambutid (“Pygmy”)
0.00% Brazilid (“South-America_Amerind”)
0.00% Capoid (“South-African”)
0.00% Centralid (“Mesoamerican”)
0.00% Cro-Magnon Nordic (“North-European-Mesolithic”)
0.00% Eskimid (“Arctic-Amerind”)
0.00% Qiangid (“Indo-Tibetan”)
0.00% Uralid (“Samoedic”)
0.00% West-Sibirid (“North-Siberean”

xiaodragon
13-05-19, 22:57
Basically Ust-Ishim is the Proto Eurasian before they diverged into West and East Eurasians.[/QUOTE]
Altai area is a crossbreeding ground for three different kinds of human species, why it is here , peoples' paths crossed ?

xiaodragon
14-05-19, 01:03
I wonder about the same question, it seems that Siberia‘s Altai Mountains is a point where later races come and go ,


there is something strange : when these people entered Siberia, near the Altaï Mountains, they all went east, western Siberia remained rather uninhabited, and those in western Siberia had less sophisticated tools
eastern Siberia must have had better hunting grounds beofre the ice age

Gnarl
14-05-19, 16:27
I expect Siberia was a happening place during the Ice Age. Consider how different the geography was. Those massive rivers running south to north today would have even more of a fall as the ice sheets were weighing down the land in the north. When they met the glaciers you'd have massive lakes. With plenty of islands I expect. Don't know where they'd drain with the north blocked, Caspian/Black Sea?

At the same time you'd have the same amount of insolation as you do today, which means pretty hot summers. Meaning a lot of meltwater.

And Siberia was teeming with animals and megafauna. It was probably the place outside of Africa where the megafauna hung on the longest.