R1b and Native Americans

[Melancon]

"R-M173" is another way of saying R1. R1b is a type of R1, of course. The reason you see "R-M173" in studies and maps of Native Americans in generally because they didn't test more specifically than R1. That, of course, is no evidence that the R1 present in Native Americans is from a pre-Columbian source. In fact, I've yet to see a single haplotype in a Native American R1 carrier that is best explained by a pre-Columbian source. If we're talking Solutrean, it would have to be a very ancient branch, about 17k years old at least, which is a good deal older than R1b in Europe anyway.

The Solutreans were thought to be mostly a haplogroup I people. haha. Are you suggesting that the R1 in Native Americans is purely European in origin?

 

[bicicleur 2]

When further characterized in the USA (Hammer et al. 2005), 97 per cent of R1 had the M269 SNP (unambiguous Single Nucleotide Polymorphism), which defines R1b1b, the main West European Y-haplogroup,

this is the abstract : http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(05)00615-8/abstract

has anybody acces to the full text?

 

[bicicleur 2]

When further characterized in the USA (Hammer et al. 2005), 97 per cent of R1 had the M269 SNP (unambiguous Single Nucleotide Polymorphism), which defines R1b1b, the main West European Y-haplogroup,

this is the abstract : http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(05)00615-8/abstract

has anybody acces to the full text?

I found it here : https://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/HammerFSIinpress.pdf

table on page 5 : 398 native americans were tested
67 % are Q + C-P39
the other 33 % reflect pretty well the 927 European-Americans tested

 

[Aberdeen]

The Solutreans were thought to be mostly a haplogroup I people. haha. Are you suggesting that the R1 in Native Americans is purely European in origin?

What's your source for Solutreans being "mostly a haplogroup I people"?

 

[Aberdeen]

Could have been from Vikings, that's 1,000 years ago. Long enough for R1b to spread around.

I suppose that's possible but again I'm puzzled as to why that would only happened with R1b and not the other relevant "European" type haplotypes, which do appear in significant numbers in tribes known to have considerable European admixture, such as the Eastern Algonquin.

 

[Sile]

When further characterized in the USA (Hammer et al. 2005), 97 per cent of R1 had the M269 SNP (unambiguous Single Nucleotide Polymorphism), which defines R1b1b, the main West European Y-haplogroup,

this is the abstract : http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(05)00615-8/abstract

has anybody acces to the full text?

really , you need a 1 hour session on how to search the net, it will be worth it for you.....no offense

he is a pdf file

https://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/HammerFSIinpress.pdf

 

[sparkey]

What's your source for Solutreans being "mostly a haplogroup I people"?

I don't think it's a stretch to say that Solutreans are "thought to be" mostly haplogroup I, even if academic papers won't usually engage in that sort of speculation. No tests on so ancient a sample have been conducted, obviously, but Maciamo, for example, has placed proto-I as most likely in Europe by the Upper Paleolithic: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29080-Chronology-of-Cro-Magnon-Y-DNA
I've read similar sentiments from several other prominent hobbyists, but admittedly little from academics, who have tended to be either silent or wrong. So we still need ancient samples, as always, but in terms of speculation, placing the Solutreans as some sort of mix of Haplogroup I and Haplogroup C seems to be the most reasonable guess based on what we know at the moment, if we assign them to any extant haplogroup at all.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I don't think it's a stretch to say that Solutreans are "thought to be" mostly haplogroup I, even if academic papers won't usually engage in that sort of speculation. No tests on so ancient a sample have been conducted, obviously, but Maciamo, for example, has placed proto-I as most likely in Europe by the Upper Paleolithic: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29080-Chronology-of-Cro-Magnon-Y-DNA
I've read similar sentiments from several other prominent hobbyists, but admittedly little from academics, who have tended to be either silent or wrong. So we still need ancient samples, as always, but in terms of speculation, placing the Solutreans as some sort of mix of Haplogroup I and Haplogroup C seems to be the most reasonable guess based on what we know at the moment, if we assign them to any extant haplogroup at all.

I would even speculate that Solutreans were C-V20, as the Solutrean is suposed to originate from the Aurignacian. It was the last Aurignacian industry.
All subsequent expanding industries in Europe are suposed to be based on Gravettian. That would explain the replacement of C-V20 by I.

 

[Aberdeen]

I don't think it's a stretch to say that Solutreans are "thought to be" mostly haplogroup I, even if academic papers won't usually engage in that sort of speculation. No tests on so ancient a sample have been conducted, obviously, but Maciamo, for example, has placed proto-I as most likely in Europe by the Upper Paleolithic: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29080-Chronology-of-Cro-Magnon-Y-DNA
I've read similar sentiments from several other prominent hobbyists, but admittedly little from academics, who have tended to be either silent or wrong. So we still need ancient samples, as always, but in terms of speculation, placing the Solutreans as some sort of mix of Haplogroup I and Haplogroup C seems to be the most reasonable guess based on what we know at the moment, if we assign them to any extant haplogroup at all.

Well, yes, if we're talking about a Paleolithic Iberian population that's known to have actually existed, I and C would be reasonable guesses. I may have been mistaken in assuming the previous poster was using "Solutrean" to mean "they're the source of Clovis" but perhaps his reference to I was intended to convey the opposite meaning. I think the idea of Solutreans contributing to Amerindian populations should have been abandoned once it became clear that R1b didn't go back nearly that far in Europe, even without any information about subclades.

 

[Aberdeen]

I've been thinking of the R1b situation among Amerindians and I have yet another improbable theory to explain it, although this one might fit the genetic evidence. There are many accounts of the Vikings finding Irish monks in Iceland when they arrived in 870 AD. I wonder if the Irish might have reached North America several centuries ago. If they did, the easiest way for them to move inland from the east coast of what is now Canada would be up the St. Lawrence River and into the Great Lakes, and many of the tribes that have a lot of R1b either still live or used to live near either the Atlantic Ocean or the Great Lakes. And I suppose that R1b might have been even more dominant in Ireland prior to English colonization than it is now. So it would be interesting to know what specific subclades of R1b are common among tribes such as the Ojibwe. Although there might not be any way to distinguish the descendants of hypothetical early Irish from the descendants of more recent Irish fur traders.

 

[Angela]

I've been thinking of the R1b situation among Amerindians and I have yet another improbable theory to explain it, although this one might fit the genetic evidence. There are many accounts of the Vikings finding Irish monks in Iceland when they arrived in 870 AD. I wonder if the Irish might have reached North America several centuries ago. If they did, the easiest way for them to move inland from the east coast of what is now Canada would be up the St. Lawrence River and into the Great Lakes, and many of the tribes that have a lot of R1b either still live or used to live near either the Atlantic Ocean or the Great Lakes. And I suppose that R1b might have been even more dominant in Ireland prior to English colonization than it is now. So it would be interesting to know what specific subclades of R1b are common among tribes such as the Ojibwe. Although there might not be any way to distinguish the descendants of hypothetical early Irish from the descendants of more recent Irish fur traders.

That's coureurs de bois country too, isn't it? If all the "European" yDna in these tribes is laid out, I wonder how good a match it might be for northwestern France? I may be misremembering, but didn't a lot of the early French emigrants come from that area?

However, that still leaves the mtDna X2 unexplained, yes?

 

[Aberdeen]

That's coureurs de bois country too, isn't it? If all the "European" yDna in these tribes is laid out, I wonder how good a match it might be for northwestern France? I may be misremembering, but didn't a lot of the early French emigrants come from that area?

However, that still leaves the mtDna X2 unexplained, yes?

Yes, the Great Lakes were used as a highway by both the Cour de Bois (unofficial traders) and the Voyageurs (official traders) since before 1700 and there was definitely some admixture but I've met enough Ojibwe to know that they're nowhere near 80% paternal European ancestry. And although most French settlers in Canada were from northwestern France, where R1b runs around 75-80% R1b, that doesn't explain why R1b would be 25 times as common as other "European" Y haplotypes among the Ojibwe, which is the result Mahli got in 2008, although that was only from 63 samples and I don't know the selection method. And, as you say, it doesn't explain why X2 is so common in that same population - I can't think of anything that would explain the high incidence of both R1b and X2 if we conclude that we have to forget about a Siberian source based on the idea that the R1b subclades are recent European. And I don't know why some Dene tribes are a mixture of R1b, C and Q but no "European" haplotypes at all other than R1b. If the 40% R1b among the Dogrib came from Hudson Bay traders, why is the rest either C (33%) or Q (27%) with zero other "European haplotypes? At this point I can't think of a good explanation.

 

[sparkey]

I would even speculate that Solutreans were C-V20, as the Solutrean is suposed to originate from the Aurignacian. It was the last Aurignacian industry.
All subsequent expanding industries in Europe are suposed to be based on Gravettian. That would explain the replacement of C-V20 by I.

Who argues that the Solutrean is based on the Aurignacian and not the Gravettian? I thought that there was a 10,000 or so year gap between Aurignacian and Solutrean. Meanwhile, the Gravettian is found all across Europe during the time in-between. Also, the Magdalenian is a pretty clear successor to the Solutrean, why would it suddenly be based on a different culture from a few thousand years earlier?

That said, it's plausible that the Solutrean could have been Haplogroup C dominant. It's not possible to tell the relative ratio of C to I so far back yet. Unfortunately, it could range anywhere from 100:0 to 0:100 based on what we know at the moment.

 

[sparkey]

And I don't know why some Dene tribes are a mixture of R1b, C and Q but no "European" haplotypes at all other than R1b. If the 40% R1b among the Dogrib came from Hudson Bay traders, why is the rest either C (33%) or Q (27%) with zero other "European haplotypes? At this point I can't think of a good explanation.

Sample sizes. I assume you're referencing Malhi 2008 for the Dogrib percentages? Their sample size was 15. Actually, you picked a perfect case for why sample sizes are the only real problem. Dulik 2012 tested the Dogrib again, but this time at a sample size of 37. In terms of European-origin haplogroups, they got 3 R1b, 2 N1c, 1 I1, and 1 J2b. All consistent with what we may expect from a population that recently mixed with Europeans, given a small sample size.

 

[Aberdeen]

Sample sizes. I assume you're referencing Malhi 2008 for the Dogrib percentages? Their sample size was 15. Actually, you picked a perfect case for why sample sizes are the only real problem. Dulik 2012 tested the Dogrib again, but this time at a sample size of 37. In terms of European-origin haplogroups, they got 3 R1b, 2 N1c, 1 I1, and 1 J2b. All consistent with what we may expect from a population that recently mixed with Europeans, given a small sample size.

I guess I should have gone with Mahli's 243 samples from the Athabaskans, another Na-Dene group. He found 11.5% C, 70.4% Q, 18.1% R1 and 0% other. And in 2003, Bortolini sampled 48 Chipewyan, another Na-Dene group, and found 6% C, 31% Q, 62.5% R1 and 0% other. But the explanation of sampling bias still has appeal as a possible explanation simply because no other explanation seems to work.

 

[Maciamo]

I guess I should have gone with Mahli's 243 samples from the Athabaskans, another Na-Dene group. He found 11.5% C, 70.4% Q, 18.1% R1 and 0% other. And in 2003, Bortolini sampled 48 Chipewyan, another Na-Dene group, and found 6% C, 31% Q, 62.5% R1 and 0% other. But the explanation of sampling bias still has appeal as a possible explanation simply because no other explanation seems to work.

R1* would make more sense among Native Americans than R1b. R1* is very close to the Mal'ta boy's R*, so it could have been found among the Siberian tribes that crossed over the Bering Strait alongside C3 and Q1a2a1. As far as we know R1a* and R1b* developed closer to southern Central Asia than to eastern Siberia.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I guess I should have gone with Mahli's 243 samples from the Athabaskans, another Na-Dene group. He found 11.5% C, 70.4% Q, 18.1% R1 and 0% other. And in 2003, Bortolini sampled 48 Chipewyan, another Na-Dene group, and found 6% C, 31% Q, 62.5% R1 and 0% other. But the explanation of sampling bias still has appeal as a possible explanation simply because no other explanation seems to work.

have you read the whole study?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2584155/pdf/nihms64490.pdf

at the bottom of page 3 :


Only samples that were
determined to belong to haplogroups Q (Q-M3 and Q-M242), C, or R were included in the
Haplogroup data set.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Who argues that the Solutrean is based on the Aurignacian and not the Gravettian? I thought that there was a 10,000 or so year gap between Aurignacian and Solutrean. Meanwhile, the Gravettian is found all across Europe during the time in-between. Also, the Magdalenian is a pretty clear successor to the Solutrean, why would it suddenly be based on a different culture from a few thousand years earlier?

it was argued on the base of the special lithics of the Solutrean

but I checked and you're right

 

[Aberdeen]

R1* would make more sense among Native Americans than R1b. R1* is very close to the Mal'ta boy's R*, so it could have been found among the Siberian tribes that crossed over the Bering Strait alongside C3 and Q1a2a1. As far as we know R1a* and R1b* developed closer to southern Central Asia than to eastern Siberia.

Although I haven't read any of the papers these figures come from, I have read comments on other forums that the results were listed as R because the results weren't examined in enough depth to determine subclades. Sparky has said he thinks all the R must be from recent European contact because a number of Amerindians have had their DNA tested by private firms and there are no reports of previously unknown subclades. That does seem conclusive, except for the fact that more traditional Native people don't like DNA testing and are less likely to pay to have their DNA results tested. However, I think that also means that the people willing to be tested by scientists are more likely to be those Amerindians who are less traditional and more likely to have recent European admixture, which could be screwing up the results of tests by people like Mahli.

 

[Aberdeen]

have you read the whole study?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2584155/pdf/nihms64490.pdf

at the bottom of page 3 :


Only samples that were
determined to belong to haplogroups Q (Q-M3 and Q-M242), C, or R were included in the
Haplogroup data set.

I hadn't found the study and was just quoting from a chart I found on the net. Is that the same study? The year and the name of the lead researcher are the same but the number of subjects is different. And it's not a study of members of the tribe in northern Canada and Alaska who are usually referred to as Athabaskans. The name used to be applied to all Na-Dene but I didn't think it was used as a global term anymore. The study you've provided a link to doesn't seem very meaningful to me when I look at it. It's a collection of test results from various Na-Dene groups all over North America plus some he lifted from other studies. And I don't know why he would list only those Y haplotypes that were C, Q and R if there were in fact other haplotypes. I think I'll stop worrying about the issue until I can look at a proper and thorough study that has hundreds of samples and a sound testing methodology. I thought we had a few studies suggesting that there was an interesting puzzle here but it's beginning to look as if it might just be sloppy science.