Solutrean hypothesis: Native American Clovis Culture & NW Europe: (ydna Q, mtdna X2)

I found this table of HVR-I sequences found in modern-day populations of Eurasia possibly belonging to mtdna C1: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plosgenetics.org%2Farticle%2FfetchSingleRepresentation.action%3Furi%3Dinfo%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003296.s004&ei=q1zwUruIKKiIyAHlwIGgBA&usg=AFQjCNH4DOx_NCUiWp0LFrX2icc8eToTYg&bvm=bv.60444564,d.aWc



They have three “Icelander” samples, which I gather are the C1e clade ones. They also have a “German” sample that matches the set of mutations of the Icelanders, and is the only one on the list that matches them completely. So perhaps it’s another C1e.



Then there’s another one on the list called “Canary Islander” who matches that set of mutations except for one missing – a 311C – and who has no exact matches on the table. The Canary Islands are off the coast of Morocco, not that far from Spain, which led me to think Solutreans.



Then I found if you google “Blonde mummies Canary Islands” lots of interesting things come up. For instance, this guy: http://www.atlan.org/images/articles/guanche_origin/zoom/fig1.gif Apparently, on the Encyclopedia Britannica it says under Guanche and Canario: “... Both aboriginal groups had brown complexion, blue or gray eyes, and blondish hair, and these characteristics still persist in a large number of present inhabitants of the islands, but otherwise they are scarcely distinguishable in appearance or culture from the people of Spain.”: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/247762/Guanche-and-Canario I don’t know if the picture of the guy has merit, though.


Edit: These samples in the first link I provided just display the HVR-I sequences, so are not full displays of the haplogroup membership criteria. And it is possible that the Canary Islander and the German sample don't meet the full criteria for belonging to mtdna haplogroup C1.
 
Last edited:
His DNA indicated he had, brown hair and eyes; and freckled skin. He was likely similar to people from Oceania, Southeast Asia or Native Americans.
brown hair and eyes and freckled skin sounds more like South European. I have not seen a full Chinese person with freckled skin or brown hair. Do you have a source or just assuming?
 
brown hair and eyes and freckled skin sounds more like South European. I have not seen a full Chinese person with freckled skin or brown hair. Do you have a source or just assuming?

This description is in the reports. (I can’t link to anything); but if you Google the articles you will eventually fine the articles that give that description.

Figure 2: Admixture graph for MA-1 and 16 complete genomes, places the the Mal’ta boy between the Mari and Indian (India) populations.
.nature. com /nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature12736_F2.html
 
This description is in the reports. (I can’t link to anything); but if you Google the articles you will eventually fine the articles that give that description.

Figure 2: Admixture graph for MA-1 and 16 complete genomes, places the the Mal’ta boy between the Mari and Indian (India) populations.
.nature. com /nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature12736_F2.html

I found some stuff on it: http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2013/201..._reveals_genetic_origins_of_native_americans/. But you might have misread something. Here is what it says:

Instead, both the mitochondrial and nuclear genomes of MA-1 indicate that he was related to modern-day western Eurasians. This result paints a picture of Eurasia 24,000 years ago which is quite different from the present-day context. The genome of MA-1 indicates that prehistoric populations related to modern western Eurasians occupied a wider geographical range into northeast Eurasia than they do today.
......

The most significant finding that the MA-1 genome reveals is its relation to modern Native Americans. This relative of present-day western Eurasians shows close affinity to modern Native Americans, but surprisingly not to East Asians who are regarded as being genetically closely related to Native Americans.

So he represents a European component in the Native Americans genome.
 
I found some stuff on it: http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2013/201..._reveals_genetic_origins_of_native_americans/. But you might have misread something. Here is what it says:

Instead, both the mitochondrial and nuclear genomes of MA-1 indicate that he was related to modern-day western Eurasians. This result paints a picture of Eurasia 24,000 years ago which is quite different from the present-day context. The genome of MA-1 indicates that prehistoric populations related to modern western Eurasians occupied a wider geographical range into northeast Eurasia than they do today.
......

The most significant finding that the MA-1 genome reveals is its relation to modern Native Americans. This relative of present-day western Eurasians shows close affinity to modern Native Americans, but surprisingly not to East Asians who are regarded as being genetically closely related to Native Americans.

So he represents a European component in the Native Americans genome.
He represents Ancient Western Eurasian component found in European and Native American genome.
 
But you might have misread something. Here is what it says:

Instead, both the mitochondrial and nuclear genomes of MA-1 indicate that he was related to modern-day western Eurasians. This result paints a picture of Eurasia 24,000 years ago which is quite different from the present-day context. The genome of MA-1 indicates that prehistoric populations related to modern western Eurasians occupied a wider geographical range into northeast Eurasia than they do today.
......

The most significant finding that the MA-1 genome reveals is its relation to modern Native Americans. This relative of present-day western Eurasians shows close affinity to modern Native Americans, but surprisingly not to East Asians who are regarded as being genetically closely related to Native Americans.

So he represents a European component in the Native Americans genome.

Native Americans have NO European genetic connection. On the other hand European have a genetic connection to a Siberian/East Asian population that had genes that are only found in Native Americans today.

The Mal’ta boy’s had “autosomal DNA” markers which are only found in Native Americans. His uniparental markers (Y-DNA R and mtDNA U) were Siberian/East Asian. All though those markers are found in Europe/West Eurasia today, those markers were not European/West Eurasian 24,000 years ago.

The DNA found in the Mal’ta boy is of “Pre-LGM” Northeast Asian origin. The presence of Native American “autosomal markers” in the Mal’ta boy indicates the Native American genetic signature originates from this period.

All other variants of East/Northeast Asian DNA stem from post-glacial re-colonization of northern Asia and the reason Native Americans and East Asians are not more closely related.

Since the facts don’t fit as originally reported, they have since developed a New Theory.

Europeans descend from 3 ancestral populations, and Native Americans descend from 2 different populations. But 1 Native American ancestral population mixed into the European population.

If you look at the diagram you can see Native Americans (Karitiana) DO NOT have a European genetic connection.

This NEW theory explains why Native American DNA is found in Europeans and European DNA is NOT found in Native Americans.

(The blue in the diagram represents modern populations and the pink represent ancient populations.)

img14.imageshack.us/img14/8418/55h9.png

Past the link into search, then go to Images. (The diagram should be the first image)
 
So to make a long story short: Native Americans descend from a mix of 2 populations:
1. 20000+ years old Siberian population that is more closely related to modern Caucasian Europeans.
2. A mystery population that is closer to modern East-Asians.

The mix probably happened in America since the paleolithic Siberian samples are not related to modern East-Asians.
 
So to make a long story short: Native Americans descend from a mix of 2 populations:
1. 20000+ years old Siberian population that is more closely related to modern Caucasian Europeans.
2. A mystery population that is closer to modern East-Asians.

The mix probably happened in America since the paleolithic Siberian samples are not related to modern East-Asians.

No, the mystery population are modern East-Asians
 
The diagram, is not all inclusive

1. The East Asian populations absorbed remnants or the ANE/Native American populations as they re-colonized the northern areas.

2. There was gene flow from the Americas into the re-colonizing populations.

So, Native Americans did not descend from East Asians (as the diagram indicates) but admixed into them. That’s why Native Americans and East Asians share some haplotypes, but are not closely related.
 
Native Americans have NO European genetic connection. On the other hand European have a genetic connection to a Siberian/East Asian population that had genes that are only found in Native Americans today.

The Mal’ta boy’s had “autosomal DNA” markers which are only found in Native Americans. His uniparental markers (Y-DNA R and mtDNA U) were Siberian/East Asian. All though those markers are found in Europe/West Eurasia today, those markers were not European/West Eurasian 24,000 years ago.

The DNA found in the Mal’ta boy is of “Pre-LGM” Northeast Asian origin. The presence of Native American “autosomal markers” in the Mal’ta boy indicates the Native American genetic signature originates from this period.

All other variants of East/Northeast Asian DNA stem from post-glacial re-colonization of northern Asia and the reason Native Americans and East Asians are not more closely related.

Since the facts don’t fit as originally reported, they have since developed a New Theory.

Europeans descend from 3 ancestral populations, and Native Americans descend from 2 different populations. But 1 Native American ancestral population mixed into the European population.

If you look at the diagram you can see Native Americans (Karitiana) DO NOT have a European genetic connection.

This NEW theory explains why Native American DNA is found in Europeans and European DNA is NOT found in Native Americans.

(The blue in the diagram represents modern populations and the pink represent ancient populations.)

img14.imageshack.us/img14/8418/55h9.png

Past the link into search, then go to Images. (The diagram should be the first image)

I notice you've chosen to list your mtDNA haplogroup but not your YDNA haplogroup.
 
I'm aware of those opinions, which were created by a very knowledgeable person, based on the data we have available at this time. Nevertheless, I repeat: we don't have data for any of the areas where R1b is most common today, and we don't have a lot of Neolithic Y DNA data for any part of Europe. I don't think we can make definitive conclusions in the absence of sufficient data.

R1a => 17,000 years for generations of 35 years and also the women
R1b => 18,000 years for generations of 35 years and also the women
R1a => 12,000 years for generations of 25 years and also the women Volga / tray can be north-Iranian
R1b => 14,000 years for generations of 25 years and also the women can be: Alta? /Region sea of Ob/Central Asia

But attention it is about the first mutation on an indivdu and yet about a group and therefore it will be necessary to rely much less than age for appearance of R1-a / b

it is noted that in Europe R1 or R1b do not exist in this epoch but that other very different groups are found and it proves the not existence of R1b.

most known example mummy in Europe old of 5500 years: Otz? with G2a2b / K2
oetzi-2-dabb7.jpg
but they find the old markers for:
R1 among am?rindiens and central Asia and R1b among siberian / ouralian Tshuvash and R1a among tocharian and indians for not much moved away epochs.
 
............

it is noted that in Europe R1 or R1b do not exist in this epoch but that other very different groups are found and it proves the not existence of R1b.
...........
/QUOTE]

No, not having sufficient data doesn't actually prove anything, IMO. But, given that techniques for extracting YDNA are rapidly improving, I think we should soon start to get more data about Y haplogroups in Atlantic Europe. Then perhaps those who believe that R1b only arrived in Atlantic Europe during the Bronze Age will be proven to be correct, but I think it's also possible that those of us who think that R1b arrived in Atlantic Europe during the Neolithic could be the ones who are correct. I think we will have real answers soon.
 
I notice you've chosen to list your mtDNA haplogroup but not your YDNA haplogroup.

That's because I'm female, and I use my mtDNA to track the geographical distribution of my tribe/linguistic group.

I started a mtDNA database to see if I could track tribal relationships (in the Americas). But, very few studies break down the haplogroups into subclade and, for much of the subclade which are identified they don't know the tribes who the mtDNA belongs to.

It's not important for them to know about the tribes as individual populations. They simply see the populations as a single population who are all the same.

I don't think that will change any time soon. because, most studies focus on "Who colonized the Americas?"

Was it the East Asian, the Siberians, the Oceanian or the Europeans, on and on.
 
That's because I'm female, and I use my mtDNA to track the geographical distribution of my tribe/linguistic group.

I started a mtDNA database to see if I could track tribal relationships (in the Americas). But, very few studies break down the haplogroups into subclade and, for much of the subclade which are identified they don't know the tribes who the mtDNA belongs to.

It's not important for them to know about the tribes as individual populations. They simply see the populations as a single population who are all the same.

I don't think that will change any time soon. because, most studies focus on "Who colonized the Americas?"

Was it the East Asian, the Siberians, the Oceanian or the Europeans, on and on.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'd really like to see a deeper analysis of subclades etc., so that we could know what ideas are worth pursuing and which ones aren't. But I don't think we'll get the information we need from individuals who get their personal DNA analysed, because many of them are of mixed origins. I know that many Native Americans, particularly the more traditional ones, refuse to participate in those kind of studies because they mistrust what the data will be used for. And who can blame them?
 
I know that many Native Americans, particularly the more traditional ones, refuse to participate in those kind of studies because they mistrust what the data will be used for. And who can blame them?

That's a misconception, many tribes have been tested

For the US alone, I could list maybe 15-20 studies. Here are a few, so you can see the number of tribes that were tested in these studies.

Lorenz and Smith (1996) - Washo (38), Yokut (17), Havasupai (18), Quechan (23), Kumeyaay (16), Hopi (4), Hokan (6), Bella Coola (36), CA Uto-Aztecan (14), Chumash (21)

Malhi, (2001) – Pima (43), Sioux (45), Cheyenne/Arapaho (35) Apache (38) Navajo (64). Chippewa (28), Pawnee (5), Cherokee (37), Zuni (26), Jemez (36) Micmac (6) Kiliwa (7) Wishram (20)

Zegura, Stephen L. (2004) - 588 Native Americans from 18 populations. Tanana (12), Apache (96), Navajo (78) Cheyenne (44), Sioux (44), Pima (24), Pueblo (18), Southwest Amerind (10)

Bolnick, Deborah A. (2006) - Chippewa (51), Chippewa (37), Cheyenne/Arapaho (53), Chippewa (9) Shawnee (1), Micmac (1), Kickapoo (2) Fox (1), Sioux (27), Omaha (1), Cherokee (27), Cherokee (35), Chickasaw (6), Choctaw (12), Creek (15), Seminole (3)
 
Yesterday a new paper was published on the mtdna C1f clade found in the 7,500 year old Mesolithic site of Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov, Western Russia: http://www.eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2014/02/new-subclade-of-mtdna-haplogroup-c1.html In the study, they sequenced the complete mtDNA genome of one of the three samples.

They say, “In Europe, the dense and extensive sampling of the HVR-I diversity has revealed extremely low frequencies of hg C1, with very few haplotypes found in Germans [14], Canarians [15], Icelanders [16][17] and Bashkirs [18] (Figure 2).”

They also estimate a divergence time of C1f from C1a, C1b, and C1c at around 17,100 yBP (95% Confidence Interval: 12,000–22,500 yBP).

There’s a paper on the mtdna C1e clade from four years ago here: http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946/4579/13226/1/MARitgerdSunna.pdf They say there's a possibility that the C1e clade may turn out to be distantly related to the Native American C1b or C1c clades once more of the C1b and C1c samples have their mtdna genomes sequenced at a higher resolution – but only that it’s possible.

I think it’s still unclear when C1e and C1f came to Europe and where they came from, but I’m hopeful that as more ancient and contemporary dna is analyzed we’ll have a better picture of that within the next 5 or 10 years.
 
The comments in the paper about DNA damage and the absence of any discussion of Y DNA make me think the authors didn't expect to be able to extract Y DNA. Too bad - the results would have been interesting.
 
Last edited:
A paper recently came out on haplogroup R-M269 (R1b1b2): http://www.dienekes.blogspot.ca/2014/02/recent-radiation-of-r-m269-males-in.html where they say “...it is not possible to predict the subhaplogroup within R-M269 to which an individual belongs based on his YSTR haplotype, in contrast to the situation with higher level haplogroups for which haplotypes do have predictive power(Athey, 2005; Schlecht et al., 2008).” Maybe R-M269 is older than most estimates suggest (i.e. older than 10,000 ybp).

In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jTAueCy4O0 from about 3:20 to 3:30 Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes says he thinks that about 10,000 years ago a group of people from Europe carrying mtdna X came directly over the Atlantic to North America. My guess is that they carried R-M269 on their corresponding y-dna line. Since it’s so hard to predict the subhaplogroups of R-M269 based on their STR values, maybe that’s why it’s so elusive. If the Younger Dryas ended 11,500 years ago, maybe they could have travelled in boats across the edge of the ice around then.

In Stanford and Bradley’s book on the Solutrean hypothesis, “Across Atlantic Ice”, they say that the human archaeological trail in North America appears to go from East to West, and they also say: “The archaeological evidence suggests to us that there were at least two technological adaptations to North American climes. One was the progenitor of Clovis ...” and “The second adaptation stuck to the edge of the retreating glaciers.” Maybe y-dna Q / mtdna C were the Solutreans and pre-Clovis people and they later merged with the East Asian folk to produce the Clovis culture; while some y-dna R-M269 / mtdna X folk with some Solutrean-like stone tool technology crossed the Atlantic during the Younger Dryas, and were that second group they mention that followed the more northerly path.

There’s also been some speculation that y-dna I-M26 (I2a1a) made its way to the northern coast of South America some 8,000-or-so years ago in reed boats, via the Canary Islands. The author of this article http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-white-gods/ states that: “I-M26 was found in Amerindians in exactly the same places where there were legends of White Gods, and in no others.”

Maybe these claims could be investigated further, and y-chromosome tests could be done to see if there are SNPs from these lines (R-M269 and I-M26) that are unique to Native Americans.
 
I also wonder why Loschbourg and La Brana finds appear not Cro-Magnoid. Loschbour in particular does not even look Caucasoid to me. 10000 year old Cro-Magnid skulls have been found in north Africa, so the genetic composition of Berbers might answer some question. On the other hand it is hard to imagine that WHG should not be related to Cro-Magnon.

At the mergins of this trhead:
have you some scholar analysis of the the La brana and Loschbour crania?
based on my unique angle picture of their skulls (a very poor basis) La Brana could very well be a variant of 'cromagonn' or a cross of 'cromagnon-brünn' but with very very dominant 'cromagnon' features when Loschbour could very well be of typical 'brünn' phylum in its previous brutal features: the element that later influenced some of the SOM culture human elements in the between Paris/Champagne-Eiffel regions before celtic domination...
by the way, ancient scholars (not too "up-to-date") thought the these "brutal" types came with the solutrean in Europe, coming from Siberia: an old thought, it's true...
the origin of solutrean could be in a region around southern Eurasia, being the siberian sites some of the subsequent eastwards colonizations as western Europe could bethe westwards ones ?
 

This thread has been viewed 103322 times.

Back
Top