Genetic History of Siberian and Northeastern European Populations

[arvistro]

Magic mushrooms

 

[Angela]

O.K., not charred, but boiled, and not Polar bear, but brown bear, and also the following...

"This region contains the highest number of brown bears (Ursus arctos collaris) and Eurasian wolf (Canis lupus) moose (Alces alces) and wild reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) in Russia. Further south mammals in the East Siberian taiga include Siberian musk deer (Moschus moschiferus), wapiti also known as Asian elk (Cervus canadensis) and wild boar (Sus scrofa). Birds of this ecoregion include the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), black stork (Pandion haliaetus), hooded crane (Grus monacha), carrion crow (Corvus corone), the Siberian blue and rufous-tailed robins (Luscinia cyane and L. sibilans, respectively), the thrush nightingale (Luscinia luscinia), Pallas's rosefinch (Carpodacus roseus), Pacific swift (Apus pacificus) and Baikal teal (Anas formosa)."

Siberia may have been a little light on grasses and seeds to thicken it. We eat a lot of pine nuts, but I don't know much about the varieties there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Flora_of_Siberia

Ed. Now, with wild boar, mushrooms, magic or not, some pine nuts and some herbs I think I could come up with something decent.

 

[arvistro]

Then there is buckwheat in Finland claim:
'Buckwheat is documented in Europe in Finland by at least 5300 BCE [6] as a first sign of agriculture" (wiki on buckwheat history).

 

[LeBrok]

Then there is buckwheat in Finland claim:
'Buckwheat is documented in Europe in Finland by at least 5300 BCE [6] as a first sign of agriculture" (wiki on buckwheat history).

I love buckwheat!

 

[arvistro]

I love buckwheat!

Me too. But to be honest scientists are still rather cautious how to interpret results.

It looks like buckwheat did not survive long, one hint is linguistic.
Balts and Slavs call buckwheat Greek (griķi, grechka), so it would be (re-?)introduced by Greeks to Slavs and mediated to Balts.
Also Finns and Estonians did not have local name and call it Tatar (tatar, tattari) as if mediated by Tatars.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Me too. But to be honest scientists are still rather cautious how to interpret results.

It looks like buckwheat did not survive long, one hint is linguistic.
Balts and Slavs call buckwheat Greek (griķi, grechka), so it would be (re-?)introduced by Greeks to Slavs and mediated to Balts.
Also Finns and Estonians did not have local name and call it Tatar (tatar, tattari) as if mediated by Tatars.

well, they were other people 5300 BC, Balts, Slavs they didn't exist yet.
how would they have prepared buckwheat? as a porridge?

 

[holderlin]

Charred, furry, polar bear on a stick? :grin:

See, my card carrying feminist friends would take offense at that, but not me; I'm a cultural dinosaur. I've found that good cooking keeps not only men, but children, friends and everybody else around, too much so sometimes. If you actually enjoy cooking, it's all good.

Seriously, I'm sure some brawny he-men brought them, but ylines seem to easily get "replaced", or at least that seems to be the recurring theme from some of these papers.

As to some of your comments upthread, you're probably not aware that there's a subtext here because there are indeed some people in the amateur community who have always vehemently denied, on "racial purity" grounds, that EHG have any ENA affinity. The analyses produced have seemed to support that opinion. The same group has also and continues to vehemently object to the idea that R1a/b might have arisen anywhere in the "dark" south of the Caucasus area. It is an article of faith that R arose in and always remained in the pristine, snow covered north.

Should the latter turn out to be the case, I expect a speedy pivot to a position that it doesn't really matter where they arose because
by the time you get to the downstream clades they were completely northern European.

Once you know the motivations, the arguments proposed make a lot more sense. Sad, but true.

Its funny how people's ego could distract them from how amazing it is that right now we're uncovering data that recreates history itself. Everything that has already amazed you is being rewritten.

It's sort of the inverse of teal wives is why I like it. So MA-1 would have to be after "ANE" mtDNA combination. So if it holds, people who brag about ANE are bragging about part "mongoloid" female line ancestry.

And hey, babes...... I'm just saying it's cold up there. I'll gladly clean up my dwelling and entertain some monglettes if it means some awesome stew served in high quality dishes. We met them at the moot festival, bragged about all our meat and they were all like, "so who are you guys again?" and we were all like "you don't even know babe." and acted all tough and they bought into it then came over.

They cleaned too, then me and mah boys escorted them back to their manless camp and fought off several wild animals along the way. To thank them for doing dishes while we argued about rope knots.

 

[arvistro]

There is nothing wrong with part Mongoloid female ancestry. We have such girls (blondes and not so blondes with slight Saami features) and they look really charming.

But then there is a question about WHG/ANE rich R1a boys captured from Karelia to Belarus. If they got their ANE from lovely Easternesses, then were they WHG themselves? That would turn upside down what I think of R1a.

 

[bicicleur 2]

wasn't MA-1 100 % ANE ? I don't recall exactly.
but then other LGM survivors (Q1a) in southern Siberia would have been ANE as well.
and then they transferred it to the incoming N1a and N1c from Manchuria
and so it seeped further west into Europe

 

[bicicleur 2]

There is nothing wrong with part Mongoloid female ancestry. We have such girls (blondes and not so blondes with slight Saami features) and they look really charming.

But then there is a question about WHG/ANE rich R1a boys captured from Karelia to Belarus. If they got their ANE from lovely Easternesses, then were they WHG themselves? That would turn upside down what I think of R1a.

I think Mongoloid features existed in C2 tribes (mainly C2b) , the base of the 12th century Mongols who came to rule (and often terrorise) over southern Siberia and many other parts of Eurasia untill the Russians got firearms and equiped their allied Kozhaks with them.

I don't know, did original Kozakhs have Mongol features too? Weren't they Turkic in origin? I suppose they mixed with wives in conquered territories.

 

[Alan]

It isn't often that I and David agree 100% but this time definitely. The papers usage of wording is so confusing and they often contradict not only themselves but also known science(Northeast Europeans being close to East Eurasians than mainland Europeans really?) It really seems like those "Russian" scientist try to find as hard as possible a Siberian proxy population which beats Amerindians in their ANE scores.

They call the Mansi, not even something like "Proto Mansi" but modern Mansi ANE source population. They claim the first ANE came in combination with East Eurasian admixture but completely ignore the fact that Mal'ta didn't show any affinities to East Eurasian components. Not only that they also failed to explain how there is ANE in Yamna, Corded Ware and SHG without any evidence of East Eurasian admixture.

We have in the Near East populations such as Assyrians with zero East Eurasian admixture but over 13% ANE. Those are too many factors speaking against their Mansi theory.

Also if you take a look at Mansi y and mtDNA they have like 55% West Eurasian mtDNA and >25% yDNA.

Mansi as a Ugric speaking population (whoms ethnogenesis by the way can't be older than some thousand years) are said to be ancestral to Mal'ta(20000 years) according to this paper.

Sorry but I stopped reading about it here. If anything Mansi represents a Population mix of a ANE like group which was absorbed into an East Eurasian like group.

The point is that Mal'ta predates Mansi and its genetic components are much closer to each other (as it should be) however with Mansi we are dealing with a population which is, a two way mix of East Eurasian and ANE admixture, Those components are quite distant. Based on fst distance and ancestral tree ANE and UHG/WHG are allot closer to each other anyways. So there is absolutely no way that ANE might have arisen, together with a component it is more distinct from, in a modern population which obviously has mixed ancestry.

 

[Alan]

That most modern populations with ANE display some Mongoloid type features doesn't necessary mean it is connect to their ANE ancestry. More rather that Mongoloid type ancestry took over former ANE land, which obviously seems to be correct if you look at the history of these regions.

Contrary if you just pay close attention and compare the "East Eurasian" groups with more ANE to East Eurasian populations with less, one thing falls into the eye. Those groups with more ANE display more of the "pseudo" Caucasoid features than those with non or less.

Didn't most of the people and even scientist bet and said that the Kennewick man is going to turn out as West Eurasian autosomally because physically he looked so Caucasoid? Turns out he is closest match to Amerindians. Why does an ancient Amerindian individual looks so much Caucasian compared to modern East Eurasians? Is it a because of their Han like ancestry they share with East Eurasians or B because of their ANE ancestry they also share with West Eurasian populations? Isn't the answer obvious? Just take a look at modern Amerindians, why is it that even isolated Amerindian groups and even Native Americans of old images look to have much more Caucasoid physical features (high nose bridge no Epicanthic fold), DESPITE ~40-50% of their ancestry being actually East Eurasians, compared to modern East Eurasians? Now imagine a full blooded ANE population, Is this also just coincidence? Obviously regarding ANE , we are dealing here with a predominantly West Eurasian like population which was mixed or absorbed by a Han like group in most of Eurasia. Alone this is enough for me to come to the conclusion that Mansi can never be a source population of ANE. But even them display signficantly more Caucasoid features compared to Han Chinese for example. This is no coincidence but fits with their East and West Eurasian mixed origin based on y and mtDNA as well aDNA (ANE vs Han Chinese like ancestry)

Older Mansi People

 

[arvistro]

Since I realized that out of two Karelian EHGs one was Uralic looking person (the anthro description of sample that turned out R1a) and the other was (proto) Europoid (description of sample that turned out J*), I am no more sure if there is a big link between autosomal make-up and looks.

 

[Alan]

Since I realized that out of two Karelian EHGs one was Uralic looking person (the anthro description of sample that turned out R1a) and the other was (proto) Europoid (description of sample that turned out J*), I am no more sure if there is a big link between autosomal make-up and looks.

That is true, we have Jomon like people who are East Eurasian but display Caucasoid features. But than this is why I don't understand why people are using some phsyical features in modern populations to pin point the origin of ANE. Why should ANE be East Eurasian just based on Mansi if on fst Distance and the origin tree ANE is brother to UHG/WHG?

Where is the logic? But than if you seriously compare EE with ANE and EE without ANE a trend Caucasoid trend among the ANE admixed groups get's visible. I don't think this is coincidence. And I also don't think ANE reprsents Uber Caucasoid features just like I don't think WHG does (but ANE even slightly less) Just that I think they didn't look EE.

This is why in the past I wrote that ANE probably looked like some Kalash individuals who display "pseudo" Amerindian featueres. At the end of the day Kalash have like 35-40% ANE. They have slightly less than Amerindians and Mansi but than their other part is mostly UHG like which is still closer to ANE than EE anyways. I don't know why they are often ignored in these kind of studies. And I bet my last money that ancient samples from the Kalash region and South_Central Asia in general, prior to the farming expansion will look predominantly ANE.


This is how I imagine proto ANE groups looked like. Kalash look pred. West Eurasian but display very typical "pseudo" Amerindian features.

 

[arvistro]

I guess, it is because y-dna tree goes like this under "F":
G is first to branch off. Then H.
Then IJ.
Then K
Then K(xLT) goes into brothers NO and P (Q, R).

Now for P to be closer to IJ than to NO, we need NO to move somewhere far, isolate and drift alone, whilst P would stay close to IJ and interact with them. Probably this is what happened if you say ANE is closer to WHG than <what three letters I can use for East Eurasian?>.

 

[Kristiina]

[we need NO to move somewhere far, isolate and drift alone>.[/QUOTE]

Arvistro, so, in your opinion, where is this isolated place to which NO went to hide in order to obtain these hideous features, and from whom did NO get these features or do you think that they happened because of a strange series of mutations?

In my opinion NO has nothing to do with the so called East Asian in Amerinds and Eskimos.

 

[arvistro]

[we need NO to move somewhere far, isolate and drift alone>.

Arvistro, so, in your opinion, where is this isolated place to which NO went to hide in order to obtain these hideous features, and from whom did NO get these features or do you think that they happened because of a strange series of mutations? [/QUOTE]
I don't know where they hid. Somewhere South-East Asia I guess. That is if they did hide
As to other question. It could be either mutations or something else. Don't know.

In my opinion NO has nothing to do with the so called East Asian in Amerinds and Eskimos.

I am very open minded here. Only reason I went for it was because "NO" is very popular in nations that have East Asian. Like, for example, 90% in Han Chinese.

So, who then has something to do with so called East Asian in Amerinds and Eskimos and East Asia?

 

[Alan]

I guess, it is because y-dna tree goes like this under "F":
G is first to branch off. Then H.
Then IJ.
Then K
Then K(xLT) goes into brothers NO and P (Q, R).

Now for P to be closer to IJ than to NO, we need NO to move somewhere far, isolate and drift alone, whilst P would stay close to IJ and interact with them. Probably this is what happened if you say ANE is closer to WHG than <what three letters I can use for East Eurasian?>.

Haplogroups do not correlate always perfectly with aDNA. They can only give you a glimpse of the reality. We have C subclades which are UHG/WHG and C subclades which are East Eurasian.

The tree I posted is from Lazaridis paper. Lazaridis team and even other scientist wrote that ANE is closest to UHG/WHG Here labeled as "West Eurasian". Allot of Haplogroups are more than 40 to 50 thousand years old. So should there be any doubt?

 

[arvistro]

Genetiker gives info that Ust Ishim guy was already K(x LT) - umbrella for NO + P. And it was on its way to NO.
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/analyses-of-the-ust-ishim-genome/
Ust’-Ishim was male. His Y-SNP calls and mt-SNP calls confirm the published findings that he belonged to Y haplogroup K(xLT) and mitochondrial haplogroup R. Ust’-Ishim also had positive calls for Z4842/M2308 and CTS11667, two of the seven mutations that define Y haplogroup X. Haplogroup X is ancestral to haplogroup NO, the main Mongoloid Y haplogroup.

Ust Ishim guy was like 45,000 years ago and was located in Syberia, Russia. North of Kazakhstan, Omsk region. Y-dna K(xLT) on its way to NO.
Mal'ta guy was 24,000 years ago and was located in Syberia, Russia. Further East, Irkutsk region. Y-dna R*.

That gives plenty of time for a chaos of y-dna lines moving in all directions

 

[Kristiina]

In my opinion, this idea of isolation is rubbish and reminds me of ET movies.

Native American yDNA is Q and C and these haplogroups or either of them must have carried ENA. There may have been an extinct "paleo-Melanesian" ENA yDNA which we may never discover, but it is also possible that the rare Peruvian C is a paleo-Melanesian remnant.

The Siberian paper says that "Nenets appear as an early diverging group related to other European populations. The tree model suggests that 43% (95% CI: 38-47%) of the Western Siberian ancestry can be attributed to an admixture with a group related to modern-day Evenki people. Furthermore, Nenets share 38% (95% CI: 31-46%) of their ancestry with a group related to Even people. Consistent with this prediction, we observed particularly high affinity between Mansi and Evenki as well as between Nenets and Even people based on the D-statistic."

So, in this context, also Even and Evenk yDNA should be considered.
All Evenks (127): yDNA C-M217 97/127, 76%; N1b 18/127, 14%; N1c 18/127 14%; I 5/127, 4%
All Even (89): yDNA C-M217 46/89, 52%; N1b 13/89 14.6%; N1c 30/89, 34%
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083570

As Uralic groups do not have any C-M217, there must have been a flow of N1c and N1b to Evens and Evenks, and as Evens and Evenks have almost entirely North East Asian mtDNA, this flow must have been mostly male-mediated. IMO, N1c and N1b spread from the forest Volga Ural to the East; at that time everybody in the forest Volga Ural surely carried a portion of ENA, maybe at 20-30% (including Karitiana).
I repeat that ENA people are very varied and it is completely unscientific and stupid to claim that certain undesirable ENA features could be "externalized" on NO-carrying men as if these traits could in some mysterious way be glued on yDNA.