To everyone who claims that Malta Boy was "Mongoloid"

Tomenable

Elite member
Messages
5,419
Reaction score
1,336
Points
113
Location
Poland
Ethnic group
Polish
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b-L617
mtDNA haplogroup
W6a
This thread is decicated to all people who claim that ANE admixture is "Mongoloid".

Malta Boy is on GEDmatch - kit number F999914.

Malta Boy in Dodecad V3 calculator = 84% Caucasoid:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European 37.68
2 South_Asian 26.04
3 East_European 20.03

4 Northeast_Asian 15.53
5 Neo_African 0.38
6 Palaeo_African 0.34

Malta Boy in Gedrosia K3 calculator = 70% Caucasoid:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 W_Eurasian 69.88
2 E_Eurasian 30.12

Malta Boy in Eurogenes K15 calculator = 0% East Asian:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Eastern_Euro 38.02
2 South_Asian 20.31
3 Amerindian 18.62
4 North_Sea 15.91
5 Baltic 6.54
6 Sub-Saharan 0.47
7 Oceanian 0.12

Malta Boy in Gedrosia K6 = 94% ANE, 2% East Asian, 2% WHG, 2% ASE:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 94.13
2 East_Asian 2.01
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 1.93
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.78
5 Sub_Saharan 0.09
6 Natufian 0.06

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 AG2 6.76
2 AG3 6.76
3 MA1 6.76
=========
4 EHG 24.08

5 GujaratiB 62.91
6 Punjabi 63.18
7 CHG 64
8 GujaratiA 64.19
9 Kalash 64.27
10 Sindhi 64.28
11 Pathan 64.43
12 Kurd_SE 65.3
13 Burusho 65.56
14 Balochi 65.81
15 Steppe_EMBA 66.02
16 GujaratiC 66.15
17 Brahui 66.21
18 GujaratiD 66.47
19 Punjabi_PJL 67.62
20 Makrani 67.68

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 93.5% MA1 + 6.5% GoyetQ116 @ 1.92
2 93.5% AG2 + 6.5% GoyetQ116 @ 1.92
3 93.5% AG3 + 6.5% GoyetQ116 @ 1.92
4 93.4% AG2 + 6.6% Kharia @ 2.14
5 93.4% AG3 + 6.6% Kharia @ 2.14
6 93.4% MA1 + 6.6% Kharia @ 2.14
7 92% MA1 + 8% Bengali @ 2.54
8 92% AG2 + 8% Bengali @ 2.54
9 92% AG3 + 8% Bengali @ 2.54
10 92.8% AG2 + 7.2% Palliyar @ 2.55
11 92.8% AG3 + 7.2% Palliyar @ 2.55
12 92.8% MA1 + 7.2% Palliyar @ 2.55
13 93.1% AG2 + 6.9% Uzbek @ 2.57
14 93.1% AG3 + 6.9% Uzbek @ 2.57
15 93.1% MA1 + 6.9% Uzbek @ 2.57
16 92.1% AG2 + 7.9% Steppe_IA @ 2.58
17 92.1% AG3 + 7.9% Steppe_IA @ 2.58
18 92.1% MA1 + 7.9% Steppe_IA @ 2.58
19 93.2% AG2 + 6.8% Paniyas @ 2.64
20 93.2% AG3 + 6.8% Paniyas @ 2.64
 
What a complete and utter straw man argument. To my knowledge, no one here claims that Mal'ta boy was "Mongoloid". What was claimed by Russian anthropologists and what is probably true, in my opinion, and not just in my opinion, is that there was East Eurasian intrusion westward and Mal'ta boy has some ancestry from them, as even using these calculators shows.
 
Since we don't have his skull, we can only speculate. I'd think he didn't yet developed in either direction, much like the Sungir individuals or Kostenki.

Let's do the Sungir skulls, who are a few thousand years older than Mal'ta and situated near Moscow:

Male, 60-year-old

17-1.gif


Adult woman

17-03.gif


Boy, 13-year-old

24-01.gif


Girl, 8-year-old

24-02a.gif


They don't resemble the Caucasoid morphology in the Near East and Europe very closely, imho.
 
He does have a lot of American and Beringian, though I'm not sure if any of these back then were involved in Mongoloid characteristics. Probably not. He completely misses SE Asian, NE Asian and Siberian admixtures being known to carry these from way back. Though, he might not look like a typical modern European either.

F999914R
Mal'ta24kya
Run time8
S-Indian10.13
Baloch24.09
Caucasian-
NE-Euro40.14
SE-Asian-
Siberian-
NE-Asian-
Papuan0.7
American17.71
Beringian6.74
Mediterranean-
SW-Asian-
San0.3
E-African-
Pygmy0.19
W-African-
 
Malta split from R 28.2 ka.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R/
R lived north of the Hindu Kush, not in Siberia.
Haplo Q lived in Siberia, like AF2 (17 ka)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L472/
Malta mingled amongst them.
The Malta branch got extinct.

Mongoloid traits started to devellop in Siberia, Mongolia & N. China 30 ka.

Something like this seems to be the best explanation at the time. I'm curious though: what makes you think that it's the Hindu Kush mountains where R lived? That's very specific.
 
Since we don't have his skull, we can only speculate. I'd think he didn't yet developed in either direction, much like the Sungir individuals or Kostenki.

Let's do the Sungir skulls, who are a few thousand years older than Mal'ta and situated near Moscow:

Male, 60-year-old

17-1.gif


Adult woman

17-03.gif


Boy, 13-year-old

24-01.gif


Girl, 8-year-old

24-02a.gif


They don't resemble the Caucasoid morphology in the Near East and Europe very closely, imho.

I prefer to look at skulls than to reconstructions - here the 4 ones show some disparity between them -
and typical 'eurasian' and 'eastasian' types are the result of the latter evolutions, the "cardinal" features of every type are not always totally found in every individual but in a majority of them only; some archaic common ancient hum
 
I. Native American mtDNA includes:

1) Typically East Asian mtDNA:

A2
B2
D1
D2a
D3
D4h3a
D4e1c

2) West Eurasian mtDNA:

X2a
X2g

3) Either ANE or East Asian:

C1b
C1c
C1d
C4c

II. Native American Y-DNA includes:

Q1a2a1-L54
Q1a1a-F746
C2b1a1a-P39

These could be from any group, not just from East Asians. Haplogroup Q1a could be from ANE.

Y-DNA haplogroup C2b1a1b-F3985 - very closely related to Native American C2b1a1a-P39 - can be found among modern Europeans (samples from Germany, Slovakia, Austria, Czech Republic and Poland). It might be Solutrean.

As we already know, there used to be a lot of C1a2 and C1b in Upper Paleolithic Europe.

C1b is also typical for Australian Aborigines. Maybe C2b was from Onge-like admixture.
 
Negrito/Australoid = ASE (Ancestral South Eurasian) in Gedrosia K6.

Australians/Papuans score over 90% ASE, and Negritos score it as well:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33148-Ancient-Australian-DNA?p=495473&viewfull=1#post495473

So Native Americans are a mixture of East Asian (Han) + ANE + ASE.

This seems to be supported by GEDmatch results of Native Americans:

Gedrosia K6 calculator:


NA42 Peru (Chachapoya) 1000-1500 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 72.22
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.62
3 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 9.16


MARC1492 Mi'kmaq 1550-1700 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 62.05
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 26.07
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 5.36
4 Natufian 3.6
5 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.6
6 Sub_Saharan 0.33


Paleo-Eskimo Saqqaq ca. 2000 BC:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 76.08
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 10.91
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 6.09
4 Sub_Saharan 3.06
5 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.66
6 Natufian 1.2


Clovis Anzick-1 Montana 10700-10550 BC:


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 60.7
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 23.77
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 8.54
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 5.84
5 Sub_Saharan 1.16


Kennewick Man USA 7000-6900 BC:


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 58.83
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.52
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 11.66
4 Natufian 3.23
5 Sub_Saharan 3.08
6 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.68
 
Something like this seems to be the best explanation at the time. I'm curious though: what makes you think that it's the Hindu Kush mountains where R lived? That's very specific.

I admit, it is a guess of mine.
But it is a possibility.

I noticed there was R1b in SW Asia (R1b-V88 but also other, but no R1b-P297) and there was R1b in Eastern Europe, mainly R1b-P297
The oldes East European R1b is EHG admixed with some WHG, but no CHG, that came later, as demonstrated in the latest paper.
The R1b in SW Asia was very heavy on CHG.
So there were 2 kinds of R1b in 2 different areas.
They must have had a common origin from where they split.

This is a theory I came up with, a few weeks ago, and for which I found some confirmation in the new paper :

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-Europea/page5?p=500965&viewfull=1#post500965
 
II. Native American Y-DNA includes:

Q1a2a1-L54
Q1a1a-F746
C2b1a1a-P39

Q1a2a1-L54 : 2 clades are Native American indeed : M3 & Z780
C2b1a1a-P39 Native American, related to Na-Dene
but
Q1a1a-F746 is it Native American or is it Inuit/Eskimo?

C1 and C2 split 47 ka, no relation at all between both.
 
Y-DNA haplogroup C2b1a1b-F3985 - very closely related to Native American C2b1a1a-P39 - can be found among modern Europeans (samples from Germany, Slovakia, Austria, Czech Republic and Poland). It might be Solutrean.
There are Manchus and Altaians in the same C2b-F1756 clade as C2b-F3985. Meanwhile Koryaks in Kamchatka have C2b-B77 which is at least as closely related to C2b-P39 as C2b-F1756 is, if not closer. C2b is both abundant and diverse in Northeast Asia.

Rare this and that is always showing up in Europe just because it is so well tested. That can give the illusion that it is the source rather than the recipient, but in this case the latter is far more likely.
 
Negrito/Australoid = ASE (Ancestral South Eurasian) in Gedrosia K6.

Australians/Papuans score over 90% ASE, and Negritos score it as well:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33148-Ancient-Australian-DNA?p=495473&viewfull=1#post495473

So Native Americans are a mixture of East Asian (Han) + ANE + ASE.

This seems to be supported by GEDmatch results of Native Americans:

Gedrosia K6 calculator:


NA42 Peru (Chachapoya) 1000-1500 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 72.22
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.62
3 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 9.16


MARC1492 Mi'kmaq 1550-1700 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 62.05
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 26.07
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 5.36
4 Natufian 3.6
5 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.6
6 Sub_Saharan 0.33


Paleo-Eskimo Saqqaq ca. 2000 BC:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 76.08
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 10.91
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 6.09
4 Sub_Saharan 3.06
5 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.66
6 Natufian 1.2


Clovis Anzick-1 Montana 10700-10550 BC:


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 60.7
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 23.77
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 8.54
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 5.84
5 Sub_Saharan 1.16


Kennewick Man USA 7000-6900 BC:


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 58.83
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.52
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 11.66
4 Natufian 3.23
5 Sub_Saharan 3.08
6 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.68

I wonder what would occur if today Western European pops were tested with this calculator???
phonetypically speaking the ASE (ancestral) appers or appeared in some rare and tiny pops of the Amazone, but a light % of auDNA cannot be seen everytime in phenotype, it's true (1- too tiny - 2 - phenotype itypical nnovations not already appeared in ancestral "giving" pop -
my believings were these DNA influence could have come later by sea, but Amazone is not too close to Pacific Ocean! or it has been erased in less remote region by north coming Amerindian pops???
plus: I don' know what status to give to light auDNA %s of "archaic" pops in us modern people? but over 2,5%/3% it takes maybe some sense...
 
I wonder what would occur if today Western European pops were tested with this calculator?

Some examples:

North-Western Europeans:


Modern Scottish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 44.13
2 Natufian 32.90
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.78
4 East_Asian 1.23


Modern Scottish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 43.12
2 Natufian 34.23
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.99
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.94
5 East_Asian 1.73


Modern North Dutch:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 44.75
2 Natufian 35.9
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.07
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.15
5 Sub_Saharan 0.14


Modern English:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 42.61
2 Natufian 36.62
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 17.84
4 East_Asian 1.41
5 Sub_Saharan 1.14
6 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 0.38


Modern Swedish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 46.24
2 Natufian 33.38
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.13
4 East_Asian 2.25


Modern Irish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 43.1
2 Natufian 33.58
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.8
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.72
5 East_Asian 0.8


Rathlin-1 Ireland 2030-1880 BC:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 43.39
2 Natufian 29.8
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 22.68
4 Sub_Saharan 2.27
5 East_Asian 1.86


Hinxton-1 Britain 160 BC - 25 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 45.16
2 Natufian 35
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 19.84


Hinxton-4 Britain 170 BC - 80 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 45.11
2 Natufian 33.9
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 19.27
4 East_Asian 1.72
 
I thought it was understood that there was no way MA-1 was "Mongloid". All of the evidence suggest they were strong chinned, pronounced nosed Caucasoids.
 
Since we don't have his skull, we can only speculate. I'd think he didn't yet developed in either direction, much like the Sungir individuals or Kostenki.

Let's do the Sungir skulls, who are a few thousand years older than Mal'ta and situated near Moscow:

Male, 60-year-old

17-1.gif


Adult woman

17-03.gif


Boy, 13-year-old

24-01.gif


Girl, 8-year-old

24-02a.gif


They don't resemble the Caucasoid morphology in the Near East and Europe very closely, imho.

No, they don't to me either, but I always distrust reconstructions. They were so completely wrong with Otzi, for example, as we discovered when more sophisticated analysis was one.

I found this in my files. It's a picture of the skeleton of the Mal'ta boy. I don't know what someone could make of this:
2013111130skeleton.jpg



The Russian anthropologists who actually handled the bones and measured them said that the nasal bones, some "shoveling" in the incisors, and the flatness of the upper face were signs of a "Mongoloid" appearance. They found some evidence of "Mongoloid" traits in the Sunghir individuals as well.

I have no way of knowing whether they were correct or not, but even if they were, I don't know how one would jump to the conclusion that they were "Mongoloid". After all, we know for an absolute fact that the SHG carried the alleles for EDAR, which is definitely an East Asian set of traits today. Were they "Mongoloid"?

My own personal opinion is that it makes no sense to try to assign discrete "racial" identities, identities put together by anthropologists in the late 19th century, to people this far back in history.

Fwiw, these are some of the figurines created by these people. If one goes by this, they were certainly long nosed, but I doubt this kind of evidence as well. People adopt a "style" even when it doesn't look much like them in actuality. It's far better to go with skeletal evidence if one doesn't have enough genetic material to check for alleles.

maltafigurineshermitagesm.jpg



315E43C400000578-0-Archeologist_and_historian_Alexey_Okladnikov_said_one_of_the_sta-a-39_1455895107372.jpg
 
Can we think about the other ANE, Afontova Gora 17,000bc together, who had more west eurasian components than Malta?

1. The anthropolosist V. P. Alekseev’s opinion, who sharply mentioned south asian components also.

V. P. Alekseev discussed the racial types of the Altai-Sayan uplands during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. On the basis of geological and palreo-climatic evidence, he feels that the initial human settlement of the area could have taken place as far back as the Lower Palreolithic (which in Soviet usage includes the Mousterian). Judging by the Afontova Gora II cranial fragment, the Upper Palreolithic population evidently must be assigned to the Mongoloid race. The Europeoid component begins to penetrate into certain areas during the Neolithic-especially into the southern part of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. Alekseev identifies in this latter area a morphologically Negroid type which would indicate contact with southern regions. In the Afanasievo period the Europeoid component becomes predominant, while the physical similarity of the Afanasievo population with that of the ancient Yamno culture of the South Russian steppes evidences their kinship as well as the western origin of the bulk ofthe Afanasievo population. The formation ofthe racial type characteristic of the Andronovo period probably took place in the region of Kazakhstan and the Altai in pre-Andronovo times, with subsequent penetration into the Minusinsk basin. The basic type of the Karasuk population, in Alekseev's opinion, is a brachycranial Europeoid one; hence the origin ofthe Karasuk people is not linked with China but with eastern Turkestan and the southern regions of Soviet Central Asia."

2. Then, ask why genetic data's result is so different from anthro data's?

Afontova Gora II with Eurogenes K15:

North sea 19.25
Baltic 9.77
East Euro 51.75

south aisan 2.26
south east asian 1.63
sibreian 3.58
american Idian 16.97
oceanian 0.34
Northeast African 0.26

3. and then I want more to ask whether the K15 data is correct in ancient fossils? B/C ANE is close to East Asian Han, far from WHG.

a19cus.png
 
No, they don't to me either, but I always distrust reconstructions. They were so completely wrong with Otzi, for example, as we discovered when more sophisticated analysis was one.

I found this in my files. It's a picture of the skeleton of the Mal'ta boy. I don't know what someone could make of this:

I agree as a whole with your post -
but I find the picture you posted a bit subject to doubt; is it a photographic picture or something else? ATW as you say I don't see what could be made based on it!
 

This thread has been viewed 33376 times.

Back
Top