The Population History of Northeastern Siberia

That's what I'm thinking. The East Eurasian - West Eurasian split could have occurred maybe with the early migration to Sundaland 73-63k B.P. .

Seems at least much more in line with the evidence than a differentation in the Near East or even Africa as proposed by Razib Khan IMHO. Not even taking into account the genetic data, plains hunters in Africa and the Near East would be much less likely to become isolated and drift from each other than rainforest dwellers seperated by the sea.

Thing is, i feel such hypothesis have to be back 75k bp like you said and our oldest sample ever is 45k bp so we have a gap of 30k year old between out of india and the first differentiated humans that we have. Also in samples like Vestonice or Goyet we can still see traces of related ancestry with modern Papuan wich mean they are not that more old than 30K no? Maybe the Sundaland that we talk about are maybe more linked with Denisovans?
 
Thing is, i feel such hypothesis have to be back 75k bp like you said and our oldest sample ever is 45k bp so we have a gap of 30k year old between out of india and the first differentiated humans that we have. Also in samples like Vestonice or Goyet we can still see traces of related ancestry with modern Papuan wich mean they are not that more old than 30K no? Maybe the Sundaland that we talk about are maybe more linked with Denisovans?

We can be reasonably sure that the humans from Sumatra were AMH. We do not know whether they actually contributed to the modern Eurasian lineage, however. I think they did since the evidence is piling up. Just recently Dortch et al. (2017) gave ~65k B.P. (though disputed) for the peopling of the northern Sahul for example.

Sadly archaeological research is lacking in the place that is focal to this scenario (India and vicinity).
 
We can be reasonably sure that the humans from Sumatra were AMH. We do not know whether they actually contributed to the modern Eurasian lineage, however. I think they did since the evidence is piling up. Just recently Dortch et al. (2017) gave ~65k B.P. (though disputed) for the peopling of the northern Sahul for example.

Sadly archaeological research is lacking in the place that is focal to this scenario (India and vicinity).

But could they be some AMH like the one who contributed a little bit to Denisova but not related to our AMH ancestry?

Well at the speed the results for the India paper is coming. They probably have their next sample, and a middle-age one, only in 10 years sadly.
 
But could they be some AMH like the one who contributed a little bit to Denisova but not related to our AMH ancestry?

Well at the speed the results for the India paper is coming. They probably have their next sample, and a middle-age one, only in 10 years sadly.

Yeah, without aDNA it's impossible to rule out that this was just a failed earlier exodus of humans from Africa.

I've been waiting for more info on this site: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...nt-found-near-Chennai/articleshow/6622838.cms
 
That's what I'm thinking. The East Eurasian - West Eurasian split could have occurred maybe with the early migration to Sundaland 73-63k B.P. .

Seems at least much more in line with the evidence than a differentation in the Near East or even Africa as proposed by Razib Khan IMHO. Not even taking into account the genetic data, plains hunters in Africa and the Near East would be much less likely to become isolated and drift from each other than rainforest dwellers seperated by the sea.

that is asuming east asians came via sundaland
I don't
hard to tell though
 
[/FONT][/COLOR]

OONf7HI.png

'yana split from Europe 38.7 ka and got 29.2 % east asian admixture'
it would be odd to say
'yana split from east asia 38.7 ka and got 70.8 % european admixture'
but would it be incorrect too?
aren't there 2 ways to see it, as both events happened simultaneously?
 
OONf7HI.png

'yana split from Europe 38.7 ka and got 29.2 % east asian admixture'
it would be odd to say
'yana split from east asia 38.7 ka and got 70.8 % european admixture'
but would it be incorrect too?
aren't there 2 ways to see it, as both events happened simultaneously?


It's not the same - the Western component split off the ancestors of the Kostenki-Sungir population 38.7 years ago. We don't know much about the nature of the Eastern component because we have so few samples outside of Europe and Siberia.
 
Also, again Mal'ta and EHG are modelled as having 10-20% CHG-related ancestry. So many discussions about this over the years :grin:
 
Also, again Mal'ta and EHG are modelled as having 10-20% CHG-related ancestry. So many discussions about this over the years :grin:

What could it mean?
 
What could it mean?

I personally doubt that HGs from the Caucasus made it to Lake Baikal. An ancient cline seems like a more realistic proposal.

Lazaridis et al. also modelled Andaman Islanders for example as having 30% Iran_Neo ancestry. I don't believe this is real admixture either - it must be related to that cline.
 
Did they actually find X2a in NE Siberia? I believed (against the tide, I know) that it was brought by pre-Columbian pre-Viking West Eurasian contact...

By the way, why do we STILL not know what subclade of R1b the Native Americans belonged to? I mean, it can't be that hard, surely. If I had to guess, it would be some rare form of M269 not found among present-day European populations.

HgR-Map.jpg


Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29.PNG


I'll just out myself now - I'm a supporter of Thor Heyerdahl's Canary hypothesis (the gist, anyway - as one example, samples of cocaine (a New World crop) found amongst some of the Egyptian mummies (people try to explain it away as "contamination", as if people were doing coke while excavating - it was found in the hair anyway, which is normally enough to rule something like that out, but because this is so incredible people see it as crackpot)).

Wrong, the R1b in Ojibwe Canadians (where this frequently reported statistic comes from ) is likely P312 or U106 just like the British and French settlers. M269 didn't exist 17000 years ago.
 
Despite the similarities to Ma'lta, I suspect this population was still considerably closer to the one who founded the Americas - Q1a3 (or whatever the latest nomenclature is). Lake Baikal isn't all that close, and even then, was probably a genetic dead end like this Yana tribe. R1 was successful far to the west of here. I'm curious though, what Y line carried the additional East Asian admixture before the first North Americans (aka Natives) crossed the Bering Strait. Was it C3? The more recent "neo-Siberians" were probably YDNA N and O.
 
Wrong, the R1b in Ojibwe Canadians (where this frequently reported statistic comes from ) is likely P312 or U106 just like the British and French settlers. M269 didn't exist 17000 years ago.

No, because that doesn't explain why they wouldn't have other haplogroups like I1 (from your hypothesis they should). It clearly is a lot older than that.
 
I personally doubt that HGs from the Caucasus made it to Lake Baikal. An ancient cline seems like a more realistic proposal.

Lazaridis et al. also modelled Andaman Islanders for example as having 30% Iran_Neo ancestry. I don't believe this is real admixture either - it must be related to that cline.

In the Dzudzuana paper they were saying that CHG/Iranian Neolithic was likely just a result of ANE moving South during the cold snap and admixing with Dzudzuana plus more basal/deep lineage (I think), with CHG being in the EHG<-->Iranian Neolithic Cline. Seems like Iranian Neolithic didn't exist until after 20k years ago, according to that paper.

Eurasians seem to be suddenly splitting off during a relatively short span of time. I'm imagining a cartoonish argument about which way to go, between groups that look like ethnic caricatures of themselves.

When you were talking about a single wave model being favored by evidence you listed the fact that most Eurasians don't have archaic ancestry as supporting evidence. Please explain this. My brain is slow today. It seems to me that multiple waves could still result in very limited to zero neanderthal admixture. Your other reasons are sound.
 
If ANS or Yana is closely related and ancestral to ANE with both being around 75% West Eurasian and 25% East Eurasian or more, does this means that Native Americans have close to 30% West Eurasian ancestry and might have very low levels of CHG-related admixture being that they are around 40% ANE?
 
I personally doubt that HGs from the Caucasus made it to Lake Baikal. An ancient cline seems like a more realistic proposal.

Lazaridis et al. also modelled Andaman Islanders for example as having 30% Iran_Neo ancestry. I don't believe this is real admixture either - it must be related to that cline.

Hm. If both Mal'ta have CHG and Andamanese Iran_Neo, it probably have to do with the hypothetic ASE, Ancient South Eurasian, wich is believe to be the ancestor of ANE. Maybe something coming out of India.
 
In the Dzudzuana paper they were saying that CHG/Iranian Neolithic was likely just a result of ANE moving South during the cold snap and admixing with Dzudzuana plus more basal/deep lineage (I think), with CHG being in the EHG<-->Iranian Neolithic Cline. Seems like Iranian Neolithic didn't exist until after 20k years ago, according to that paper.

Eurasians seem to be suddenly splitting off during a relatively short span of time. I'm imagining a cartoonish argument about which way to go, between groups that look like ethnic caricatures of themselves.

When you were talking about a single wave model being favored by evidence you listed the fact that most Eurasians don't have archaic ancestry as supporting evidence. Please explain this. My brain is slow today. It seems to me that multiple waves could still result in very limited to zero neanderthal admixture. Your other reasons are sound.

After the failed expedition of the presumably AMH Skhul, the northern Middle East and the Levant seems to have been resettled by pure Neanderthals until their decline after ~45k B.P. . I believe that if the ancestors of modern humans had spent much time in the Middle East living more or less side by side with Neanderthals we would see inflated Neanderthal signals especially among West Eurasians, as is the case with the Romanian Oase guy. Remote areas like southern Arabia would be an exception of course.

Alternative explanations like social segregation etc. could be invoked, but I believe archaics and AMH interbred quite readily when they met, hence we observe multiple introgressions into the line of modern humans. Seems more likely to me that the archaic range and the AMH range initially didn't overlap too much, with sapiens favoring the warmer regions until he became genetically & socially/technologically adapted to the colder climates of Eurasia. That's when we see the rapid colonization of the entirety of Eurasia beginning ca. ~45k B.P. . This might explain the suspicious gap between the very early dates for human settlement in South & South-East Asia (if corroborated) and other regions halpfalp mentioned before: the relatively quick exodus from his ancestral home might have been a quite difficult affair for AMH. Unlike the Neanderthal he didn't have the benefit of ~400k years adaptation to cold climates and Eurasian biomes.
 
After the failed expedition of the presumably AMH Skhul, the northern Middle East and the Levant seems to have been resettled by pure Neanderthals until their decline after ~45k B.P. . I believe that if the ancestors of modern humans had spent much time in the Middle East living more or less side by side with Neanderthals we would see inflated Neanderthal signals especially among West Eurasians, as is the case with the Romanian Oase guy. Remote areas like southern Arabia would be an exception of course.

Alternative explanations like social segregation etc. could be invoked, but I believe archaics and AMH interbred quite readily when they met, hence we observe multiple introgressions into the line of modern humans. Seems more likely to me that the archaic range and the AMH range initially didn't overlap too much, with sapiens favoring the warmer regions until he became genetically & socially/technologically adapted to the colder climates of Eurasia. That's when we see the rapid colonization of the entirety of Eurasia beginning ca. ~45k B.P. . This might explain the suspicious gap between the very early dates for human settlement in South & South-East Asia (if corroborated) and other regions halpfalp mentioned before: the relatively quick exodus from his ancestral home might have been a quite difficult affair for AMH. Unlike the Neanderthal he didn't have the benefit of ~400k years adaptation to cold climates and Eurasian biomes.

A little bit off topic but, i have hard time to believe that Oase 1 and Ust-Ishim are not that much related, they have little years of separation, they have the same y-dna haplogroup, they both share relations somehow with East Asians. Also, on Wikipedia it's says that " Neanderthal DNA in modern humans occurs in broken fragments; however, the Neanderthal DNA in Ust'-Ishim man occurs in clusters, indicating that Ust'-Ishim man lived in the immediate aftermath of the genetic interchange. " and on an article of Lizzie Wade i read this " The Ust-Ishim man likely lived 7000 to 13,000 years after modern humans and Neandertals mated " wich doesn't really make sense because Oase 1 have a neanderthal ancestor 6 generations before him more or less. Do we actually know on all UP samples that we have, with wich Neanderthals they are closer?
 
A little bit off topic but, i have hard time to believe that Oase 1 and Ust-Ishim are not that much related, they have little years of separation, they have the same y-dna haplogroup, they both share relations somehow with East Asians. Also, on Wikipedia it's says that " Neanderthal DNA in modern humans occurs in broken fragments; however, the Neanderthal DNA in Ust'-Ishim man occurs in clusters, indicating that Ust'-Ishim man lived in the immediate aftermath of the genetic interchange. " and on an article of Lizzie Wade i read this " The Ust-Ishim man likely lived 7000 to 13,000 years after modern humans and Neandertals mated " wich doesn't really make sense because Oase 1 have a neanderthal ancestor 6 generations before him more or less. Do we actually know on all UP samples that we have, with wich Neanderthals they are closer?

If you read the Oase paper you'll find that they actually find two layers of Neanderthal admixture, one recent, the other related to the Ust'Ishim admixture.

EDIT: It is even more complicated as there are actually more *ancient* Neanderthal in Oase 1.

When we remove the seven longest segments, the estimate of Neanderthal ancestry in Oase 1 drops from 7.3% to 4.8%, which is still around twice the 2.0–2.9% estimated for the French, Han, Kostenki and Ust’-Ishim individuals in this remaining part of the genome. This additional Neanderthal ancestry could reflect an older Neanderthal admixture into the ancestors of Oase1, or that we failed to find all segments of recent Neanderthal ancestry. The Oase 1 genome shows that mixture between modern humans and Neanderthals was not limited to the first ancestors of present-day people to leave Africa, or to people in the Near East; it occurred later as well and probably in Europe.
 
Last edited:
If you read the Oase paper you'll find that they actually find two layers of Neanderthal admixture, one recent, the other related to the Ust'Ishim admixture.

Oh ok. Yeah i could not read the Oase paper without register.
 

This thread has been viewed 33059 times.

Back
Top