PDA

View Full Version : Y-chromosome descent clusters and male differential reproductive success



Angela
14-01-15, 20:13
There is a new Patricia Balaraseque paper and it has ancient dna results from Central Asia.
"Y-chromosome descent clusters and male differential reproductive success: young lineage expansions dominate Asian pastoral nomadic populations"

This is the link to the paper:
http://img.misya.info/Misya2/2012/03/fetta-zuppa-inglese.jpg

Abstract:
High-frequency microsatellite haplotypes of the male-specific Y-chromosome can signal past episodes of high reproductive success of particular men and their patrilineal descendants. Previously, two examples of such successful Y-lineages have been described in Asia, both associated with Altaic-speaking pastoral nomadic societies, and putatively linked to dynasties descending, respectively, from Genghis Khan and Giocangga. Here we surveyed a total of 5321 Y-chromosomes from 127 Asian populations, including novel Y-SNP and microsatellite data on 461 Central Asian males, to ask whether additional lineage expansions could be identified. Based on the most frequent eight-microsatellite haplotypes, we objectively defined 11 descent clusters (DCs), each within a specific haplogroup, that represent likely past instances of high male reproductive success, including the two previously identified cases. Analysis of the geographical patterns and ages of these DCs and their associated cultural characteristics showed that the most successful lineages are found both among sedentary agriculturalists and pastoral nomads, and expanded between 2100 BCE and 1100 CE. However, those with recent origins in the historical period are almost exclusively found in Altaic-speaking pastoral nomadic populations, which may reflect a shift in political organisation in pastoralist economies and a greater ease of transmission of Y-chromosomes through time and space facilitated by the use of horses.

It's behind a pay wall.
This is the link to the tables:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg2014285ft.html

Supplementary Info:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/ejhg2014285s1.html

Dienekes seems to think the R1a1 cluster is the Indo-Iranians. That would be R1a Z93 I would assume.

bicicleur
14-01-15, 20:45
pitty the article is behind a paywall

DC2 is a big argument in favour of Pontic steppe origin for IE

Robert6
14-01-15, 21:26
Based on 9 STR markers?
DC2 is possibly from Kirgiz cluster 9. ...>Z93>Z94>Z2124>S23592-A Kirgiz cluster
The cluster have age ~ 2.2 Ky (2200 years old)
that cluster is in the page 6 of this project
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/default.aspx?section=yresults

Fire Haired14
15-01-15, 01:57
Yamna lineages became dominate in most of Europe and parts of Asia, and there have to be some common reasons. Anyone who intentionally trys to nuder the spread of Indo European languages has denial issues and a clear pacifist and anti-male behavioral agenda. No one should biasedly try to make them Conan Barbarian figures. We have to be realistic, and based on Y DNA it's obvious they had social inequality with men with IE father lineages being somewhere high up in society.

Angela
15-01-15, 03:23
Yamna lineages became dominate in most of Europe and parts of Asia, and there have to be some common reasons. Anyone who intentionally trys to nuder the spread of Indo European languages has denial issues and a clear pacifist and anti-male behavioral agenda. No one should biasedly try to make them Conan Barbarian figures. We have to be realistic, and based on Y DNA it's obvious they had social inequality with men with IE father lineages being somewhere high up in society.


Fire Haired, while I have serious doubts about the objectivity of many hobbyists, often because of their own words, I personally don't believe I have much difficulty separating intellectual analysis from my personal feelings about a matter. I've spent my entire professional life doing precisely that so I have lots of practice.

As concerns the Indo-Europeans, there's no question that they spread their language and a certain cultural package and some of their genes to a great part of the world. That doesn't mean that they originated much, if any, of the package, it doesn't mean that I find parts of that cultural package particularly beneficial to the world, it doesn't mean that I accept the fantasies promulgated by certain hobbyists,and it doesn't mean that the notions concerning the "ethnicity" of the Indo-Europeans held by the late 19th century and early 20th century anthropologists are any longer valid.

As to the theory that throughout history groups of males have either committed genocide against other groups of males, or subjugated them and prevented most of them from having access to women, I think it is probably accurate to some extent for certain migrations to certain areas. In other areas, population collapses because of climate change or disease in the prior inhabitants might have been a factor, and in other cases, the new groups might have been entering a rather empty landscape, or, as in the case of the Neolithic, they may just have been able to produce and feed more offspring.

There is no way at present that you could possibly know the precise mechanisms that were at play in the situation under discussion. In this particular part of the world, there are, in fact, quite a few "founding" y lineages. It's not like the almost clean sweep of R1b in certain parts of northwestern Europe, for example. It really is helpful not to look at all this data only through the lens of one particular area in Europe.

Let us, however, accept for the moment that the Indo-Europeans in some areas, if that's what you're getting at, whether through whole scale butchery or some sort of enslavement or serfdom, managed to exclude the men in the areas to which they migrated from having access to women. Why would you assume that I, or anyone else with any pretensions to intellectual honesty would deny the evidence if it exists? At the same time, why would you think that it's incumbent upon me or anyone else to abdicate my judgment of what would have been the best course for humanity, or, for that matter, my sense of morality?

I can walk and chew gum at the same time, you know.

Now, if you don't mind, I think I'll return to an intellectual analysis of the data in the paper.

Angela
15-01-15, 03:26
There's a lot of excellent information in the tables and the Supplement.

According to the authors, DC2 or R1a1 (Z93?) is 3,284 years old, but, as Dienekes pointed out, with huge confidence intervals. Maybe some of you can take a look at the map in the supplement. It looks as if the hotspot is in one of the Turkmen groups, the Kyrgyz. and the Tajiks, and then decreases in all directions. Interestingly, today the Kyrgyz are pastoral nomads and the Tajiks are agriculturalists. So far as I can make out, the migration arrows go from where the Uzbeks are in Kyrgyzstan northeast to Kazakstan and to the southeast to India. The date provided for the migration is 1300 BC.

Here is the map put up by Dienekes showing the various migrations:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jmZRvSt1kaU/VLaeIe2CDvI/AAAAAAAAJ38/8inWntfBShQ/s1600/Figure4.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jmZRvSt1kaU/VLaeIe2CDvI/AAAAAAAAJ38/8inWntfBShQ/s1600/Figure4.jpg

DC5, one of the "J" lineages, is also interesting. The highest frequency seems to be along the Caspian in the Caucasus area which is consistent with what we knew, and with a second hot spot around Syria. There is a migration arrow dated 700 BC going from eastern Anatolia to the other side of the Caspian to the Kyrgyz and Uzbeks. Is the red area in eastern Anatolia along the south coast of the Black Sea their proposal for a homeland?

DC3, the "L" lineage is surprising. The authors seem to show what is a radiation of the lineage from the southern coast of the Caspian in Iran to the rest of Iran, into Syria and Arabia, and to south Pakistan. This one is dated to 1100 AD. As I said, it's a surprise.

One of the tables gives the list of the lineages by "tribe" or ethnicity. Of the 461 samples, "R" is the largest group, with 38%. The vast majority of that is the R1a1. Within the R group, in addition to the 142 R1a1s there are 6 R* samples, 5 of which are in Tajik groups, along with one Uzbek. There is 1 R1*, again in a Tajik, 6 R2, and 20 R1b, of which 9 are M269.

Ydna I also makes an appearance, with 5 samples of IM170, 3 of which are in a Turkmen group. There is more J2 than J1, 23 to J(xJ2), pretty evenly spread out. G M201 comes in with 25, 14 of which are in the Turkmen group. This is all in addition to the C3, N, O3 and Q samples.

It's quite a mixture.

Aberdeen
15-01-15, 04:25
We know from historical accounts that the Turkish tribes didn't take over Central Asia from the Iranian tribes in a major way until about 1500 years ago, although there were no doubt earlier movements of Turkish groups that became part of the various steppe confederacies. And when the Turks did replace the Iranians in Central Asia, I assume that the genetic turnover was only partial, with the descendants of Iranian speakers surviving and becoming Turkified in many cases, so I would expect the DNA to be quite a tossed salad. Especially since we have evidence of R1a reaching fairly far into the east in earlier periods, so that some of the Turks were no doubt already R1a. I think it would be difficult to separate the genetic and cultural strands without a lot of understanding of the history in various places. For example, there were various invasions of India from Central Asia over the centuries, from the Bronze Age until the late medieval period, so I think it might be difficult to separate the various strands of R1a that moved into India in various centuries.

Fire Haired14
15-01-15, 04:46
Fire Haired, while I have serious doubts about the objectivity of many hobbyists, often because of their own words, I personally don't believe I have much difficulty separating intellectual analysis from my personal feelings about a matter. I've spent my entire professional life doing precisely that so I have lots of practice.

As concerns the Indo-Europeans, there's no question that they spread their language and a certain cultural package and some of their genes to a great part of the world. That doesn't mean that they originated much, if any, of the package, it doesn't mean that I find parts of that cultural package particularly beneficial to the world, it doesn't mean that I accept the fantasies promulgated by certain hobbyists,and it doesn't mean that the notions concerning the "ethnicity" of the Indo-Europeans held by the late 19th century and early 20th century anthropologists are any longer valid.

As to the theory that throughout history groups of males have either committed genocide against other groups of males, or subjugated them and prevented most of them from having access to women, I think it is probably accurate to some extent for certain migrations to certain areas. In other areas, population collapses because of climate change or disease in the prior inhabitants might have been a factor, and in other cases, the new groups might have been entering a rather empty landscape, or, as in the case of the Neolithic, they may just have been able to produce and feed more offspring.

There is no way at present that you could possibly know the precise mechanisms that were at play in the situation under discussion. In this particular part of the world, there are, in fact, quite a few "founding" y lineages. It's not like the almost clean sweep of R1b in certain parts of northwestern Europe, for example. It really is helpful not to look at all this data only through the lens of one particular area in Europe.

Let us, however, accept for the moment that the Indo-Europeans in some areas, if that's what you're getting at, whether through whole scale butchery or some sort of enslavement or serfdom, managed to exclude the men in the areas to which they migrated from having access to women. Why would you assume that I, or anyone else with any pretensions to intellectual honesty would deny the evidence if it exists? At the same time, why would you think that it's incumbent upon me or anyone else to abdicate my judgment of what would have been the best course for humanity, or, for that matter, my sense of morality?

I can walk and chew gum at the same time, you know.

Now, if you don't mind, I think I'll return to an intellectual analysis of the data in the paper.

I wasn't directing that comment towards you. I was directing it towards people who seem to try their best to ignore the existence of war in prehistoric times, or gene-flow not just cultural-flow. To be honest I'm usually attracted to the idea of Conan Barbarians and Atillia the Huns, so I always have stop myself from making biased conclusions.

LeBrok
15-01-15, 05:14
Interesting stuff, thanks Angela. I wish I had time to dive into this subject.
Funny thought. Looks like DC6, Tibetans invaded Beijing at 900BC. 3 k years later situation reversed.

motzart
15-01-15, 05:37
To be honest I'm usually attracted to the idea of Conan Barbarians

It is brave of you to admit that. Good for you!

bicicleur
15-01-15, 10:16
It is brave of you to admit that. Good for you!

Fire Haired has a point though.
Some people like Conan the Barabarian and fantasise to much.
But there are also others who go into denial for some kind of 'political correctness' : they don't want the world to be different from what it should be acording to them.
They are probably even more blinded than Conan the Barabarian, they live in a phantasy world too.

bicicleur
15-01-15, 10:20
There's a lot of excellent information in the tables and the Supplement.

According to the authors, DC2 or R1a1 (Z93?) is 3,284 years old, but, as Dienekes pointed out, with huge confidence intervals. Maybe some of you can take a look at the map in the supplement. It looks as if the hotspot is in one of the Turkmen groups, the Kyrgyz. and the Tajiks, and then decreases in all directions. Interestingly, today the Kyrgyz are pastoral nomads and the Tajiks are agriculturalists. So far as I can make out, the migration arrows go from where the Uzbeks are in Kyrgyzstan northeast to Kazakstan and to the southeast to India. The date provided for the migration is 1300 BC.


the paper is behind a paywall and i haven't read it
i don't know the methodology
but it seems to me it is easier to pinpoint the destinactions more acurately (here India and west of Altaï) than the starting point (here Kyrgizistan) as both are moving targets, but destination is more recent thatn starting point

Sile
15-01-15, 18:09
Its a pity they did not include all the markers as per below link on the map supplied. curious on the other J areas

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/


interesting that no G, I are there on the noteds when it came out with J
(http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/)

Sile
15-01-15, 18:38
states R1b most populace area is Uzbek, south of Aral sea

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg2014285x5.pdf

Robert6
15-01-15, 20:08
Supplementary Info:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/ejhg2014285s1.html

Turkmens from this work are from Karakalpakstan western Uzbekistan close to Aral sea, they are very interesting, they have mostly R1a with Dys439=13,
The haplogroup R1a1a have values Dys439=10 (sometimes 11)
The R1a* and R1a1* have values Dys439=12 or Dys439=13
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg2014285x3.pdf


According to Wells Turkmens from Turkmenistan have
M17+, R1a1a 7%
M173+, M17-, R1(ХR1a1a) 37%
R1(ХR1a1a) = R1b + R1* + R1a* + R1a1*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC56946/table/T1/

Sile
16-01-15, 18:07
states R1b most populace area is Uzbek, south of Aral sea

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg2014285x5.pdf

The other epicentres for Haplogroup L is also Syria and Makran ( coastal Pakistan ).

Was the "out of Africa" march via egypt and the Levant to the cuacasus ............or...........is the "Aden" path to persian gulf still the preferred path ?

MOESAN
18-01-15, 00:15
a personal thought, very general in its target

I 'm sure the "I-Eans" who reached the Atlantic shores some time ago (debate: 3000 BC for the first, without serious imput, -2500 BC more densely?) were not exactly the same as the ones living before in the Steppes - I admitted easily that language coul have been transmitted from palce to place with less and less demis impact, more by military+business superiority... but no long ago, thinking agin about all that, I had in mind the striking unity of I-Ean languages old forms AND GRAMMAR (according to scholars) spite the big centml/satem divorce (maybe recent enough: 2500 BC, later???) - from my experience of high speed language changes as populations grow and extend themselves and sedentarize, I

MOESAN
18-01-15, 00:21
Sorry
... I arrived to the conclusion the language was transmitted by strong enough demic support, and even by subsequent waves reinforcing the first settlements (look at Gaulish tribes in France and Iberia) - a warriors elite would have had hard work to do that- that said, a desiquilibrium in favor of males is evident in some cases, not always -

I say that because even the language morphology and the verbs conjuguisons show still big similitudes<in say, celtic and Slavic even today -

oidhche mhath, nos dda, nos vad, boune nët, bonne nuit, bona nuech