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

One follow-up though;

The diffusion pattern of mtdna haplogroup X in the Americas is a bit puzzling. It's been suggested it came to North America with Solutreans, which I no longer support. I makes more sense that it originates in the Yenesian Basin on the basis of Mal'ta automsomal results and the Yenesian-Dene connection that has been well recieved. But again the distribution pattern doesn't really fit, for it is absent in South America. [Headscratch]

Perhaps that is because Amerindians of the southern continent were a founder of boat people who travelled down the Western coast??

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1226041/

The plot thickens.
 
...........

As far as Amerindian y-dna studies, there are two referenced in Wikipedia that you can link to, there was also one by Hammer et al, free here
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/1/164.short

.............

The Oxford Journal paper said "however, most haplogroup R lineages present in Native Americans most likely came from recent admixture with Europeans." That sounds like an assumption to me. However, I'll look at the two other papers you mentioned, some time in the next day or two - I don't have time right now.
 
Aberdeen is getting it now : ). I truly doubt any Vikings reproduced with amerinds based on the fact that had they done this "en masse" there would be a higher frequency of I1 lineages among amerinds as well; to me it's just a result of our most modern time's global mixing.
 
The 2008 paper by Ripon Singh seems to be no longer available. However, in the 2003 paper by Bortolini, I found these comments.

"Tarazona-Santos and Santos (2002) questioned the idea that M45b constitutes a Native American founder lineage, since haplotype 3 (character- ized by alleles 14-12-24-11-13-13) is common in Euro- pean populations (Weale et al. 2002), and its presence in Native Americans could be the result of recent admixture. However, although we did not find this haplotype in Mongolia, closely related lineages (including a one-step neighbor) are present in that region (haplotype 2 in table 4 and fig. 4D). Furthermore, Lell et al. (2002) observed the four-locus equivalent of haplotype 3 (and other closely related haplotypes) in populations from Siberia. The high frequency of haplogroup P-M45* in the Chipewayan (63%; fig. 2) also makes it unlikely that all these chromosomes result from admixture, since such a predominant European ancestry seems inconsistent with the preservation of the cultural identity of this population. A high level of European ancestry in the Chipewayan is also likely to introduce other lineages that are common in Europe (such as DE-YAP* and Y*; fig. 2). However, these were not observed in our sample or in the populations examined by Lell et al. (2002). By comparison, the lineage distribution in South Amerinds is more con- sistent with a low level of admixture: other than P-M45*, haplogroups Y*, DE-YAP*, and E-M2 (common in Europe and Africa) are also observed in some of the populations examined (fig. 2). Thus, although some of the P-M45* chromosomes found in South Amerinds seem to be of nonnative origin, it is doubtful that the same applies for a large fraction of those observed in the Chipewayan. In fact, the prevalence of major Y lineages in the Chipewayan (including an elevated frequency of P-M45*) is typical of some central Siberian populations (such as the Selkup, Yakut, and Kets), as illustrated by the close affinity of these populations ..."
 
I think the discussion got a little off track so let me clarify a few things.


2. There really is no implication that R* should be found in the Americas. Not saying it's not possible, but it is unlikely for the reason that all American R*'s are downstream of fairly recent European R's.

I'd like to know where you got this.
I've read this very often myself, but only from people who have this from hear-say.
 
I'd like to know where you got this.
I've read this very often myself, but only from people who have this from hear-say.

Ok, TM I see that you allready mentioned your sources, but I agree with the remarks that Aberdeen gave on them
 
Ancient DNA from Upper Paleolithic Lake Baikal (Mal'ta and Afontova Gora)
The study I mentioned in a previous post has now been made available in Nature. Two Upper Paleolithic Siberians (24-17kya) have been sequenced at low coverage. The better quality (and older) Mal'ta (MA-1) sample belongs to Y-haplogroup R and mtDNA haplogroup U, and the younger (but poorer quality) Afontova Gora (AG-2) sample appears to be related to it.


Most interestingly, there is evidence for gene flow between the MA-1 sample and Native Americans, which makes sense as these are Siberians of the period leading up to the initial colonization of the Americas. The interesting thing is that MA-1 does not appear to be East Eurasian, as proven by the test D(Papuan, Han; Sardinian, MA-1) which is non-significant, so MA-1 is not more closely related to Han than to Papuans (which is true for modern native Americans). So, it seems that the gene flow between MA-1 and Native Americans was towards Native Americans from MA-1 and not vice versa.

It is fascinating that such a sample could be found so far east at so early a time. Both Y-chromosome R and mtDNA haplogroup U are very rare east of Lake Baikal which has been considered a limit of west Eurasian influence into east Eurasia. And, indeed, both these haplogroups are absent in Native Americans, so it is not yet clear how Native Americans (who belong to Y-chromosome haplogroups Q and C and mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C, D, X) are related to these Paleolithic Siberians. The obvious candidate for this relationship is Y-chromosome haplogroup P (the ancestor of Q and R). So, perhaps Q-bearing relatives of the R-bearing Mal'ta population settled the Americas.

In any case, this is an extremely important sample, as its position in "no man's land" in the PCA plot (left) demonstrates, between Europeans and native Americans but close to no modern population.

Its closest present-day relatives are indicated in (c), with Native Americans (red) being the closest, and a scattering of boreal populations from the Atlantic to the Pacific (but not in the vicinity of Lake Baikal) next in line (yellow).

This distribution clearly related to the evidence for admixture in Europe adduced in two other recent papers, although the question of who went where and when remains to be resolved. Was MA-1 part of an intrusive western population encroaching on east Eurasians? Or did MA-1 lookalikes arrive as first settlers in empty territory, later ceding this space to east Eurasians from, perhaps, China? Did the two mix in Siberia or did they arrive in the Americas in separate migrations and mix there? And, how does this all relate to events in Europe in the far west?

UPDATE: Razib makes an excellent point:
Also, can we now finally bury the debate when east and west Eurasians diverged? Obviously it can’t have been that recent if a >20,000 year old individual had closer affinity to western populations.
We already knew that Tianyuan was more Asian than European, so I think west Eurasians diverged from the rest >40 thousand years ago. But, Tianyuan was so early that its precise relationships to different Asian groups could not be determined. So, I'd say it's a good guess that east-west split off before 40 thousand years in Eurasia.

Nature (2013) doi:10.1038/nature12736

Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans

Maanasa Raghavan, Pontus Skoglund et al.

The origins of the First Americans remain contentious. Although Native Americans seem to be genetically most closely related to east Asians1, 2, 3, there is no consensus with regard to which specific Old World populations they are closest to4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Here we sequence the draft genome of an approximately 24,000-year-old individual (MA-1), from Mal’ta in south-central Siberia9, to an average depth of 1×. To our knowledge this is the oldest anatomically modern human genome reported to date. The MA-1 mitochondrial genome belongs to haplogroup U, which has also been found at high frequency among Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers10, 11, 12, and the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages5. Similarly, we find autosomal evidence that MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Native Americans, with no close affinity to east Asians. This suggests that populations related to contemporary western Eurasians had a more north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought. Furthermore, we estimate that 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from this ancient population. This is likely to have occurred after the divergence of Native American ancestors from east Asian ancestors, but before the diversification of Native American populations in the New World. Gene flow from the MA-1 lineage into Native American ancestors could explain why several crania from the First Americans have been reported as bearing morphological characteristics that do not resemble those of east Asians2, 13. Sequencing of another south-central Siberian, Afontova Gora-2 dating to approximately 17,000 years ago14, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures as MA-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum. Our findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans.

treemix.png



pca.png
http://dienekes.blogspot.de/

It appears like this ydna R* mummy was a settler who originally came more from West. autosomal he appears to be between West Eurasians and Native Americans. The interesting part here is that actually Native Americans themselves seem to have dual ancestry.

My own conclusion is that this R* individual is a migrant who came from further West, likely from Central Asia.
 
[FONT=&quot]The autosome admixture portion of the paper begins around page 55. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The first results are the ones from the Admixture Program.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here are the actual percentages:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]South Asian(looks modal in Malayans?) 37[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]N.Euro 34[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Amerindian(Karitiana component) 16[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Athabascan(Greenlanders) 10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Papuan 4[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is the interpretation from the authors of the paper:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"At K = 9, MA-1 is composed of five genetic components of which the two major ones make up ca. 70% of the total. The most prominent component is shown in green and is otherwise prevalent in South Asia but does also appear in the Caucasus, Near East or even Europe. The other major genetic component (dark blue) in MA-1 is the one dominant in contemporary European populations, especially among northern and northeastern Europeans. The co-presence of the European-blue and South Asian-green in MA-1 can be interpreted as admixture of the two in MA-1 or, alternatively, MA-1 could represent a proto-western Eurasian prior to the split of Europeans and South Asians. This analysis cannot differentiate between these two scenarios.Most of the remaining nearly one third of the MA-1 genome is comprised of the two genetic components that make up the Native American gene pool (orange and light pink). Importantly, MA-1 completely lacks the genetic components prevalent in extant East Asians and Siberians (shown in dark and light yellow, respectively). Based on this result, it is likely that the current Siberian genetic landscape, dominated by the genetic components depicted in light and dark yellow (Figure SI 6), was formed by secondary wave(s) of immigrants from East Asia[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There were concerns about the reliability of the run given the low coverage analysis, so they used another program as well: “Since the MA-1 genome has an average sequencing depth of 1X, most of its genotypes can only be called with very high uncertainty. Therefore, in addition to the ADMIXTURE analysis described above, a new method called NGSadmix for performing admixture analyses was employed.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]\Ancestry Results using NGS admix Page 59[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is my estimate just by eyeballing it:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Chuvash 40[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Lezgin 20[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Balochi 15[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Athabascan 15[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Karitiana 8-10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot](At K=2, Mal’ta seems to be 75% West Eurasian? and 25% Han.)[/FONT]
 
there must have been multiple entries into America from different ethnic groups
there are 3 Y haplogroups among native Indians and 5 mtDNA haplogroups
all 3 Y haplogroups and X mtDNA still have their own distinct distribution in America which shows they entered America seperately
Y-R1 probably came together with mt-X , they are the west Eurasian connection
Y-C3 and mt-B are the main East Asian connection
Y-Q1a3 and mt-C are the connection with Altaï-Siberians
 
More information about the Mal'ta boy was published in Nature a few hours ago. It says that "the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages". The haplogroup that best matches this definition is P, not R*.

The article continues with:
"Our findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans."

I have read that some people jumped to the conclusion that Amerindians were of mixed European and Siberian blood. In other words, Palaeolithic Europeans migrated east to Siberia and mingled with the local tribes there, just as Bronze/Iron Age Indo-Europeans and modern Russians did much later. While this is possible, I would find it more plausible that both Europeans and Amerindians descend from a common ancestor in Central/North Asia, who belonged to Y-DNA P and mtDNA U and X (and perhaps also C). This root population would have split in two branches: R and Q, the former migrating west to the Pontic-Caspian region and the Middle East, and the latter staying in Siberia and migrating to the Americas. The autosomal admixture that is common to both modern West Eurasians and Native Americans would be the one associated with haplogroups P, Q and R. Since most hg R was limited to Eastern Europe until the Late Chalcolithic to Bronze Age, it is likely that Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and even Neolithic Europeans beyond Eastern Europe had little or no genetic admixture found in the Mal'ta boy. There might have been some element shared matrilineally through mt-hg U, but U is so old (perhaps as much as 60,000 years old) that any similitude would be very distant.

Regarding the Amerindians, their East Asian component is thought to have arrived through a second wave migration (post-Clovis), which would have brought at least Y-DNA C3 and mtDNA A, B, (C) and D. It is unclear whether both migrations brought Y-hg Q1a (perhaps different subclades), or if it was only the second wave. It is actually not impossible that the first people to colonise the American continent belonged to Y-hg R* or R1* and mtDNA X (+ C and U ?), and that these only survive among some North American tribes, especially in the eastern USA and Canada.

MtDNA C is an intriguing lineage since it is most common today among Amerindians, East Asians and Siberians, but it was also found at relatively high frequency in Mesolithic Fennoscandia (C* and C5 in the Kola peninsula), in Pre-pottery Neolithic B Syria (C1), in Neolithic Ukraine (C4a2), in Neolithic Hungary (C5) as well as in Chalcolithic to Iron Age Russia. The C4a2 in in the Pontic Steppe is particularly interesting since C4 is also one of the lineages typical of Amerindians (although it is C4c). That is why I believe that C4* could have been one of the maternal lineages linked to Y-DNA P, Q and R. The C1 in early Neolithic Syria is even more interesting, since C1 is the main Amerindian variety of C and R1b-V88 is thought to have arrived in the Levant shortly before the Neolithic. So indirectly this 8000-year-old Levantine C1 could be an indirect proof that R1b was indeed already present in the region at the time.

The C4a2 samples from Neolithic Ukraine came from the Dnieper-Donets and were dated around 5300 BCE. They were found alongside haplogroups H, T, U1 (?) and U3, all lineages that are much more likely to have come with Near Eastern immigrants rather than to have belonged to Mesolithic Northeast Europeans. This can either represent a Neolithic expansion from Southeast Europe (Y-DNA E-V13, G2a and/or J2b), or the arrival of R1b from Anatolia/Mesopotamia. The presence of C4a2, a typically West/South Siberian lineage, also found in the Altai region, would make me believe that it was an R1b migration.

I have also wondered about the origin of the two U4 samples from ancient Sumer, including one sample clearly identified as U4a2b, a subclade found almost exclusively in Central Europe today. U4 is possibly the maternal lineage most strongly correlated with Y-DNA R1a. In has been found among Mesolithic Northeast and Central Europeans and peaks nowadays in the Baltic and Volga-Ural region. What is it doing in pre-Indo-European Sumer ? Was it also one of the U subclades linked with the root of haplogroup R1 ? In that case it could have been brought to Mesopotamia by early R1b tribes. That could mean that R1b was also involved in the development of the Sumerian civilisation. The most recent hypothesis about the origins of the Maykop culture is that it was founded by Uruk settlers from Mesopotamia. This Uruk was a Sumerian city, it all fits.
 
Last edited:
"At K = 9, MA-1 is composed of five genetic components of which the two major ones make up ca. 70% of the total. The most prominent component is shown in green and is otherwise prevalent in South Asia but does also appear in the Caucasus, Near East or even Europe.


If it's equal common in South Asia, Caucasus and Near East, it might be something like Gedrosia.

But if it is most common in South Asia, it could be ANI.

This is my estimate just by eyeballing it:
Chuvash 40
Lezgin 20
Balochi 15
Athabascan 15
Karitiana 8-10

As I thought. the Lezgins are the group with the highest percentage of Gedrosia in the Caucasus. And Balochi is where it peaks. Sounds like something similar to Gedrosia to me.
 
The article continues with:
"Our findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans."

There has been found R1 among native Indians (mainly Algonquin tribes). Uptill now early European colonists were blaimed for this ('post-Columbian admixture') , and the R1 results were excluded from many studies about migrations to America.
Now appearantly, the authors doubt the theory about 'post-Columbian admixture'
 
Regarding the Amerindians, their East Asian component is thought to have arrived through a second wave migration (post-Clovis), which would have brought at least Y-DNA C3 and mtDNA A, B, (C) and D. It is unclear whether both migrations brought Y-hg Q1a (perhaps different subclades), or if it was only the second wave.

I'm very interested, I'd like to know more about that 'post-Clovis migration'.
Clovis migration must have been 13000 years ago and there was a pre-Clovis migration

http://archaeology.about.com/od/clovispreclovis/qt/clovis_people.htm

Proof for pre-Clovis is 14500 year old findings in Monte Verde, Chile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde

I suspect :
- pré-Clovis y-Q1a (mostly Q1a3, also found in the Siberian Altaï) + mt C
- Clovis y-R1 + mt X , R1 originating from Mal'ta via Dyuktai cave
check Mal'ta and Dyuktai culture, they had Solutrean-like spearpoints that look like precursors of Clovis spearpoints
- post-Clovis C3 + mt B coming from China after LGM

I'm very interested to learn more about that post-Clovis migration.
Can you tell me more or reveal your sources?
 
I have also wondered about the origin of the two U4 samples from ancient Sumer, including one sample clearly identified as U4a2b, a subclade found almost exclusively in Central Europe today. U4 is possibly the maternal lineage most strongly correlated with Y-DNA R1a. In has been found among Mesolithic Northeast and Central Europeans and peaks nowadays in the Baltic and Volga-Ural region. What is it doing in pre-Indo-European Sumer ? Was it also one of the U subclades linked with the root of haplogroup R1 ? In that case it could have been brought to Mesopotamia by early R1b tribes. That could mean that R1b was also involved in the development of the Sumerian civilisation. The most recent hypothesis about the origins of the Maykop culture is that it was founded by Uruk settlers from Mesopotamia. This Uruk was a Sumerian city, it all fits.

West of Mal'ta there was the Afantova-Yenesei culture (22000-14000 YBP).
Could they be related? Did they also have y-R or R1 and mt-U?
Could R1a and/or R1b descend from them?

Re U4 in Summer, why do you associate this with R1b. Do you think R1b could have been in ancient Summer too? It seems such a long way ..
 
There's an article on the BBC News website that seems to be suggesting that the R type folks may have migrated into North America separately. If that did happen, I would agree with bicicleur's earlier suggestion that mtDNA X2 was also part of that, since the distribution of X2 seems to correlate somewhat with tribes that have a high level of R. However, I'm not convinced that R arrived separately from Q simply if the second wave was consisted of the Dene people, since although high amounts of R do appear in some Dene tribes, it reaches the highest level among a tribe that speaks a language that's a member of the Algonquin tribal group and it's also common among Iroquian and Sioux people, and also the Seminole. On the other hand, elevated levels of R seem to be absent from South America, except for one small group in the Amazon area, which suggests that R wasn't part of the initial founding group.
 
More information about the Mal'ta boy was published in Nature a few hours ago. It says that "the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages". The haplogroup that best matches this definition is P, not R*.

The article continues with:
"Our findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans."

I have read that some people jumped to the conclusion that Amerindians were of mixed European and Siberian blood. In other words, Palaeolithic Europeans migrated east to Siberia and mingled with the local tribes there, just as Bronze/Iron Age Indo-Europeans and modern Russians did much later. While this is possible, I would find it more plausible that both Europeans and Amerindians descend from a common ancestor in Central/North Asia, who belonged to Y-DNA P and mtDNA U and X (and perhaps also C). This root population would have split in two branches: R and Q, the former migrating west to the Pontic-Caspian region and the Middle East, and the latter staying in Siberia and migrating to the Americas. The autosomal admixture that is common to both modern West Eurasians and Native Americans would be the one associated with haplogroups P, Q and R. Since most hg R was limited to Eastern Europe until the Late Chalcolithic to Bronze Age, it is likely that Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and even Neolithic Europeans beyond Eastern Europe had little or no genetic admixture found in the Mal'ta boy. There might have been some element shared matrilineally through mt-hg U, but U is so old (perhaps as much as 60,000 years old) that any similitude would be very distant.

Regarding the Amerindians, their East Asian component is thought to have arrived through a second wave migration (post-Clovis), which would have brought at least Y-DNA C3 and mtDNA A, B, (C) and D. It is unclear whether both migrations brought Y-hg Q1a (perhaps different subclades), or if it was only the second wave. It is actually not impossible that the first people to colonise the American continent belonged to Y-hg R* or R1* and mtDNA X (+ C and U ?), and that these only survive among some North American tribes, especially in the eastern USA and Canada.

MtDNA C is an intriguing lineage since it is most common today among Amerindians, East Asians and Siberians, but it was also found at relatively high frequency in Mesolithic Fennoscandia (C* and C5 in the Kola peninsula), in Pre-pottery Neolithic B Syria (C1), in Neolithic Ukraine (C4a2), in Neolithic Hungary (C5) as well as in Chalcolithic to Iron Age Russia. The C4a2 in in the Pontic Steppe is particularly interesting since C4 is also one of the lineages typical of Amerindians (although it is C4c). That is why I believe that C4* could have been one of the maternal lineages linked to Y-DNA P, Q and R. The C1 in early Neolithic Syria is even more interesting, since C1 is the main Amerindian variety of C and R1b-V88 is thought to have arrived in the Levant shortly before the Neolithic. So indirectly this 8000-year-old Levantine C1 could be an indirect proof that R1b was indeed already present in the region at the time.

I have also wondered about the origin of the two U4 samples from ancient Sumer, including one sample clearly identified as U4a2b, a subclade found almost exclusively in Central Europe today. U4 is possibly the maternal lineage most strongly correlated with Y-DNA R1a. In has been found among Mesolithic Northeast and Central Europeans and peaks nowadays in the Baltic and Volga-Ural region. What is it doing in pre-Indo-European Sumer ? Was it also one of the U subclades linked with the root of haplogroup R1 ? In that case it could have been brought to Mesopotamia by early R1b tribes. That could mean that R1b was also involved in the development of the Sumerian civilisation. The most recent hypothesis about the origins of the Maykop culture is that it was founded by Uruk settlers from Mesopotamia. This Uruk was a Sumerian city, it all fits.

The lineage of the Mal'ta boy is apparently basal "R". Unfortunately they weren't able to get a read on the yDNA of the other sample at Afontova Gora, although the paper states that in autosomal terms the two samples were very similar. That in itself is amazing, because about 7,000 years and the LGM intervene. It also raises phenotype questions which this Estonian Bio Center paper seems to discuss only very gingerly, but that's for a separate post.

Anyway, here is the map of "R" distribution from the paper:View attachment 6076



And here is the map of "Q" distribution from the paper:View attachment 6075

I think you could make a case from the maps that R and Q look as if they originated in overlapping areas, with Q slightly to the north. YDNA R then could have headed west (and perhaps some south again), with a small remnant founding population of Q winding up right across from the Bering Strait.

I'm about to go through the Supplementary Information again, but I'm not totally convinced of the claim made by the authors that the Amerindians split off from the Han. Certainly, some of their analyses support that conclusion, but so much depends on the framing populations used...I found the comments by "Lathrinoor" on Dienekes site interesting, where he takes an opposite view, and speculates that the Mongolian steppes may have largely separated the P and NO people, with the NO people moving up from South Asia through Tibet, spending some time in China and then pulsing out from there.

If that were true, then the mixture with O could have taken place later in Siberia, or, as you posit, the O could have been later waves from Siberia into the Americas.

If the mixture, or some of it, took place in Asia, then the "Amerindian" component may actually have formed part of the mixture which created East Asian.

The conclusions of the paper seem to have some internal contradictions about these issues, unless I'm reading it incorrectly. On the one hand, they seem to say that the Mal'ta boy predates the East Asian/Amerindian split, and yet are adamant there is no East Asian in the Mal'ta boy. At the same time, they provide a graph where at K=2, he does indeed have a "Han" like component. Other bloggers are trumpeting that the paper somehow proves that the East Asian/West Asian split occurred long ago, and yet in the admixture analysis part of the paper, the authors acknowledge that they can't tell if the South Asian/North European? mix they see is the result of admixture or if this is a population that hadn't yet differentiated into South Asian and North Euro. The fact that the North Euro component didn't exist at that time would seem to me to indicated that it is the latter. And if it hadn't yet differentiated into South Asian and North Euro, then why would we assume that an Amerindian component had yet fully formed?

Maybe I'm just missing something here...

As to what these people were like a couple of thousand years later, I don't know, but they maintained some kind of autosomal unity for 7,000 years, from Mal'ta to Afontova Gora.
 
On the Admixture K=9 in the supplmentary info he is 37% South-Asian, 34% North-European, 26% Native American and 4% Oceanian
 
If it's equal common in South Asia, Caucasus and Near East, it might be something like Gedrosia.

But if it is most common in South Asia, it could be ANI.

These are the ancestral populations produced by the ADMIXTURE RUN:

It doesn't seem to be equally common in all those places. It's most common in Malayans...The Brahui and Balochi seem to be about 60% of that South Asian component, and approximately 40% "West Eurasian"-"European".
View attachment 6081


As I thought. the Lezgins are the group with the highest percentage of Gedrosia in the Caucasus. And Balochi is where it peaks. Sounds like something similar to Gedrosia to me.
This is the NSGAdmix Run
View attachment 6080

At K=2, the Mal'ta boy shows about 20% of the "Han" component. Even when the Amerindian component shows up at K=3, it's half Han and half Amerindian. Only at higher K does the Han component disappear. At K=8, that original 20% now shows up as a combination of Amerindian (Karitiana) and Athabascan.

For the French sample, a Balochi component shows up at K-6, which at K=8 still retains some specific Balochi, and a few stray specks of Han, but is majority Lezghin. (I remember all those runs by Dienekes about them.)

Is it possible that in this Mal'ta boy we're looking at an R population that had not yet split between ANI, ASI and "American"? And that this was still the case about 17,000 years ago?


Ed. These are taken from the Supplementary Info, which unlike the paper itself, is not behind a pay wall.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature12736-s1.pdf
 
I have also wondered about the origin of the two U4 samples from ancient Sumer, including one sample clearly identified as U4a2b, a subclade found almost exclusively in Central Europe today. U4 is possibly the maternal lineage most strongly correlated with Y-DNA R1a. In has been found among Mesolithic Northeast and Central Europeans and peaks nowadays in the Baltic and Volga-Ural region. What is it doing in pre-Indo-European Sumer ? Was it also one of the U subclades linked with the root of haplogroup R1 ? In that case it could have been brought to Mesopotamia by early R1b tribes. That could mean that R1b was also involved in the development of the Sumerian civilisation. The most recent hypothesis about the origins of the Maykop culture is that it was founded by Uruk settlers from Mesopotamia. This Uruk was a Sumerian city, it all fits.


Consider this in light of one linguist's suggestion that written Sumerian contains traces of an even earlier Indo-European language:

http://www.science.org.ge/2-3/Gordon Whitteker.pdf
 
Is it possible that in this Mal'ta boy we're looking at an R population that had not yet split between ANI, ASI and "American"? And that this was still the case about 17,000 years ago?


Ed. These are taken from the Supplementary Info, which unlike the paper itself, is not behind a pay wall.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature12736-s1.pdf


Thats quite a possibility and on Dienekes blogspot I actually argued allot of times that I believe, ANI, West Asian(Gedrosia,Caucasus), North European split somewhere in Iran or Central Asia and this explains the close and ancient relationship between those. It seems we can add, ASI and Amerindian to this list. But yet it appears like ANI-West Asian-North European were the last to split from each other.

In my opinion it must have been something like this. Proto Eurasian split into two new components, Proto ANI-WA-NE and Proto ASI-Amerindian. Than these two components split into 5 new components. Proto ANI-WA-NE into ANI, West Asian and North European. Proto ASI-Amerindian into Amerindian and ASI. Some time later West Asian and North European split into new components. West Asian = Gedrosia, Caucasus and North European to Northwest- and Northeast European.
 

This thread has been viewed 66108 times.

Back
Top