Genetic History of Siberian and Northeastern European Populations

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. Are you doubting this?
Do you have some cross distance estimates for ANE, EEF, WHG, SSA and so on?
 
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 :)

The more you move up the yDNA tree the closer the autosomal components will get, that is the only logical explanation. Since at the end of the day all Haplogroups have a common ancestor. So must the aDNA components.

That means If you ever find an ancient IJK individual, this individual will be something like ANE/UHGWHG/East Eurasian AND significant Basal Eurasian, which is the non shifted ancestry it still shares with the same ancestor of 'H' and 'G'. And on the other side G and H will be Basal Eurasian with strong UHGWHG or ANE ancestry because it is so close to IJK on the ancestral tree.

This is why we have Mal'ta R*, which is just one step away from P*, that shows autosomaly most ancestry to West Eurasian with 2/3 and strong affinity to Amerindians with 1/3 (who are mostly Q Haplogroups which is the brotherclade of R by the way). Therefore if R Haplogroups close to Basal form show affinities to Amerindians and even Southeast Asians I am expecting that basal Q Haplogroups will also show strong affinities to West Eurasian type ancestry. It is not necessary admixture it is simply ancient shared ancestry.

This is why we are seing Basal EurasianaDNA in Kostenki who is NO. It is not admixture it is basically the remnant of ancient common ancestry.
 
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?

what is UHG ?
 
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.
So, to not externalize them on NO-carrying men, you are externalizing them on C carrying men :)))
 
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.

There has to be some link. I think the problem comes with expecting that there is going to be some perfect correspondence between percentage of a certain autosomal component and "phenotype".

It doesn't work that way because the alleles that determine phenotype are a very small set compared to the whole, and after a lot of admixture can become detached from the other alleles with which they were originally associated.

I see it all the time with African-Americans. Years ago I worked with a Jamaican woman who married a "white" American. Her daughter looked just like her and unmistakably African-American, the son looked like what Americans would see as "Hispanic" or mixed, and the daughter looked totally "white". It caused her more than a few problems in terms of identity issues, unfortunately. That's why in the past in these kinds of biracial families one child could "pass", but the others couldn't.

As regards ANE, didn't Russian scientists see what they called "Mongoloid like" features in Mal'ta, who is how we define ANE? IF that's true, then ANE type people might have carried those traits from the very beginning. For all we know those kinds of phenotypical traits might have been widespread but in varying degrees in all the ancient North Eurasian and ENA populations. Who says that they specifically originated in the Han, for example? That's a population that formed later where a certain combination of traits became fixed. I also don't know how we could possibly "pin" it on a certain y or mtDna. Those don't carry phenotypical alleles. It must have arisen in a group carrying certain uniparental markers, but I don't know how we'd go back and figure out which ones.

We also have the intriguing appearance of EDAR in the SHG. That might have been one of those widespread traits which were selected against in Europe but selected for, for some reason, in East Asia. Or, it might just be a question of drift. Still, who brought it? When?

Subsequent "Mongoloid" gene flow in quasi historical times is a totally separate issue. We're talking here about gene flow long before that time.

What I don't understand (and this is totally separate from "phentype" issues) is how the Admixture runs and other statistical analyses can show admixture of a "Mansi-like" population into the EHG (and they do sometimes call it a "Mansi-like" population), the Mansi are by definition both West Eurasian and East Eurasian as those terms are commonly understood today, and at the same time we have analyses that show EHG have no ENA affinity.

Perhaps someone can refresh my recollection as to whether Lazaridis et al or Haak et al or Allentoft et al, produced stats showing that ANE had no ENA affinity, or whether that was done by internet people.

For what it's worth, I don't find the reconstructions of the Jomon particularly "Caucasian" looking.
f04da22dd51e11fdbb6a30.jpg


They look more like Polynesians:
P2260012.jpg


Whoa Nellie! Did I miss something? Who said they're "undesirable" traits? I guess I'd better go back and read the intervening posts. :)
 
Last edited:
@Angela, thats just a reconstruction but people who are said to be descend of the Jomon as far as I remember, such as the Ainu despite being mixed with the Yaoyi have often very Caucasoid like features and they are autosomally East Eurasian.

479d9d1461f9fa6312062b5ec4fc971f.jpg
041105_2-1.jpg
ainu-elder+Hokkaido+Japan.jpg



About the Mal'ta individual, Russian scientists assumed based on the location the individual was found (East Siberia/Mongolia) and the cranial (round/broad headed) that the individual must be mongoloid. Yet they didn't had any DNA back than. Reconstructions without DNA are always just to a point accurate. The cranial form of the individual flat or thin nose, everything else, such as if caucasoid or mongoloid broad faced, caucasoid or mongoloid wide nosed, eye color and hair colore are based on the artists imagination if their is no DNA to hand. We had this issue already various times, even with the Kennewick individual which some of it's earlier reconstructions looked absolutely Caucasoid but modern reconstructions look more borderline. All that can be said from the cranial is, that it is a round/broad headed individual just like most WHG cranials and East Eurasian cranials. With other words the individual could be anything from Kalash looking.
http://images.travelpod.com/tw_slides/ta00/c01/612/elder-sajigor-village-man-chitral.jpg

to
East European looking
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3277&d=1259868782

to mongoloid looking
http://oi61.tinypic.com/2dtznkp.jpg


But don't you think it is too much of an coincidence that even Amerindians with the highest ANE ancestry have more Caucasoid features compared to EE?


@bicicleur

UHG is meant to be the Proto ancestor of WHG and the WHG like ancestry in EEF.
 
I dont think it is possible at all for ANE to lack ENA, since ENA is ANE + smthg? So modelling ANE as combination of something else it should come up as partly ENA by definition.

edit: unless I am totally mistaken. I have investigated very little in ENA to say the least.
 
P2260012.jpg


Whoa Nellie! Did I miss something? Who said they're "undesirable" traits? I guess I'd better go back and read the intervening posts. :)

and then you just saw his face, you even didn't have the oportunity to look further down ;)
 
I dont think it is possible at all for ANE to lack ENA, since ENA is ANE + smthg? So modelling ANE as combination of something else it should come up as partly ENA by definition.

edit: unless I am totally mistaken. I have investigated very little in ENA to say the least.

I have yet to see ENA showing any ANE. That is just some rumor I have seen some people claim and I don't know on what they base it. The genetic break up of the Mal'ta genome was something like 30% North Euro, 30% Caucaso_Gedrosia(more Gedrosia), 30% Amerindian and ~10% ASI/Southeast Asian like but even this ASI/Southeast Asian can be explain by a very Kalash like population. Since they have some ~20% ASI.

With other words Mal'ta can be explained as ~60-70% Kalash like and 30-40% Amerindian like.

East Eurasian populations with no known West Eurasian, ASI/SEA or Amerindian ancestry score noisy percentage of ANE. Mongols score some significant ANE just because they have some West Eurasian ancestry but even them score only as much ANE as Assyrians! A population now living where Mal'ta was found has only as much ANE as Assyrians, Armenians and some Levantines, Imagine that!!

So how on earth can ANE have anything close to do with modern EE ancestry? I am not talking about more "distant" relationship of the components, obviously there is a relationship between ANE/UHGWHG and East Eurasian. But ENA does not contain any significant ANE.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...qMYVFKXrUdnThmQJVMtjczLhoTs/edit#gid=74932529
 
So, to not externalize them on NO-carrying men, you are externalizing them on C carrying men :)))

Only in part! :), because I wrote that people in forest Volga Ural may have carried 20-30% ENA (including Karitiana)
 
and then you just saw his face, you even didn't have the oportunity to look further down ;)

That was the whole picture. Is there another full figure picture of him? Will I be embarrassed if I go looking for it?:ashamed2:

I think I'll pass. If full blood Hawaiians are any indication, he's typically Polynesian looking, and I'll leave it at that. :)
 
@Angela, thats just a reconstruction but people who are said to be descend of the Jomon as far as I remember, such as the Ainu despite being mixed with the Yaoyi have often very Caucasoid like features and they are autosomally East Eurasian.

479d9d1461f9fa6312062b5ec4fc971f.jpg
041105_2-1.jpg
ainu-elder+Hokkaido+Japan.jpg



About the Mal'ta individual, Russian scientists assumed based on the location the individual was found (East Siberia/Mongolia) and the cranial (round/broad headed) that the individual must be mongoloid. Yet they didn't had any DNA back than. Reconstructions without DNA are always just to a point accurate. The cranial form of the individual flat or thin nose, everything else, such as if caucasoid or mongoloid broad faced, caucasoid or mongoloid wide nosed, eye color and hair colore are based on the artists imagination if their is no DNA to hand. We had this issue already various times, even with the Kennewick individual which some of it's earlier reconstructions looked absolutely Caucasoid but modern reconstructions look more borderline. All that can be said from the cranial is, that it is a round/broad headed individual just like most WHG cranials and East Eurasian cranials. With other words the individual could be anything from Kalash looking.
http://images.travelpod.com/tw_slides/ta00/c01/612/elder-sajigor-village-man-chitral.jpg

to
East European looking
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3277&d=1259868782

to mongoloid looking
http://oi61.tinypic.com/2dtznkp.jpg


But don't you think it is too much of an coincidence that even Amerindians with the highest ANE ancestry have more Caucasoid features compared to EE?


@bicicleur

UHG is meant to be the Proto ancestor of WHG and the WHG like ancestry in EEF.

The Ainu, like any other modern population, are the result of various admixtures. They are not an unchanged relict of the Jomon. You can see the variation in the pictures you posted. Looking, for example, at the gentleman in the last picture, he doesn't look SSA, and he doesn't look modern Northeast Asian, but neither does he look Caucasian to me. As I said above, he looks much like what I would expect of a group that moved north from somewhere around southeast Asia.

However, these are all subjective determinations, so opinions will differ.

My main confusion is how can Admixture and other statistics posted in the paper and in the Supplement show influx of a Mansi like population into the EHG if EHG has no ENA affinities.

I was hoping someone had already checked all the stats and I wouldn't have to go back and pore over tables in Lazardis, Haak and Allentoft. :)
 
Last edited:
Ok, I confess I thought ENA is for something Syberian and then there was something else for Han. I was wrong and ENA is Eastern Non-African and apparently is an umbrella for everything Eurasian that does not fit EEF/WHG/ANE.

Ok, actually ENA is usually defined as Han, so them not having much of other admixtures including ANE is not much of a surprise :D

If, as a thought experiment, I defined East European (EAS) as Lithuanian, then I might find that Lithuanians are >90% EAS and lack WHG (EEF, ANE...) in any significant level :)

p.s.
Potentially I might even find that Belorussians, Latvians, Estonians and Poles lack WHG (EEF, ANE..) in any over noise levels too... since most of them would be eaten by EAS component.
Maybe some Southern European folk would show some combination of extra non-noise EEF in addition to EAS. But then you might say it is just because they have later admixture from Near East...

So, in general I am not convinced about Han not having ANE.
 
The Ainu, like any other modern population, are the result of various admixtures. They are not an unchanged relict of the Jomon. You can see the variation in the pictures you posted. Looking, for example, at the gentleman in the last picture, he doesn't look SSA, and he doesn't look modern Northeast Asian, but neither does he look Caucasian to me. As I said above, he looks much like what I would expect of a group that moved north from somewhere around southeast Asia.

However, these are all subjective determinations, so opinions will differ.

Genetic testing has shown them to belong mainly to Y-haplogroup D-M55.[50] Y-DNA haplogroup D2 is found frequently throughout the Japanese Archipelagoincluding Okinawa. The only places outside of Japan in which Y-haplogroup D is common are Tibet and the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean.[51]

1862 illustration of Ainu (left) and Nivkhs​

In a study by Tajima et al. (2004), two out of a sample of sixteen (or 12.5%) Ainu men have been found to belong toHaplogroup C-M217, which is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup among the indigenous populations of Siberia andMongolia.[50] Hammer et al. (2006) have tested a sample of four Ainu men and have found that one of them belongs to haplogroup C-M217.[52] Some researchers have speculated that this minority of Haplogroup C-M217 carriers among the Ainu may reflect a certain degree of unidirectional genetic influence from the Nivkhs, a traditionally nomadic people of northern Sakhalin and the adjacent mainland, with whom the Ainu have long-standing cultural interactions.[50]

[h=4]D-M55[edit][/h]Found with high frequency among Ainu, Japanese, and Ryukyuans.[citation needed] Also found with sporadically Micronesians, and Timorese and 0% to 0.2% among Han Chinese in Jiangsu .





It seems D-M55 is almost exclusively Japanese
IMO D-M55 was a tribe who used cooking pottery in the Yangtze delta that moved to the then uninhabited Japan 20 ka.
D-M55 is still the main component of HG Ainu who were practically the only inhabitants of Japan till the arrival of Yayoi rice farmers (Haplogroup O-47z) 2.3 ka
 
Ok, you are right
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.(Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans)
____________________________
But I still would like to see numbers. Distances of ANE to WHG, EEF, ENA, SSA... To see how big is the difference.
 
That was the whole picture. Is there another full figure picture of him? Will I be embarrassed if I go looking for it?:ashamed2:

I think I'll pass. If full blood Hawaiians are any indication, he's typically Polynesian looking, and I'll leave it at that. :)

If you find him, we might miss you for a couple of weeks over here :-(
 
Angela, look at Karelia HG, Samara HG and Motal HG at lower K levels: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2015/02/10/013433.DC1/013433-1.pdf

At K3-K8 Karelia HG has c. 30% of East Asian, Samara HG has slightly less and Motala HG may have c. 10%.

@Alan, “So how on earth can ANE have anything close to do with modern EE ancestry?”

I ask: how on earth can modern HAN ancestry have anything to do with ancient Native American ancestry?

As for that European looking Karitiana, I would not say that for example Amazonian Piraha look European. In my opinion they look vaguely Melanesian (http://www.crystalinks.com/piraha.html)
 
At K3-K8 Karelia HG has c. 30% of East Asian, Samara HG has slightly less and Motala HG may have c. 10%.
Wait the pinkish (or is it purple?, but definately not the yellow Han) thing that is about 25-30% in K4 and up is Amerindian? It peaks in Native Americans if I read that graph correctly.
 
Angela, look at Karelia HG, Samara HG and Motal HG at lower K levels: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2015/02/10/013433.DC1/013433-1.pdf

At K3-K8 Karelia HG has c. 30% of East Asian, Samara HG has slightly less and Motala HG may have c. 10%.

@Alan, “So how on earth can ANE have anything close to do with modern EE ancestry?”

I ask: how on earth can modern HAN ancestry have anything to do with ancient Native American ancestry?

As for that European looking Karitiana, I would not say that for example Amazonian Piraha look European. In my opinion they look vaguely Melanesian (http://www.crystalinks.com/piraha.html)

Kristiina, could you explain in more detail how you see it given the current state of our knowledge? I'd be very interested to hear it. (I totally agree about the South American Indians, fwiw. North American Plains Indians and also the Northeast North American Indians definitely have a different look. I think that they also carry high levels of mtDna X2. I don't know if the two things are connected.)
 
@Arvistro "It peaks in Native Americans if I read that graph correctly."

Sure! But aren't Native Americans ancient Northeast Asians that are said to have ENA? In any way, at K=3, which is the East Eurasian v. West Eurasian level, Karelia HG is 25% East Eurasian.

At K=7 and K=8, East Asian of Karelian HG is divided in half between Arctic Eskimo ancestry and Amerindian ancestry.
 

This thread has been viewed 48934 times.

Back
Top