24,000 year old Mal'ta Siberians (ydna R* and mtdna U*)

Tabaccus Maximus said:
The 24,000 year old Mal'ta mammoth hunter encampment is rumored to show individuals to belonging to y-chromosomal haplogroup R* (no additional details) and mtdna haplogroup U*. The Afontova Gora individuals from roughly the same time also appear to have the same profile. Dienekes has posted:

http://dienekes.blogspot.jp/2013/10/paleoamericanodyssey-tweets-on-24000.html


It seems my post on R* and Q* (P-M45) Siberian connections was timely, coming just a few days before the PaleoAmerican Conference, here on Eupedia.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29167-Haplogroup-P-M45-link-to-Mound-Building


There are some especially interesting things about the discovery. One is the apparent lack of any sort of East Asian admixture in the Mal'ta or Afontova individuals, but people who had typical "Mongoloid" features and dark skin.

This raises several questions about the Mal'ta individuals:

1. What kind of R*, or is it even R* and not P-M45 or Q*? Is it R1*, R2*?

2. Are the Mal'taian or Afontova hunters related to hunters in Europe? There are striking similarities, also big differences.

3. Are Native Americans racially a combined mixture of nomadic West Asian mammoth hunters and East Asians?

4. And/or are Europeans a mixture of a Mongoloid R* and Caucusian women (U*, H* and T*)

5. Did R* belong to a completely different race (say R/Q* + X) and mixed with East Asians and Caucasians producing Amerindians and Europeans, respectively?



We will be talking about this for a long time! Big, exciting news.
Click to expand...

Wait a minite, isn't Mal'ta in the location where the Ket People (Haplogroup Q predominate) claim to have originated? If this is the case or similar, I am very sure this could be Q P or R1 :)
 
For anyone who hasn't read it...this is Razib's analysis:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/g...-historical-population-genetics/#.Um1nFBAlg8I

First he quotes from the latest paper from the Reich group at Harvard, "Efficient moment-based inference of admixture paramaters and sources of gene flow." (The entire paper can be found at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2555v2.pdf)

"Our interpretation is that most if not all modern Europeans are descended from at least one large-scale ancient admixture event involving, in some combination, at least one population of Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers; Neolithic farmers, originally from the Near East; and/or other migrants from northern or Central Asia. Either the first or second of these could be related to the “ancient western Eurasian” branch in Figure 5, and either the first or third could be related to the “ancient northern Eurasian” branch. Present-day Europeans differ in the amount of drift they have experienced since the admixture and in the proportions of the ancestry components they have inherited, but their overall profiles are similar."


He finishes by giving his own speculations:

"The authors assert that pretty much all Europeans exhibit evidence of massive admixture between very distinct lineages. To me this is highly suggestive of events which have roots prior to the Neolithic Revolution. In other words admixture between west and north Eurasian lineages may have occurred in Europe at the end of the last Ice Age, as the continent was being resettled by hunters from the east and south. Later, Neolithic farmers from the Middle East related to the west Eurasian population in Europe during the Pleistocene added a subsequent layer of west Eurasian ancestry, and to a great extent replaced or absorbed the admixed hunter-gatherers. Finally, it seems now entirely possible that a further wave of migrants from Central Asia, who were also an admixed population, erupted into Europe and replaced or absorbed many of the descendants of the Neolithic farmers."

Thought provoking, isn't it? I'm never going to look at admixture calculators and nice neat bar graphs in the same way again...lol.
 
Angela said:
For anyone who hasn't read it...this is Razib's analysis:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/g...-historical-population-genetics/#.Um1nFBAlg8I

First he quotes from the latest paper from the Reich group at Harvard, "Efficient moment-based inference of admixture paramaters and sources of gene flow." (The entire paper can be found at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2555v2.pdf)

"Our interpretation is that most if not all modern Europeans are descended from at least one large-scale ancient admixture event involving, in some combination, at least one population of Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers; Neolithic farmers, originally from the Near East; and/or other migrants from northern or Central Asia. Either the first or second of these could be related to the “ancient western Eurasian” branch in Figure 5, and either the first or third could be related to the “ancient northern Eurasian” branch. Present-day Europeans differ in the amount of drift they have experienced since the admixture and in the proportions of the ancestry components they have inherited, but their overall profiles are similar."


He finishes by giving his own speculations:

"The authors assert that pretty much all Europeans exhibit evidence of massive admixture between very distinct lineages. To me this is highly suggestive of events which have roots prior to the Neolithic Revolution. In other words admixture between west and north Eurasian lineages may have occurred in Europe at the end of the last Ice Age, as the continent was being resettled by hunters from the east and south. Later, Neolithic farmers from the Middle East related to the west Eurasian population in Europe during the Pleistocene added a subsequent layer of west Eurasian ancestry, and to a great extent replaced or absorbed the admixed hunter-gatherers. Finally, it seems now entirely possible that a further wave of migrants from Central Asia, who were also an admixed population, erupted into Europe and replaced or absorbed many of the descendants of the Neolithic farmers."

Thought provoking, isn't it? I'm never going to look at admixture calculators and nice neat bar graphs in the same way again...lol.
Click to expand...

Actually the calculators (with reasonable parameters) were predicting the writing above quite well, even though they do not calculate ancestral roots (of course they don't. I hope nobody was expecting that).
 
Sorry, I couldn't get the image to post...These are the North Eurasian hunter gatherer admixture proportions from Lipson et al

Adygei 0.254-0.461

Basque 0.160-0.385

French 0.184-0.386

Italian 0.210-0.415 (Bergamo)

Orcadian 0.156-0.350

Russian 0.278-0.486

Sardinian 0.150-0.350

Tuscan O.179-0.431
 
Angela said:
"Our interpretation is that most if not all modern Europeans are descended from at least one large-scale ancient admixture event involving, in some combination, at least one population of Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers; Neolithic farmers, originally from the Near East; and/or other migrants from northern or Central Asia. Either the first or second of these could be related to the “ancient western Eurasian” branch in Figure 5, and either the first or third could be related to the “ancient northern Eurasian” branch. Present-day Europeans differ in the amount of drift they have experienced since the admixture and in the proportions of the ancestry components they have inherited, but their overall profiles are similar."
Click to expand...


Here's how I draw the equation based off his own data:

A mixture occuring in the greater Near East...

(Pre-pottery Neolithic farmers H, HV, V, T, U) + (Eastern Ceramic(?) Hunter-Gatherers R*, R1, R2, mt X, mt U) = (West Asian ((White)) People)
In other words, the NW European "Hunter-Gatherer Component" doesn't maternally come from H, HV, V, T, or K, which it is being mistaken for; it is precisely the large presence of asian R* and its cohorts (U3, X1, X2, Q, etc).

The various Caucausian, Gedrosian, Neolithic farmer components are more likely inherited through the maternal lineage of modern Europeans (H, HV, V, T + K)

I may have read Davidski suggest something like this, although his point wasn't exactly clear.

BUT,

This scenario could potentially answers several questions:

1. The origin of ceramic culture in the Neolithic in Mehrgarh in Balochistan(?) (sorry) and the Near East
2. The origin of ceramics in the New World associated with the pho-western comoponents seen in Mal'ta
3. Why mtdna haplogroups of the Neolithic advance precede the y-components to which they are later yoked (H, HV, V, T + K)
4. The apparent haplogroup discontinuity in Europe from the Paleolithic to the Modern age.
 
Last edited:
Tabaccus Maximus said:
There are some especially interesting things about the discovery. One is the apparent lack of any sort of East Asian admixture in the Mal'ta or Afontova individuals, but people who had typical "Mongoloid" features and dark skin.

This raises several questions about the Mal'ta individuals:

1. What kind of R*, or is it even R* and not P-M45 or Q*? Is it R1*, R2*?

2. Are the Mal'taian or Afontova hunters related to hunters in Europe? There are striking similarities, also big differences.

3. Are Native Americans racially a combined mixture of nomadic West Asian mammoth hunters and East Asians?

4. And/or are Europeans a mixture of a Mongoloid R* and Caucusian women (U*, H* and T*)

5. Did R* belong to a completely different race (say R/Q* + X) and mixed with East Asians and Caucasians producing Amerindians and Europeans, respectively?



We will be talking about this for a long time! Big, exciting news.
Click to expand...

I believe P Q R NO they all originated in Central Asia.
NO where the first, they headed eastwards through Siberia
Then Q also eastwards through Siberia but a more northern route
R1a went northwest, north of Caspian Sea, and R1b south of Caspian Sea
But what about R*? They may have joined Q.
There is some R among native Indians.
How did it get there? By the first European colonisers or was it there before?
I'd like to know more about this R among native Indians.
Is it R1a or R1b or R* ? I don't find an answer anywhere.
 
Dogs domesticated by Euro-Siberian mammoth hunters??????

http://dienekes.blogspot.jp/2013/11/european-origin-of-domesticated-dogs.html

Rather than start a new post, I figure this has more relevance in this post regarding the 24,000 R/U samples from Siberia.

What's noteworthy is that there was a possible human cultural/genetic/phenotypical link between the peoples spread across the mammoth tundra from Northern Europe to Eastern Siberia.
Apparently the first domesticated dogs appear in the same regions in Europe and Siberia in the archeological timeframe. This would seem to indicate that people, such as found in the Mal'ta and Afontova sites may be partly credited for the long slow process of domestication.

Perhaps wolves followed hunting parties with the anticipation that after processing of a large beast like a mammoth that their would be left overs. It may have been a beneficial relationship if wolves started to develop a protective mentality of their particular hunting party from other packs of wolves. At some point a wolf pup was taken home to camp and raised. The young wolf, well feed, might protect his 'tribe' and these traits were encouraged in later generations.


What is really tantalizing is if the wolf-dog itself was a hunting dog, an the primary weapon of the mammoth hunt. Dogs are used for all sorts of specialized hunting and stock management.
Maybe wolf-dogs were used by mammoth hunters to control, channel or aggravate herds so they could be ambushed.??
 
Angela said:
I've been reading about this quite a bit, too. The archaeology of the area, particularly the dating, seems to be a bit of a mess... some people are claiming that the "R" man is from the Middle Paleolithic, and the definitely "Mongoloid" child found nearby? is from the Late Paleolithic, after the LGM...I don't know given the state of the scholarship what the story is...I think we have to wait until the paper comes out to see where exactly they found the R and U combination, and in what exact archaeological context and with as accurate a date as possible...was it at Mal'ta which might be LGM, or the site further north which was abandoned in the LGM, to be inhabited by people from the east later, or both...but he seems to be definitely "R" and "U", and he is "much darker than Oetzi".

I don't know why the latter is a particular surprise. I know of one paper that dated blue eyes, for example, to 6,000 B.C., down around the Black Sea, and attributed it to the Neolithic diet not providing enough Vitamin D, and not getting enough of it from the sun at higher latitudes, which meant that this mutation spread very quickly in those populations. The other paper of which I'm aware gives a broad range for light skin mutations in Europeans of about 19,000 to 11,000 years before present. Even the absolutely most ancient date would be after the time of this hunter gatherer, while the 11,000 year old date, 9000 B.C., fits in very nicely with the Neolithic transformation in and around the northern Near East.

As for how and when the internet got a hold of it, it was leaked by a presenter at the PaleoAmerican conference who spoke to the author of the paper. He later tried to take it down, but it was too late.

I thought this was a very interesting quote from his blog:
ADMIXTURE showed West Eurasian, Amerindian and Southeast Asian (Pacific) components. No East Asians again.

Again, I don't think this is a huge surprise... MtDNA U2 looks like it might have developed somewhere in between Siberia and India,(maybe somewhere east of the Caucasus?) spreading both north and south.
The Kostenki skull, as modeled by the scientists (which admittedly has to be taken with a grain of salt...remember how they created an Oetzi with blue eyes who looked northern European before they got the dna?) looks sort of South Indian to me, or indeed Oceanian...

It's interesting that someone broke protocol and somehow got access to the raw data and ran it through a calculator. Not Kosher...but it gives us a glimpse...it looks like the data was run through the MDLP calculator.

These are the results:
[2,] “33.7% Brahui + 66.3% Udmurd” “21.9804″
[3,] “34.5% Makrani + 65.5% Udmurd” “22.357″
[4,] “34.3% Balochi + 65.7% Udmurd” “22.413″
[5,] “33.3% Sindhi + 66.7% Udmurd” “24.1198″
[6,] “36.5% Burusho + 63.5% Udmurd” “24.211″
[7,] “39.7% Pashtun + 60.3% Udmurd” “24.3389″
[8,] “34.3% Pathan + 65.7% Udmurd” “24.716″
[9,] “32.2% Pakistani + 67.8% Udmurd” “24.753″
[10,] “41.4% Tadjik + 58.6% Udmurd” “24.852

There's the south Asian, maybe ASI heavy component, and then with the Udmurts you have both a more western Eurasian dna and an eastern "Siberian" one?

Just for the heck of it I looked these people up online...

These are the Balochi:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6aFtYVGidvk/TVRdcn7IuyI/AAAAAAAAAAY/qQKTJA1q5QA/s1600/3.jpg
This is one of the two peaks of the Gedrosia component.

I couldn't find group pictures of the Brahui with enough resolution.. but you can just google them.

These are the Udmurts...I did not pick a picture from the ones obviously cherry picked for "northern European" looking people and then posted on line...I went with a picture taken quite a while ago by scientists...however, you can see the "Siberian" look in some of the people even in the pictures chosen to highlight the red hair that sometimes appears amongst them...guess they forgot to crop out the pretty girl all the way on the left. :)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Udmurt_people.jpg
http://russianpickle.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/udmurt_people_red.jpg?w=300&h=225

So, if we us the modern Udmurts for 66% of the mixture in this R man, it seems to me that Mr. R definitely had some "Siberian" type genes.

Does anyone have access to the admixture results of the Udmurts? I would think Dienekes has included them in Globe 13 but it must be one of those populations represented by letters...I don't know which one.

Ed. I can provide citations for the two pigmentation studies that give approximate dates if someone wants them.
Click to expand...

interesting post of yours Angela - I have few elements to carry in -
concerning pigmentation, I think light hairs light eyes and lightER skin are subsequant mutations which occurred lately, after a first mutation concerning light skin only -
you can easily go on Dienekes blog and see an abstract about the rs 1426654 SNP on SLC 24AS allele, producing light skin and share ONLY by 'caucasians' (or 'euro-west-asians') and by south Asians (no surprise for me again) - the mutation studied among 1573 individuals and 54 ethnies, WOULD be occurred between 22000 and 28000 years ago, so not so young! the ligh skin mutation of 'mongoloids' is different (it was said long enough time ago) - the abstract says the mutation was selected by natural pressure (climate?) -
the datation of the mutation does not tell us when this mutation became the dominant feature among the populations: selection requires some time as a rule - and we can believe the propagation + selection was not strong in southern lands... what is interesting in that in south Asia a lot of people (less among Dravidians) show very "european" skeletal features compared to skin colour...
concerning Udmuts, even without "pigmentation hobbyists selection" they show (for me) a mix 'europoid-mongoloid' where 'europoid' seem a bit stronger - an indefinite 'N-E Amerindian' taste is not to be excluded also...
read you again
 
MOESAN said:
interesting post of yours Angela - I have few elements to carry in -
concerning pigmentation, I think light hairs light eyes and lightER skin are subsequant mutations which occurred lately, after a first mutation concerning light skin only -
you can easily go on Dienekes blog and see an abstract about the rs 1426654 SNP on SLC 24AS allele, producing light skin and share ONLY by 'caucasians' (or 'euro-west-asians') and by south Asians (no surprise for me again) - the mutation studied among 1573 individuals and 54 ethnies, WOULD be occurred between 22000 and 28000 years ago, so not so young! the ligh skin mutation of 'mongoloids' is different (it was said long enough time ago) - the abstract says the mutation was selected by natural pressure (climate?) -
the datation of the mutation does not tell us when this mutation became the dominant feature among the populations: selection requires some time as a rule - and we can believe the propagation + selection was not strong in southern lands... what is interesting in that in south Asia a lot of people (less among Dravidians) show very "european" skeletal features compared to skin colour...
concerning Udmuts, even without "pigmentation hobbyists selection" they show (for me) a mix 'europoid-mongoloid' where 'europoid' seem a bit stronger - an indefinite 'N-E Amerindian' taste is not to be excluded also...
read you again
Click to expand...

I agree about the current paper. (The entire Mallick et al paper can be found here:http://www.plosgenetics.org/article....1371/journal.pgen.1003912&representation=PDF)
It is really talking about the emergence, or perhaps more accurately, the coalescence of this mutation, and not when it expanded. Even then, their confidence intervals for that coalescence are huge.

"We estimated the coalescence time of the rs1426654 mutation at 28,100 years (95% CI - 4,900 to 58,400 years) using BEAST.Using the same mutation rate, the coalescent age estimated by rho statistics was 21,702 years 6-10,282 years.

For an understanding of the actual selective sweeps involved, I find this paper more informative.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/08/25/molbev.mss207.full.pdf+html
The Timing of Skin Pigmentation Lightening in Europeans, Beleza et al

This is one of their conclusions, based on the KITLG gene.
I find this interesting in light of the fact that the Mal'ta boy is dated to 24, 000 years ago, and so maybe from a period before there was complete divergence between West Eurasian, East Eurasian, and perhaps indeed Southeast Eurasian groups, which would explain his admixture results.

"the initial stages of European skin lightening occurred in a proto Eurasian population, about 30,000 years ago, after the out of Africa migration ~60,000 70,000 years ago and slightly more recently than the earliest archaeological evidences for the dispersal of anatomically modern humans in Europe, around 40,000 years ago Recent estimates based on genome wide patterns of variation have suggested that the European and East Asian divergence might have occurred as late as ~25,000 years ago.

This is where they discuss the timing of the selective sweep.
"Our estimates additionally show that the onset of selective sweeps at SLC24A5, SLC45A2,and TYRP1, the three genes in which the geographic distribution of the polymorphisms is primarily restricted to European populations, were much more recent than at KITLG
, and remarkably compressed within the last 11,000-19,000 years (Table 3)."

Based on these dates, they place the time of the sweeps into Europe during the Magdalenian, and posit that it occurred both because of reduced sunlight during the LGM, leading to high risks of Vitamin D deficiency, and the fact that they see a large increase in population during that period, and that would have made these mutations more available in the population.

I'm not sure I agree with that conclusion from the data. Snow and ice conditions would not necessarily decrease sunlight, or at least that's how I understand it, and these H/G's would still have been consuming a high fish diet, which would presumably have somewhat mediated their situation in terms of access to Vitamin D. I also still lean toward the view that the Neolithic technologies produced the large increase in population, instead of resulting from it...

Also, the dates they provide in Table 3 seem to me to support the Neolithic era as the most likely time for the sweeps to have begun, in particular because of the added Vitamin D deficiency stress caused by a majority cereals diet. The data in Table 3 shows that they
estimated that the selective sweep at SLC24A5 occurred around 11.3 KYA (95% CI, 1–55.8 KYA) and 18.7 KYA (5.8–38.3 KYA) under additive and dominant models, respectively [42]. With those kinds of dates and confidence intervals, it seems more than possible to me that the sweep took place during the Neolithic, funnelling out from the northern Near East and into Europe.

At any rate, the new Mallick et al paper which Dienekes posted does not necessarily see a contradiction between its own results and these slightly older papers. As they say:


[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Our Bayesian coalescent age estimate of the rs1426654-A allele at ~28 KYA (95% HPD, 5–58 KYA), as well as the rho-based estimate at 21.7 (±10.3) KYA, are older in their point estimates than both of the above selective sweep date estimates, although these age estimates have broad and overlapping error margins. This finding is not surprising because sweeps can also operate on standing variation. [/FONT]"

Therefore, they conclude that:


"It appears that the most plausible scenario is that light skin evolved as an adaptation to local environmental conditions as humans started moving to northerly latitudes, with the initial phase of skin lightening occurring in proto Eurasian populations, while genetic variation in SLC24A5 formed the later phase which led to lighter skin in Europeans and South Asians, but not East Asians. This was followed by a European-specific selective sweep, which favored the rapid spread of this mutation in these populations. Our coalescence age estimates of 28 KYA (95% HPD 5–58 KYA) show wide margins, also evident in the earlier sweep date estimates for the gene [42]. This can be due to the fact that the power of our analysis was limited by the need to reduce our sequence range to a subset of sites from a region with sufficiently high LD around the rs1426654-A allele and very low level of sequence variation. Therefore, we speculate that narrowing down the coalescence age estimates and specifying the geographic source of the rs1426654-A allele will depend rather on the success of ancient DNA studies than on more extensive sequencing."
 
Do s anyone have a link stream for Italy vs Germany game???
 
Nobody1 said:
All i know is that Ötzi had the rs1426654 (light-skin) mutation / Neolithic 3300 BC (Alps) and he prob. originated from the Caucasus/Anatolian area; and is by all standards (Genetical/Anthropological) a Mediterranid (Caucasoid);

Keller et al 2012 - p.4/Table1
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n2/pdf/ncomms1701.pdf
Click to expand...

I didn't know that...thanks for the information.
So, it was already in Southern European neolithic farmers 5300 years ago.

Of course, this has now reached near fixation in Europe.
This is a chart from Norton et al that shows the levels in HapMap populations. The last three snps on the right are involved with light pigmentation.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/suppl/2006/12/21/msl203.DC1/mbe-06-0529-File010_msl203.pdf



CLFyhJhJzqgAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==












B5sGhKrz7ZtdAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
 
7XCCmMItwJLAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC


I'm sorry...the site won't let me insert the table...which is a word document...if I can figure out how to do it, I'll edit this post or write a new post.
 
I must be having an off day...I don't see cranial measurements anywhere...just light skin.
 
It's interesting that Q and R now appear to have possibly originated in Siberia. The most common Native North American Y haplotype is Q but the next most common overall is R, and R is the most common haplotype in some tribes. I think the R has been assumed to be from post Columbian intermixing, but I don't know how closely that's been looked at. However, there's no mtDNA U among Native North Americans, as far as I know. It all seems to be A, B, C, D and X, with the X haplotype mostly being associated with Y haplotype R.
 
Angela said:
I didn't know that...thanks for the information.
So, it was already in Southern European neolithic farmers 5300 years ago.

Of course, this has now reached near fixation in Europe.
This is a chart from Norton et al that shows the levels in HapMap populations. The last three snps on the right are involved with light pigmentation.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/suppl/2006/12/21/msl203.DC1/mbe-06-0529-File010_msl203.pdf
Click to expand...

In the South and all other parts of Neolithic agriculture Europe;
Just thinking about Gök4 and the so-called 'Neolithic centers of renewed migration' - Busby et al 2011
 
Last edited:
Any and all y-DNA R in the Americas is due to white modern colonialism; it is a known fact; y-DNA R NEVER crossed the Bering straight into the Americas. Columbus and his cronies may have brought plentiful R though, along with English and French colonizers to North America in particular; the English having dominated the United States from east to west coast and 90% of canada excluding the Inuit great north or French quebec. Mexico though was colonized by the Spanish, not to mention Cuba and other regions of the Americas such as Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Colombia, Bolivia, chile etc. the Portuguese colonized Brazil of course as we know, and the English colonized many caribean islands; a few are Dutch; the French once owned many portions of Louisiana and eastern United States in general but they were ousted by the English, the French are the most present and main ethnicity of quebec; but there are communities in small portions of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and new-Brunswick as well (Acadians). Surprisingly there are also French communities across Vermont and a few more norther eastern states not too far from the quebec border; they were deported and scattered here by the conquering English, I believe several million were spread out across the U.S. In this manner.
 
But trust me; all R in the America's is 1600-1800's colonial Europeans (as early as 1400's in the case of the Spanish and their caribean conquest.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 66128 times.

Back
Top