PDA

View Full Version : Haplogroup N: Zone of Origin & Early Dispersals [split]



lgmayka
11-10-2014, 04:15 PM
If that is so then is it possible that N first occurred among K2 people who moved into Mongolia and China by the north Eurasian route?
That might explain the fact that the earliest offshoot from yDNA N (http://yfull.com/tree/N1a/) is European. (And not just Balkan, either. N-P189 has been found in Hungary, Slovakia, Italy, France, and the Netherlands.)

The second offshoot from N (http://yfull.com/tree/N-F2905/) has been found in South India, China, Vietnam, and Eastern Europe.

parasar
11-10-2014, 04:22 PM
That might explain the fact that the earliest offshoot from yDNA N (http://yfull.com/tree/N1a/) is European. (And not just Balkan, either. N-P189 has been found in Hungary, Slovakia, Italy, France, and the Netherlands.)

The second offshoot from N (http://yfull.com/tree/N-F2905/) has been found in South India, China, Vietnam, and Eastern Europe.

How do we know which is the earliest offshoot?

lgmayka
11-10-2014, 06:46 PM
How do we know which is the earliest offshoot?
I was distinguishing N-M178 (which many publications and researchers treat as the "main" subclade of N) from earlier-separated branches. More specifically: If we treat the lineage running down to N-M178 as the "trunk" of the N haplotree, then clades branch off from this trunk in the following chronological order:
1) N-P189 (http://yfull.com/tree/N1a/), Europe
2) N-F2905 (http://yfull.com/tree/N-F2905/), Eastern Europe, South India, China, Vietnam
3) N-L666 (http://yfull.com/tree/N-L666/), Eastern Europe, Northern Asia, China, Vietnam

Thus, I am using the term earliest in a very loose sense.

Strictly speaking, a bifurcation creates two sub-branches simultaneously. Each sub-branch's modern TMRCA (calculated from people living today) is due to subsequent population history. That is, whichever sub-branch expanded first has an older MRCA.

Ebizur
11-10-2014, 07:01 PM
I would not disagree with the above much except perhaps making lineage plural for southern India. As I mentioned I wanted to highlight the split. As of now, southern India harbors two lines under the F650 level.Yes, that is true. However, I do not see much apparent evidence for an origin of NO-M214 in India; the diversity of O-M175 lineages is much greater in modern East and Southeast Asia, and modern representatives of N-M231 are quite useless for determining the location of origin of the clade because they all have emerged from a bottleneck roughly 20,000 years after the MRCA of O-M175 and N-M231. If derivatives of NO-M214 have spread to India from East or Southeast Asia, then you have only one subclade of K2a that might be indigenous to South Asia (that to which the HG03742 Telugu individual belongs).

On the other hand, I do think the question of diversity within the NO-M214 clade in South Asia warrants careful investigation. Some diversity might be lurking at almost invisibly rare levels as a result of subsequent genetic replacements in South Asia (regardless of whether those replacements were endogenous or exogenous).

lgmayka
11-10-2014, 08:03 PM
However, I do not see much apparent evidence for an origin of NO-M214 in India; the diversity of O-M175 lineages is much greater in modern East and Southeast Asia, and modern representatives of N-M231 are quite useless for determining the location of origin of the clade because they all have emerged from a bottleneck roughly 20,000 years after the MRCA of O-M175 and N-M231.
Actually, the opposite is more logical. If we make the reasonable assumption that (prior to the agricultural population explosion) the splitting of a clade into new subclades is caused primarily by migration and expansion, then yDNA O represents a vigorous migration and expansion into East and Southeast Asia 57 SNPs after the split of NO (http://yfull.com/tree/O/); whereas yDNA N represents a remnant who merely survived (with little migration or expansion) until 249 SNPs after the split of NO (http://yfull.com/tree/N/).

Ebizur
11-10-2014, 08:13 PM
Actually, the opposite is more logical. If we make the reasonable assumption that (prior to the agricultural population explosion) the splitting of a clade into new subclades is caused primarily by migration and expansion, then yDNA O represents a vigorous migration and expansion into East and Southeast Asia 57 SNPs after the split of NO (http://yfull.com/tree/O/); whereas yDNA N represents a remnant who merely survived (without expansion) until 249 SNPs after the split of NO (http://yfull.com/tree/N/).Haplogroup O-M175 also has emerged from a bottleneck, although after a much shorter span of only about 6,000 to 7,000 years subsequent to the MRCA of N-M231 and O-M175.

In any case, representatives of haplogroup N are scattered from northwestern Europe to southeastern Asia and from southwestern Asia to Chukotka. They are practically everywhere in Eurasia (although with greatly varying proportions of the total population in each area). What is the TMRCA of all known representatives of the N1a-P189 subclade?

lgmayka
11-10-2014, 09:08 PM
What is the TMRCA of all known representatives of the N1a-P189 subclade?
The maximum number of BigY-reliable SNPs since their MRCA is 39, according to YFull, so the TMRCA is less than 6000 years by the usual reckoning.

Ebizur
11-10-2014, 09:19 PM
The maximum number of BigY-reliable SNPs since their MRCA is 39, according to YFull, so the TMRCA is less than 6000 years by the usual reckoning.Thank you. This means that, assuming that the lack of N1a-P189 in samples of modern Asian populations is not due to sampling error, representatives of N1a-P189 have been in Europe for at least the past 6000 years or so. [EDIT: Note that I also am assuming that the post-bottleneck N1a-P189 "clan" has not packed up their belongings and migrated wholesale into Europe from some indeterminable location without leaving any patrilineal descendant lineage that has survived until present in the former homeland. This is something that everyone assumes when making this sort of biogeographical inference about the past on the basis of the modern distribution of an SNP.] We cannot know where the common ancestor of modern representatives of N1a-P189 has lived prior to 6000 YBP.

Hector
11-11-2014, 03:30 PM
Actually, the opposite is more logical. If we make the reasonable assumption ...

That is not even an argument actually. Under a population explosion or rapid expansion individual members may be forced to migrate out, but even in that scenario there is no reason that the "center of gravity" will likewise move elsewhere. In fact the shorter length between MRCA of NO and MRCA of O indicates the higher probability that O is closer to the common homeland than N is. This is how population genetics is done actually.

As for N-P189.2 it is difficult to tell what the significance of it is actually. In order for your theory - its origin and NO's origin closer to Europe - you have to overcome many issues including N2 being abundant in China that lacks LLY22g even if that marker is highly recurrent. They were not fully typed yet. There is also the issue of NO* found in East Asia exclusively. If they all belong to the O clade you have a better case but it should bother you at least.

The rare N-L732 in Korea came from someone I almost know. He is a childhood friend of someone I know fairly well, though only through online. In fact I am the one who insulted and nagged that acquaintance to test for Geno and he brought along his 2 childhood buddies. There have been about 4 other cases of N who tested for Geno 2.0 so far and all are quite interesting. 1 was the rare N-M128. And the rate at which rare N lineages are found in Korea seems suggesting that more samples may change the picture you envisage.

P.S. It seems that L732 is not so rare in East Asia after all. But it was initially reported as exclusively European.

lgmayka
11-11-2014, 08:17 PM
Under a population explosion or rapid expansion individual members may be forced to migrate out, but even in that scenario there is no reason that the "center of gravity" will likewise move elsewhere. In fact the shorter length between MRCA of NO and MRCA of O indicates the higher probability that O is closer to the common homeland than N is. This is how population genetics is done actually.
No, no, and no. Prior to the agricultural revolution, division into subclades was typically the result of a directional migration-and-expansion (e.g., eastward across Beringia). The subclade that underwent rapid expansion is more likely to be the one that migrated; the other, smaller subclade is the surviving remnant who stayed in place, perhaps stalemated by neighbors or natural barriers.

Even after agriculture this was true more often than not. Perhaps the most obvious case is that of R1b-P311, the parent of P312 and U106. Does any credible researcher claim that the origin of P311 lies at the centroid of its current population (in the middle of the Atlantic)? Of course not--we all recognize that the expansion of P312 and U106 has been primarily directional.


As for N-P189.2 it is difficult to tell what the significance of it is actually.
It makes any claim that N began in Southeast Asia highly problematic, to say the least.


In order for your theory - its origin and NO's origin closer to Europe - you have to overcome many issues including N2 being abundant in China that lacks LLY22g even if that marker is highly recurrent.
LLY22g is now known to be almost useless phylogenetically. We have already encountered multiple different N-M178 clusters that lack the traditional LLY22g (http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=489&start=20). Researchers who relied on LLY22g were seriously misled.


The rare N-L732 in Korea came from someone I almost know. He is a childhood friend of someone I know fairly well, though only through online. In fact I am the one who insulted and nagged that acquaintance to test for Geno and he brought along his 2 childhood buddies. There have been about 4 other cases of N who tested for Geno 2.0 so far and all are quite interesting. 1 was the rare N-M128. And the rate at which rare N lineages are found in Korea seems suggesting that more samples may change the picture you envisage.
Have any of these unusual N men ordered the Big Y test? Have they even transferred their Geno results into FTDNA accounts?

Aren't you intrigued by the fact that L732 has (so far) shown up only in Eastern Europe and Korea?

Ebizur
11-11-2014, 08:54 PM
Does anyone know the ethnic and/or geographic origin of YF02093 (N-L731/L733 on the current version of the YFull tree)? Is there some place where this individual or the sample group to which he belongs has been described, or has such information either never been provided or been withheld due to privacy concerns?

parasar
11-11-2014, 09:03 PM
...

It makes any claim that N began in Southeast Asia highly problematic, if not entirely impossible.



Wasn't NO supposed to originate further north of island South Asia - somewhere in the band from NE to SW China?
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n2/images/5201748f2.jpg



M214 was found by Karafet to be completely absent in Australia - http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg2014106t1.html - again pointing to an origin further north.

If we assume, that M526 was born in or near SE Asia, which of its derivatives could have existed in the 45000 year time-frame in Inner Asia? Of its major lines, I can think of P331 (a chance, but it underwent downstream differentiation in SE Asia), M214 (most likely as it underwent differentiation further north), and P295 (most unlikely as it is nested and also underwent further downstream differentiation in SE Asia).

parasar
11-11-2014, 09:14 PM
Does anyone know the ethnic and/or geographic origin of YF02093 (N-L731/L733 on the current version of the YFull tree)? Is there some place where this individual or the sample group to which he belongs has been described, or has such information either never been provided or been withheld due to privacy concerns?

Poland I believe.
N25315 https://www.familytreedna.com/public/balticsea/default.aspx?section=ysnp

Ebizur
11-11-2014, 09:30 PM
In regard to my earlier question about etiological mechanisms underlying "unstable" SNPs, I quote an excerpt from the supplementary discussion paper of Yan et al. (2014):


This study leads to a discovery of 265 new SNPs under Haplogroup N-M231, adding significantly to the only 11 currently known SNPs. Haplogroup N is frequently found in Tibeto-Burman, Austroasiatic, Altaic, Uralic, Slavic, and Baltic peoples. Haplogroup N went through a bottleneck lasting for 14 thousand years (30 – 15.8 kya). Considering the last glacial period at 26.5 – 19 kya, when living space for human was probably very limited in the northern part of Asia, we therefore assume that at the LGM, the Haplogroup N survived in an area northern to Haplogroup O, e.g. the northern part of China. The expansion of Haplogroup N occurred at 16 – 13 kya, during which N1c-M46 and N1a-M128 separated. The former defining SNP of Haplogroup N1, LLY22g (double copied, CC > CA) is proved to be prone to recurrent mutation, since the sample YCH142, downstream of F842 clade, has CC genotype at LLY22g, while the other sequenced N samples have CA. The AA genotype was also observed in an N sample (genotyped in this study but not sequenced by next-generation method). It seems that CC and AA genotypes under Haplogroup N were results of homologous recombination of the two copies. Therefore, we suggest to remove the SNP LLY22g from the current phylogenetic tree as the case of SNP P25, which has 3 copies on Y chromosome, and the phylogeny of Haplogroup N is to be rearranged using the single copied SNPs discovered in this study.

It would be nice to know more about how and why such "homologous recombination of two copies" may occur in some cases and not in others.

As for old reports of NO*-M214 Y-DNA, I thought those had been shown to belong to the N side of the split between N and O, as mentioned in the supplementary data of Lippold et al. (2014):
Haplogroup NO is considered the ancestor of haplogroups N and O, although in the HGDP tree haplogroup NO sequences are related to haplogroup N sequences (represented in the HGDP by only haplogroup N1c). Haplogroup NO sequences in the HGDP are all from east Asia.

alan
11-12-2014, 12:16 AM
In regard to my earlier question about etiological mechanisms underlying "unstable" SNPs, I quote an excerpt from the supplementary discussion paper of Yan et al. (2014):



It would be nice to know more about how and why such "homologous recombination of two copies" may occur in some cases and not in others.

As for old reports of NO*-M214 Y-DNA, I thought those had been shown to belong to the N side of the split between N and O, as mentioned in the supplementary data of Lippold et al. (2014):

Yeah the N bottleneck has to be the LGM. Most of northern Eurasia, western and north-west China, Mongolia etc was probably cleared out. Even the Siberians seem to have retreated into Altai by 22000BC - in fact other than Mal'ta boy there is nothing after 25000BC until the end of the LGM when radiocarbon dates are very carefully sorted into reliable ones from good contexts. People seemed to have moved in the LGM from south central Siberia to Altai while those in Mongolia and the north and west of China must have had a choice to die out or move to or the Pacific coast of China or SE Asian in the LGM.

I personally think, N may also be similarly explained by my theory of pressure microblades developing in north Asian refugia like Altai during the LGM with a massive post-LGM expansion being related to Q heading to America and R into Europe. N seems very likely to have a similar story. I think people put too much emphasis on N not making it to the Americas along with Q. Think about it- R was also in south Siberia in the LGM (Mal'ta) and didnt make it to the Americas. A lot is probably down to chance. I have come round to the idea that N may well have been with Q and R in the refugia like Altai on the survivable edges of northern Asia. I actually suspect, but dont have enough knowledge of the DNA aspect to reason it through, that N might be associated with the pressure microblade group who took the northern route from south central Siberia to the Urals, NW Russia, Finland and the Baltic c. 8000BC. Certainly there is no good case that R was involved in that particular group, This northern group of Siberian migrants also seems very likely to be the one that carried the ANE which we find at Motala. Further south in Ukraine, south Russia etc I think a very similar move was made by R people carrying ANE.

So, in summary I am drifting to the idea that much of MNOP and Ps descendants R and Q spent the LGM either in Altai or perhaps the Pacific edges of northern Asia - some also making it to south-east Asia. The big demographic explosion at the end of the LGM represented by microblades seen in many chunks of east Asia may be related to this IMO. I would even consider the possibility that this included O. The whole microblade thing is very interesting and seems to have developed in the rare better areas in the LGM like Altai and Pacific north Asia. One interesting clue that this was developed by north Asians huddled in refugia is that the pre-LGM flint technology in Siberia and adjacent area of Mongolia and NW China do show incipient/rare hints of use of microblades.

In contrast the rest of China for example and also in SE Asia have bizzarely crude chopper, pebble and crude small irregular blade technology. The weird thing about this is that this goes from the lower Palaeolithic to at least 30000BC. This has led to some serious head scratching as there are modern human remains in China contemporary with these amost lower palaeolithic chopper tools. However I read somewhere, I think it was Alice Roberts, an ingenious and probably correct explanation for this. The tropical and warm parts of China had bamboo and its fantastic for making tools. Flint source were very poor - just little pebbles. Solution was that all hominids including modern humans quickly switched to using bamboo which just needs a crude flint flake to cut. The flint technology only improved when and where bamboo was not plentiful. That is of course a nightmare for archaeologists as bamboo doesnt survive. If you looked at the stone tools alone you would think Homo Erectus was using them until the LGM in much of China. This problem should be noted as it means that any hunters passing southwards to reach eastern or southern China or wherever bamboo was plentiful would soon lose their original distinctive flint tools and conform to the bamboo and crude flint flake tradition that made sense in that environment. It also means that if people then pushed on further south from China then they would have by then have a problem - they had lost the flint skills of their pre-bamboo bonanza ancestor but may have been heading to areas without that resource - leaving them with nothing but a really crude flint chopper and flake tradition. This made me think about SE Asia, Oceana etc. It likewise had a very crude expedient use of flint and is part of the bamboo zone http://www.eeob.iastate.edu/research/bamboo/maps/world-total-woody.gif

One thing that cannot be emphasised enough is how big a shake up the LGM and post-LGM expansion has made of any patterns that existed before. There are very very few areas of Eurasia where there was continuity - just a few regugia and the southern fringes

parasar
11-12-2014, 01:09 AM
...

As for old reports of NO*-M214 Y-DNA, I thought those had been shown to belong to the N side of the split between N and O, as mentioned in the supplementary data of Lippold et al. (2014):

So the NO-M214 (xM231, xM175) depicted in the figure at post 146 is on the N side above M231 but positive for some other SNP at the N level?

I see some NO-M214 (xM231, xM175) in the Trejaut et al. paper too:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/figures/1471-2156-15-77-2-l.jpg

Ebizur
11-12-2014, 10:00 AM
So the NO-M214 (xM231, xM175) depicted in the figure at post 146 is on the N side above M231 but positive for some other SNP at the N level?
You have taken that image from the paper by Rootsi et al. (2007), correct? I infer that they have used the data of Hammer et al. (2006) as a reference. That map of the distribution of NO*-M214 is an exact match for the NO*-M214(xN-LLY22g, O-M175) data of Hammer et al. (2006):

4/70 = 5.7% Tokushima, Japan
2/53 = 3.8% Kyushu, Japan
1/32 = 3.1% Malay
1/40 = 2.5% Southern Han (from Guangdong)
1/43 = 2.3% Yi (from Butuo County, Sichuan)
1/44 = 2.3% Northern Han
1/149 = 0.7% Mongolia

Comparing these figures with those of the same team published in the data supplement of Karafet et al. (2010), one may find that the two Han Chinese cases (one from Guangdong and one from either Shaanxi or Shanxi) of NO*-M214(xN-LLY22g, O-M175) have been reclassified as N-M231(xLLY22g). Furthermore, the Malaysian sample is no longer indicated to contain any haplogroup N Y-DNA at all; as I recall, the Malay NO*-M214(xN-LLY22g, O-M175) individual has been retested and found to be positive for M122 and M7, and thus has been reclassified as O3a2b-M7. Unfortunately, Karafet et al. (2010) have not provided any updated information regarding the team's samples of Japanese, Mongolians, or Yi. Thus, we have remaining the following potential NO*-M214 Y-chromosomes:

4/70 = 5.7% Tokushima, Japan
2/53 = 3.8% Kyushu, Japan
1/43 = 2.3% Yi (from Butuo County, Sichuan)
1/149 = 0.7% Mongolia

I presume that these also should be cases of N-M231+/LLY22g- like the Han Chinese examples or errors in genotyping like the Malaysian example.


I see some NO-M214 (xM231, xM175) in the Trejaut et al. paper too:Yes, but I think that there are some oddities in that paper. Take for example the claimed presence of P*-M45(xQ-M242, R-M207) as singletons among the Bunun and Amis samples: how many cases of P*-M45(xQ-M242, R-M207) have been confirmed among present-day human populations anywhere on Earth? Haven't all reports of such turned out to be errors in genotyping upon retesting? These would be very interesting if confirmed, of course. The fact that they claim to have found some NO*-M214(xN-M231, O-M175) but not any N-M231(xLLY22g) is also a bit surprising, since it is now well known that an M231+/LLY22g- genotype does occur among extant human males, and the same cannot be said for an M214+/M231-/M175- genotype.

By the way, there is also at least one discrepancy between the data table from Trejaut et al. (2014) that you have posted and the same study's Table S2: the table from the main body of the paper says that the pooled Taiwan Plains tribe samples contain 9/370 = 2.43% NO*-M214 and 1/370 = 0.27% N1*-LLY22g, whereas Table S2 says that the pooled Taiwan Plains tribe samples contain 1/370 = 0.27% NO*-M214 (a Siraya person) and 9/370 = 2.43% N1*-LLY22g.

In any case, it is not entirely clear that NO*-M214(xN-M231, O-M175) actually exists anywhere. However, if it does in fact exist, it seems to occur with notable frequency only in western Japan (Shikoku and Kyushu) and in the central Philippines (the Visayas and southern Luzon).

Hector
11-12-2014, 11:01 AM
No, no, and no. Prior to the agricultural revolution, division into subclades was typically the result of a directional migration-and-expansion (e.g., eastward across Beringia). The subclade that underwent rapid expansion is more likely to be the one that migrated; the other, smaller subclade is the surviving remnant who stayed in place, perhaps stalemated by neighbors or natural barriers.

In order for the ancestral O to find new home and expand there must have been an impetus or mechanism by which it migrated in the first place. It is just as likely that its cousins N migrated for the same reason.
A subclade may migrate and expand but it may not have. A subclade may experience a long period of isolation/confinement but it may not have. A subclade barely surviving due to environmental reasons is phylogenially not distinguishable from it barely surviving among more successful lineages. In either case it carries no additional weight as to the possible location of its origin.

A directional expansion is usually a result of frontier effect. But that mechanism explains better why some Ns are so far away from their putative home than O's migrating a long distance to East Asia.



Even after agriculture this was true more often than not. Perhaps the most obvious case is that of R1b-P311, the parent of P312 and U106. Does any credible researcher claim that the origin of P311 lies at the centroid of its current population (in the middle of the Atlantic)? Of course not--we all recognize that the expansion of P312 and U106 has been primarily directional.

It has been discussed as frontier effect endlessly in the previous DNA-forums.com. Also you seem to be confusing phylogenial center of mass with demographic center of mass.
O2b has a staggering depth indicating that O2a and O2b departed not too long after O1 and O2 departed. But their current estimate of MRCA is quite shallow indicating they had been "survivors" instead of being "expanders". But no one in their right mind would place the origin of O2 and possibly the origin of O1+O2 in southern Korea.


It makes any claim that N began in Southeast Asia highly problematic, to say the least.

At best it may make the SE Asian theory problematic but still its origin is securely placed within the general area of continental East Asia.

NO-M214's origin in the general area of Greater East Asia(including continental SE Asia and Eastern Central Asia) is one of the most securely established facts in population genetics. Denying it is akin to denying the validity of Indo-European Language family(ie claiming it is a sprachbund etc) in terms of going against overwhelming evidences for the sake of a few oddities.



Aren't you intrigued by the fact that L732 has (so far) shown up only in Eastern Europe and Korea?

If you look at YFull tree N-L732 is a tiny tiny end branch of N-F2905 while the multiply nested rest is very securely East Asian.
Even if the Korean is, INCREDIBLY, a patrilineal descendent of Europeans, those Europeans in turn should have relatively recent East Asian patrilineal ancestors.

This should also give you the idea not to jump to the conclusion before all facts are in.

I was also going to point out that even if N-Y6503 turns out to be European and it is the most divergent lineage within N with respect to N-Z4762(both incredibly unlikely) it still carries no additional weight regarding the origin of N or the origin of NO. It simply would be a less successful sibling of N-Z4762. You may want to apply your "survivor premium" argument but N-Z4762's expansion is much later than that of O's. You also need to explain why it could expand in the already densely populated East Asia.

P.S. I hate editing my post but I had to write in several parts because it kept crashing.

lgmayka
11-12-2014, 03:18 PM
NO-M214's origin in the general area of Greater East Asia(including continental SE Asia and Eastern Central Asia) is one of the most securely established facts in population genetics.
"Securely established fact"? :lol: That is a very laughable way to refer to any hypothesis about ancient population genetics that has (at least so far) absolutely no basis in ancient DNA results. What is the most ancient example of N/O/NO that has been found so far? Was it found in East Asia, Central Asia, or Eastern Europe? (Sorry, I do not recognize a region called "Greater East Asia," a term apparently invented for expansionist purposes in 1940 by the Empire of Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperity_Sphere).)

Hector
11-12-2014, 03:59 PM
"Securely established fact"? :lol: That is a very laughable way to refer to any hypothesis about ancient population genetics that has (at least so far) absolutely no basis in ancient DNA results.

Likewise the reconstruction of proto-indo European language has absolutely no direct basis in textual or archaeological results. Most of it is done through modern languages and even in some instances involving ancient languages, those languages are of much later dates.

You should likewise criticize genetic taxonomy because no direct evidence exists for those creatures millions of years old.

(Sorry, I do not recognize a region called "Greater East Asia," a term apparently invented for expansionist purposes in 1940 by the Empire of Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperity_Sphere).)

I used that terminology to more clearly designate an area refered as "East Asia" by many researchers already. And its boundary itself is quite different from "Greater East Asia co prosperity shere" conjured up by Japanese.

DMXX
11-12-2014, 06:48 PM
Thread split from here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3417-Genomic-structure-in-Europeans-dating-back-at-least-36-200-years).

As directed by a moderator, please keep the discussion herein on topic ladies and gentlemen. Any further off-topic posts or comments will be handled by the administration as appropriate.

vettor
11-12-2014, 06:48 PM
So the NO-M214 (xM231, xM175) depicted in the figure at post 146 is on the N side above M231 but positive for some other SNP at the N level?

I see some NO-M214 (xM231, xM175) in the Trejaut et al. paper too:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/figures/1471-2156-15-77-2-l.jpg


for my marker , we clearly see , it split-off in western indian/balochi area , while L kept heading East

vettor
11-12-2014, 07:04 PM
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0066102

lgmayka
11-12-2014, 08:59 PM
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0066102
Unfortunately, that study directly sampled only East Asians, and tested only four reliable SNPs: M231, Tat, P43, and M128. (It also tested the misleadingly useless LLY22g, which we now know has back-mutated multiple times.) The study openly admits that the alleged N-M231* is "younger than expected, likely as a result of yet-to-be-identified individuals having derived N-M231 sub-haplogroup when new Y SNP markers are uncovered in the future."

Thus, the study's basic conclusion (the origin of N in southern China) rests entirely on 7 Y-STRs measured on the alleged N-LLY22g* of East Asia only. The study made no attempt to discover a new SNP that would characterize this paragroup; nor did the study test P189 or L732, which were on the ISOGG haplotree (and unfairly criticized by a hasty and uninformed blogger (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-review-of-haplogroup-n-y-dna.html)) by the time of the study's publication.

vettor
11-12-2014, 09:28 PM
Unfortunately, that study directly sampled only East Asians, and tested only four reliable SNPs: M231, Tat, P43, and M128. (It also tested the misleadingly useless LLY22g, which we now know has back-mutated multiple times.) The study openly admits that the alleged N-M231* is "younger than expected, likely as a result of yet-to-be-identified individuals having derived N-M231 sub-haplogroup when new Y SNP markers are uncovered in the future."

Thus, the study's basic conclusion (the origin of N in southern China) rests entirely on 7 Y-STRs measured on the alleged N-LLY22g* of East Asia only. The study made no attempt to discover a new SNP that would characterize this paragroup; nor did the study test P189 or L732, which were on the ISOGG haplotree (and unfairly criticized by a hasty and uninformed blogger (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-review-of-haplogroup-n-y-dna.html)) by the time of the study's publication.

Well, Basal N-M231 is origin of N which is Asia

You are referring to N1 , ......N1 is not a basal marker ofr the origin of N

N1-LLY22g came from its parent N-M231 is this not the case?
Granted the scenario is that N-M231 migrated from asia and went elsewhere to mutate in N1 .

The paper is correct in its origin of N, you have only left out the letter 1 . that is to make N1-LLy22g .

The new format of removing the number from N1 to N is clearly confusing many people into thinking an origin of a Haplogroup is in a different place

GTC
11-12-2014, 09:34 PM
All members are reminded to keep the tone of their posts civil and to refrain from personal attacks. This thread is being monitored.

lgmayka
11-12-2014, 10:23 PM
Well, Basal N-M231 is origin of N which is Asia
N-M231 is indeed defined to be the basal N (http://yfull.com/tree/N/). Most presume its origin to be somewhere in Asia (a big place!), although we don't really know for certain without some 20,000-year-old examples of N.


You are referring to N1 , ......N1 is not a basal marker ofr the origin of N

N1-LLY22g came from its parent N-M231 is this not the case?
We now know that LLY22g has back-mutated multiple times, and should not be used for phylogenetic purposes. Ignore it.


Granted the scenario is that N-M231 migrated from asia and went elsewhere to mutate in N1 .
Our best information right now is that N-M231 split into two subclades which became N-Y6503 and N-Z4762. (See YFull's haplotree (http://yfull.com/tree/N/).) So far, N-Y6503 has been found only in Europe (including the Great Hungarian Plain of the 9th century B.C.).

N-Z4762 split into two subclades which became N-F2905 and N-L729. N-F2905 has been reported in Eastern Europe, South India, China, Vietnam, and Korea. N-L729 spawned all of N-Tat, N-P43, and N-M128 (the three SNPs tested by the aforementioned study) and is therefore present all across Eurasia.

vettor
11-12-2014, 10:37 PM
N-M231 is indeed defined to be the basal N (http://yfull.com/tree/N/). Most presume its origin to be somewhere in Asia (a big place!), although we don't really know for certain without some 20,000-year-old examples of N.

We now know that LLY22g has back-mutated multiple times, and should not be used for phylogenetic purposes. Ignore it.

Our best information right now is that N-M231 split into two subclades which became N-Y6503 and N-Z4762. (See YFull's haplotree (http://yfull.com/tree/N/).) So far, N-Y6503 has been found only in Europe (including the Great Hungarian Plain of the 9th century B.C.).

N-Z4762 split into two subclades which became N-F2905 and N-L729. N-F2905 has been reported in Eastern Europe, South India, China, Vietnam, and Korea. N-L729 spawned all of N-Tat, N-P43, and N-M128 (the three SNPs tested by the aforementioned study) and is therefore present all across Eurasia.

If we look at the proposed new N tree

https://sites.google.com/site/compositeytree/n

then ..................make you own conclusions

lgmayka
11-13-2014, 01:09 AM
If we look at the proposed new N tree

https://sites.google.com/site/compositeytree/n
That is Ray Banks' attempt at a tree. As far as I know, he has absolutely no special knowledge or interest in N-P189, N-L732, or indeed haplogroup N in general. Ray's hands are more than full with haplogroups G and C--as I am sure he would tell you himself.

In short, his tree is woefully incorrect. The most up-to-date haplotree for N is, once again, YFull's (http://yfull.com/tree/N/). YFull has actually examined the BAM files of 3 N-P189 men (plus the ancient Hungarian).

vettor
11-13-2014, 02:26 AM
That is Ray Banks' attempt at a tree. As far as I know, he has absolutely no special knowledge or interest in N-P189, N-L732, or indeed haplogroup N in general. Ray's hands are more than full with haplogroups G and C--as I am sure he would tell you himself.

In short, his tree is woefully incorrect. The most up-to-date haplotree for N is, once again, YFull's (http://yfull.com/tree/N/). YFull has actually examined the BAM files of 3 N-P189 men (plus the ancient Hungarian).

Ok, for Y_Full for N if you say

but Y-Full does not do my marker any good as I fall in 2 lines
note- I have never done Y-Full, but have everyone of my positive and negative markers.

In the end the N basal is Asian , the N1 could be or is elsewhere

lgmayka
11-13-2014, 02:47 AM
but Y-Full does not do my marker any good as I fall in 2 lines
note- I have never done Y-Full, but have everyone of my positive and negative markers.
YFull deals almost exclusively with BAM files. If you have results from either Big Y or FGC, I suggest you submit your BAM file to YFull. After the analysis is complete, YFull will invite you to pay $49 to unlock your personal data; but even if you don't, you will be placed (anonymously) on the haplotree, extending the tree if necessary.

Hector
11-13-2014, 09:31 AM
I briefly examined the latest study by Yat et al.

It has 9 N samples,*< 5 of them LLY22g-. So they targeted M231+ LLY22g- , which is expected since the sole purpose of the study was to refine the pre-existing phylo. tree and obtain age estimates.>*
They don't seem to have any outside N-Z4762 since some of the SNPs under this are still listed as being equivalent to M231.
They did not have any NO* samples either and it is possible there is none among Chinese since if there were any it is difficult to imagine that they would not choose them.

It is too early to tell what this means but if they want to refine the N tree they should look elsewhere than Southern China for N samples, preferably minorities or Japanese.

The Korean N-L732 guy did not have any genetic test done prior to his Geno 2.0. So the suspected N-732 man at FTDNA is not the same guy.
His Geno result is available online and may be useful in determining the time of divergence with the Europeans samples.

This is likely to be my last post in this forum unless I get flamed again in which case I will fire back until the mod bans me.

P.S. *<>* turned out to be an error. I use Excelviewer and cannot change the widths of columns and + part was just truncated from the right just enough so that it looked like -.

Ebizur
11-14-2014, 05:13 AM
I briefly examined the latest study by Yat et al.

It has 9 N samples, 5 of them LLY22g-. So they targeted M231+ LLY22g- , which is expected since the sole purpose of the study was to refine the pre-existing phylo. tree and obtain age estimates.
They don't seem to have any outside N-Z4762 since some of the SNPs under this are still listed as being equivalent to M231.
They did not have any NO* samples either and it is possible there is none among Chinese since if there were any it is difficult to imagine that they would not choose them.

It is too early to tell what this means but if they want to refine the N tree they should look elsewhere than Southern China for N samples, preferably minorities or Japanese.

The Korean N-L732 guy did not have any genetic test done prior to his Geno 2.0. So the suspected N-732 man at FTDNA is not the same guy.
His Geno result is available online and may be useful in determining the time of divergence with the Europeans samples.

This is likely to be my last post in this forum unless I get flamed again in which case I will fire back until the mod bans me.
I assume that you have made a typographical error for Yan et al. (2014). They have studied nine haplogroup N-M231 Y-chromosomes from China, all from Han Chinese.

YCH40 (Han from Jiangsu): N1c2a-M128 [Plus at least two downstream SNPs: F866+ F2288+. Supposedly shares F2288+ state with YCH394 (downstream of N1c1a1a-F4342), which must be a result of recurrent mutation, error in genotyping, or error in reporting.]

YCH141 (Han from Henan): N1c2a-M128 [Plus at least nine downstream SNPs: F726+ F933+ F1073+ F1350+ F4145+ F4160+ F4185+ F2949+ F3128+]

YCH74 (Han from Fujian): N1c1a-M178 [Detailed genotype not published because of poor quality.]

YCH394 (Han from Shandong): N1c1a1a-F4342 [Phylogenetically equivalent to L1026 according to the current YFull tree. Also positive for N1c1-F1419, N1c1-F2667, N1c1-F3331, N1c1-F3573, N1c1-F4115, N1c1-F4218, N1c1a-M178, and N1c1a1-F4325. However, supposedly negative for N1c1-F2584 and N1c-F3361, and no call for N1c1-F3823, N1c1-F2996, N1c1-F3354, or N1c-F1206. With regard to F2584 and F3361, there must be an error in the YFull tree or in the genotyping or reporting of Yan et al., or else F2584 and F3361 must have back-mutated in the descendant lineage leading to YCH394. Also positive for at least eight downstream SNPs: F1604, F4155, F1878, F4205, F4284, F3271, F4325, F4342.]

For the remaining five out of nine N-M231 samples, LLY22g has been genotyped and found to be positive in all but one sample.

YCH3 (Han from Jiangxi): N1b-F1437 [LLY22g+. According to the current version of the YFull tree, this is a subclade of N-CTS12473, which is a sister clade of N-Z4784. N-Z4784 contains N1b-L732, that subclade about which lgmayka and Hector have been arguing. Also positive for at least thirteen downstream SNPs: F846+ F1075+ F1148+ F1260+ F1286+ F1432+ F1538+ F1555+ F1777+ F2624+ F2870+ F2991+ F3463+. An additional eight SNPs (F830, F1020, F1097, F1113, F1172, F1939, F2639, F3310) have no call for YCH142 but are derived in YCH3 and ancestral in all other representatives of N-M231 except YCH142.]

YCH142 (Han from Jiangxi): N1b-F1437 [LLY22g-. Also positive for at least fourteen downstream SNPs: F1122+ F4156+ F2099+ F2287+ F4219+ F3786+ F4273+ F4294+ F3142+ F4304+ F3303+ F4318+ F3502+ F3639+.]

YCH133 (Han from Hubei): N-M231 [LLY22g+. Detailed genotype not published because of poor quality.]

YCH403 (Han from Shanghai): N-M231 [LLY22g+, M128-, P43-, Tat-. Detailed genotype not published because of poor quality.]

YCH205 (Han from Shandong): N-M231 [LLY22g+, M128-, P43-, Tat-. This is perhaps the most interesting of the N-M231 samples in this study. It is derived for N1c-F1206, N1c-F2130, N1c-F3094, N1c-F3312, and N1c-F3361. This places it securely on the lineage leading to the most well-known "old school" subclades of haplogroup N: former N1a-M128, N1b-P43, and N1c-Tat. Unlike YCH394, YCH205 is negative for N1c1a1-F4325 and N1c1a1a-F4342. However, YCH205 does appear to be positive for some but not all of the SNPs currently listed by YFull as markers of N1c1 (phylogenetically equivalent to M46/Tat). For example, YCH205 is F3823+, F2584+, and F2996+, but F2667-, F4115-, and F3331-. Assuming that both this study's genotyping and the YFull tree are accurate, this genotype would mean that YCH205 represents a basal split within N1c1, or N1c1(xTat). However, it is a curious fact that every one of the three SNPs that YCH205 appears to share with N1c1, namely F3823, F2584, and F2996, is reported as either negative (F2584) or a no-call (F3823, F2996) for YCH394, the Han from Shandong who otherwise appears to belong to N1c1a1a-F4342.]

Hector
11-14-2014, 07:21 AM
In my Excel Viewer, + was cut off from the right just enough so that it looked like -. It is probably the same for all those who use default the setting.(actually it seems Excel Viewer does not allow users to change the column widths at all)

So the samples may not have been pre-screened and the question regarding the existence of NO*(obviously it is far more likely that these either belong to N or O with additional markers and those that fall on the N side are of interest to us at this moment) and upstream N's is still open.

The Hungarian N 900BC also had mtDNA G, a very easterly haplogroup. I find it hard to believe that this is just a coincidence. While his autosomes were West Eurasian, it is apparent that his recent ancestry goes back at least to Eastern Europe that is known to have been influenced from the East.

Jean M
11-14-2014, 09:46 AM
For what it is worth, here is what I said about N in Ancestral Journeys.


The Y-DNA haplogroup N is densest across the whole north of Eurasia from Siberia to Norway (Illustration 22). It is estimated to have arisen about 20,000 years ago. It cannot have arisen in the far north, which was uninhabitable at the time. N presumably spread northwards from southeast Asia as the climate warmed. Interestingly its distribution falls into the Surfing pattern, in which a mutation at the head of a wave of migration multiplies, reaching saturation level where it hits a geographical barrier. The absence of haplogroup N in the Americas indicates that it spread across Asia after the submergence of the Bering land bridge. The haplogroup is common today among widely separated peoples who turned from hunting to herding reindeer in historic times, such as the Saami at the western end of the range, and the Yakuts towards the eastern end.

Within Europe subclade N1c1 (M178) is strong among peoples speaking Uralic languages, reaching 70% in the eastern Finns. The western branch of the Uralic family probably arrived in Finland with the Comb Ware culture between 4000 and 3000 BC. There Saami seems to have developed as a distinct language in the Iron Age. A genome-wide study of Finnish Saami showed an average 6% East Asian ancestry today.


On Uralic:


The hardy speakers of Uralic languages long ago braved the icy forests of the far north, and many still live there today....The family takes its name from the deduction that the parent language – Proto-Uralic – developed near the Ural Mountains.2 An ancestral language was probably spoken somewhere in the Sayan region of south-central Siberia. ... Proto-Uralic was a language of hunter-gatherers; it had no words for farming. This is as we would expect if it was spoken in the north, where the Mesolithic lifestyle continued so long unchanged.

lgmayka
11-14-2014, 10:48 AM
"N presumably spread northwards from southeast Asia as the climate warmed...The absence of haplogroup N in the Americas indicates that it spread across Asia after the submergence of the Bering land bridge."

The first quoted statement is, as you say, a presumption--based on studies which totally missed potential game-changer N-P189.

The second statement makes two unjustified assumptions:
- That no one in N (e.g., N-P189) managed to migrate prior to the Beringian crossing
- That every tribe in Northern and Central Asia sent a delegation with the Beringian crossing.

If R was present in Central Asia but chose not to make the trip, isn't it possible that N made the same decision?

alan
11-14-2014, 11:00 AM
I tend to agree that just because Q was the only branch of P to make it to America doesnt mean much given the affect of pure chance. You could also say R made it to Europe while Q barely did in many areas. Yet both probably were around south-central Siberia/Altai in the LGM - Mal'ta and AG2 seem to show this. So, it seems perfectly possible to lines to live together somewhere in the LGM but then go through founder effects, extinction etc which means only one line made it along the trails east and west.

FWIW I very strongly suspect N was involved in the ANE associated pressure microblade trail from south Siberia towards the Urals and Baltic area in the late Upper Palaeolithic with R moving along a more southerly route towards the Black Sea and Q heading partly to the Americas. I tend to see N as the Uralic line and probably associated with the groups in the Urals and Baltic c. 10000-8000 BC.

I think an outpouring of N and R from the same Altai refuge post-LGM and especially post-10000BC would fit the deep time shared ancestral linguistic links between Uralic and IE.

Jean M
11-14-2014, 11:40 AM
The first quoted statement is, as you say, a presumption--based on studies which totally missed potential game-changer N-P189 .... If R was present in Central Asia but chose not to make the trip, isn't it possible that N made the same decision?

Yes indeed we are dealing in presumptions here, not facts. The reason I quoted from AJ was to draw attention not so much to the Bering Crossing argument which has gone up in smoke since Mal'ta Boy, but the issues of climate and practicality. If N was born in the middle of the LGM, then it is far more likely to have moved from south to north than north to south. We have to make sense here of the distribution of its brother O as well. The parent NO is wildly unlikely to have been anywhere near Europe.

Jean M
11-14-2014, 11:55 AM
FWIW I very strongly suspect N was involved in the ANE associated pressure microblade trail from south Siberia towards the Urals and Baltic area in the late Upper Palaeolithic.

Pressure blade making did not arrive in the Urals or the Baltic in the Upper Palaeolithic. There are dates on the map below. It arrived in the upper Volga region around 9600 BC and later in Lapland.

I share your view that N had arrived in Central Asia by the Mesolithic. This does not mean that it was born there. The modern pattern of distribution is of the Surfing type, so I look towards the thinner southern end of its distribution for its origin, which conveniently happens to overlap with the distribution of its brother O.

2949

alan
11-14-2014, 01:35 PM
Pressure blade making did not arrive in the Urals or the Baltic in the Upper Palaeolithic. There are dates on the map below. It arrived in the upper Volga region around 9600 BC and later in Lapland.

I share your view that N had arrived in Central Asia by the Mesolithic. This does not mean that it was born there. The modern pattern of distribution is of the Surfing type, so I look towards the thinner southern end of its distribution for its origin, which conveniently happens to overlap with the distribution of its brother O.

2949

I thought the dates were pretty close to the termninal upper palaeolithic just at the cusp of the Mesolithic

Jean M
11-14-2014, 02:00 PM
I thought the dates were pretty close to the terminal upper palaeolithic just at the cusp of the Mesolithic

I suppose it depends on how you define Mesolithic - by microblade industries or by the recolonisation of northern Europe or what. I actually have a later date for the Mesolithic in AJ, I find. So I'm contradicting myself again. :\

lgmayka
11-14-2014, 03:23 PM
If N was born in the middle of the LGM, then it is far more likely to have moved from south to north than north to south.
That is precisely why N-P189 is a potential game-changer. I discovered N-P189 in June 2010, but mainstream academia still refuses to admit its existence. Once again, N-P189 (and its predecessor N-Y6503 found in a 2900-year-old Hungarian) is exclusively European so far.

Let me put it another way. The discovery of N-P189 pushes back in time the estimated origin (i.e., first expansion) of haplogroup N by 64 SNPs (http://yfull.com/tree/N/), which equates to many thousands of years. N's first bifurcation may have been a response to the LGM--the "mainstream" clade which became N-Z4762 (or N-Page56) may have gone south or southeast, while the clade that eventually became N-Y6503 may have gone in another direction.

Jean M
11-14-2014, 03:34 PM
That is precisely why N-P189 is a potential game-changer. I discovered N-P189 in June 2010, but mainstream academia still refuses to admit its existence. Once again, N-P189 (and its predecessor N-Y6503 found in a 2900-year-old Hungarian) is exclusively European so far.


The Hungarian sample is Cimmerian i.e. from the European steppe, with a component from the Asian steppe. One can well imagine that his descendants would be found in Europe.

That really has nothing to do with the origin of N thousands of years earlier. The carriers of N include people long linked to reindeer hunting. They would have followed the cold-adapted mammals as they moved gradually northwards as the climate changed.

RCO
11-14-2014, 04:04 PM
We can find some basal relics of almost all other haplogroups in Europe and they don't show an early European origin but some rare specific movements into Europe.

Jean M
11-14-2014, 04:12 PM
N's first bifurcation may have been a response to the LGM--the "mainstream" clade which became N-Z4762 (or ISOGG N-L729) may have gone south or southeast, while the clade that eventually became N-Y6503 may have gone in another direction.

Let me see if I understand you here.
N-P1891 = ISOGG N1a, which seems to be a tiny haplogroup, with only one subclade.
N-L729 = ISOGG N1c, a giant haplogroup, which has bushed into many subclades.

And you feel that N1a being found in Europe today signifies that N itself was born in Europe? And moved from there to SE Asia?

vettor
11-14-2014, 04:34 PM
That is precisely why N-P189 is a potential game-changer. I discovered N-P189 in June 2010, but mainstream academia still refuses to admit its existence. Once again, N-P189 (and its predecessor N-Y6503 found in a 2900-year-old Hungarian) is exclusively European so far.

Let me put it another way. The discovery of N-P189 pushes back in time the estimated origin (i.e., first expansion) of haplogroup N by 64 SNPs (http://yfull.com/tree/N/), which equates to many thousands of years. N's first bifurcation may have been a response to the LGM--the "mainstream" clade which became N-Z4762 (or ISOGG N-L729) may have gone south or southeast, while the clade that eventually became N-Y6503 may have gone in another direction.

N1a-P189 in europe is associated with the North Adriatic refrugrium , it was called the Liburbian marker ( one of ) , Liburnians are "illyrians", some say "venetics", from modern coastal croatia. The remnants of this ancient marker remained on the croatian islands today.

parasar
11-14-2014, 04:50 PM
You have taken that image from the paper by Rootsi et al. (2007), correct? I infer that they have used the data of Hammer et al. (2006) as a reference. That map of the distribution of NO*-M214 is an exact match for the NO*-M214(xN-LLY22g, O-M175) data of Hammer et al. (2006):

4/70 = 5.7% Tokushima, Japan
2/53 = 3.8% Kyushu, Japan
1/32 = 3.1% Malay
1/40 = 2.5% Southern Han (from Guangdong)
1/43 = 2.3% Yi (from Butuo County, Sichuan)
1/44 = 2.3% Northern Han
1/149 = 0.7% Mongolia


Yes the figure is from Rootsi et. al. Apparently they did re-run samples for M231 as they note:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n2/full/5201748a.html


A total of 5389 samples from 58 populations in different geographical regions were genotyped or updated to present phylogenetic resolution (M9-derived samples with ancestral allele of 92R7 marker were typed for M214, M231, M128, P43, Tat, M175) in this study and analyzed together with data about 8019 individuals from 90 populations from the literature (data presented in Supplementary Table 1).[the ones not typed are noted as nd]...
marker M2316 (characterizing the whole N clade) was introduced in the tree of Y chromosome diversification (see Figure 1). Marker M231 is phylogenetically equivalent to the more cumbersome LLY22g polymorphism,13 initially used to define haplogroup N.




...

Yes, but I think that there are some oddities in that paper. Take for example the claimed presence of P*-M45(xQ-M242, R-M207) as singletons among the Bunun and Amis samples: how many cases of P*-M45(xQ-M242, R-M207) have been confirmed among present-day human populations anywhere on Earth? Haven't all reports of such turned out to be errors in genotyping upon retesting? These would be very interesting if confirmed, of course. .

Those could be be genuine M45 xM242, xM207, as they did test all the pertinent markers. Plus we do see a number of M45 xM242, xM207 in Arunkumar's Tamil dataset.

Ebizur
11-14-2014, 08:33 PM
Yes the figure is from Rootsi et. al. Apparently they did re-run samples for M231 as they note:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n2/full/5201748a.htmlThe text that you have quoted is not so relevant as the fact that Rootsi et al. have tabulated the N-M231 (LLY22g-) Han Chinese from the "Northern Han" and "Southern Han" samples of the Karafet/Hammer team as NO*-M214. Rootsi et al. also have tabulated as NO*-M214 that O-M7 Malay from the "Malay"/"Malaysia" sample of the Karafet/Hammer team (who has been reported as NO-M214(xLLY22g, M175) in the supplementary material of Hammer et al. 2006). I do not understand why you would argue that Rootsi et al. are correct when the original publishers of the samples in question have admitted some errors and corrected them in a more recent publication.


Those could be be genuine M45 xM242, xM207, as they did test all the pertinent markers. Plus we do see a number of M45 xM242, xM207 in Arunkumar's Tamil dataset.I do not have anything to add here but to say that everyone makes mistakes sometimes.

lgmayka
11-14-2014, 09:19 PM
We can find some basal relics of almost all other haplogroups in Europe and they don't show an early European origin but some rare specific movements into Europe.
The questions then become: When? And from where?

Many scholars rashly assumed that C-V20 was a recent arrival to Europe ("traveling salesman from China") until it started showing up in ancient DNA. N-P189 has been treated even worse, but now shows up in a 2900-year-old Hungarian.

Most of us have already accepted that the large-percentage yDNA haplogroups generally represent fairly recent expansions (e.g., R1a and R1b). It stands to reason, then, that the yDNA of more ancient inhabitants may show up today as "rare" "basal relics."

lgmayka
11-14-2014, 10:00 PM
The Hungarian sample is Cimmerian i.e. from the European steppe, with a component from the Asian steppe.
The research paper (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html) labels it only as "Iron Age, Pre-Scythian Mezőcsát Culture." I see only speculation that the Mezőcsát Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hungary_before_the_Hungarian_Conquest#I ron_Age) "may have consisted of ancient Iranian tribes that had seceded from the federation of the tribes living under the suzerainty of the Cimmerians."

The sample's autosomal DNA does not show an "Asian steppe" component. Rather, it falls between Eastern Europe and the Caucasus (but closer to Eastern Europe), according to the paper's PCA diagram (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_F2.html).


That really has nothing to do with the origin of N thousands of years earlier.
Chuckle. Well, I guess we may as well not bother to test ancient DNA at all! It has "nothing to do" with the origin of haplogroups. :lol:

Apparently I must repeat that the discovery of N-P189 pushed back the TMRCA of haplogroup N by many thousands of years. According to our most up-to-date haplotree (http://yfull.com/tree/N/), the first bifurcation of N was between N-Y6503 which is now found only in Europe, and N-Z4762 (or N-Page56), which is found all across Eurasia. We now know that N-Y6503 was in Europe at least 2900 years ago. Those of us who consider ancient DNA relevant now eagerly await the decoding of even older DNA.

lgmayka
11-14-2014, 10:05 PM
And you feel that N1a being found in Europe today signifies that N itself was born in Europe? And moved from there to SE Asia?
I did not say that. I wrote only that N's alleged origin in Southeast Asia must now be considered problematic at best. Alan expressed doubt about the alleged Southeast Asian origin of P; I am expressing a similar doubt about the alleged Southeast Asian origin of N.

Jean M
11-14-2014, 10:11 PM
The sample's autosomal DNA does not show an "Asian steppe" component.

I was referring to the Cimmerian culture.

Jean M
11-14-2014, 10:15 PM
Well, I guess we may as well not bother to test ancient DNA at all! It has "nothing to do" with the origin of haplogroups.

Finding an N in Europe in 980-930 BC is not evidence that it arose in Europe 20,000 years ago, any more than finding R1a in Corded Ware is evidence that R arose in Europe. If N appears in a Palaeolithic sample from Europe, obviously people would rethink. At the moment there is no evidence to support your preferred view.

lgmayka
11-14-2014, 10:22 PM
At the moment there is no evidence to support your preferred view.
You are apparently unfamiliar with my "preferred view," because it now has substantial evidence in its favor. I will repeat it:

N's alleged origin in Southeast Asia must now be considered problematic at best.

aarnisotka
11-14-2014, 11:12 PM
You are apparently unfamiliar with my "preferred view," because it now has substantial evidence in its favor. I will repeat it:

N's alleged origin in Southeast Asia must now be considered problematic at best.

Europe starts at mainland China ;)

parasar
11-14-2014, 11:45 PM
The text that you have quoted is not so relevant as the fact that Rootsi et al. have tabulated the N-M231 (LLY22g-) Han Chinese from the "Northern Han" and "Southern Han" samples of the Karafet/Hammer team as NO*-M214. Rootsi et al. also have tabulated as NO*-M214 that O-M7 Malay from the "Malay"/"Malaysia" sample of the Karafet/Hammer team (who has been reported as NO-M214(xLLY22g, M175) in the supplementary material of Hammer et al. 2006). I do not understand why you would argue that Rootsi et al. are correct when the original publishers of the samples in question have admitted some errors and corrected them in a more recent publication.

I do not have anything to add here but to say that everyone makes mistakes sometimes.

Ah! So Rootsi updated without genotyping. In that case none of the NO* samples are certain.

alan
11-15-2014, 01:15 AM
I did not say that. I wrote only that N's alleged origin in Southeast Asia must now be considered problematic at best. Alan expressed doubt about the alleged Southeast Asian origin of P; I am expressing a similar doubt about the alleged Southeast Asian origin of N.

I am getting around to thinking all P and perhaps much of K2 derived lines came originally from SW Asia into north-central Asia and Siberia. We have K2, R and possibly Q ancient DNA from upper palaeolithic Siberia. IMO the archaeological evidence points to a very distinct and very early move in that directions c. 45000BC-40000BC and it did later spill into NW China and Mongolia. So based on simple logic I suspect NW China and much of Mongolia featured lines in some way related to the K2, R and Q Siberians. During the LGM NW China and Mongolia was largely abandoned so I suspect K2 derived lines probably headed south or south-east. If the Siberian culture commenced at a K2 level then I wouldnt rule out any of the K2 derived lines as having spread east by the north Asian route regardless of where they ended up. The LGM must have had an incredibly effect on human settlement in places like Mongolia and China so its possible that modern distribution is very different and mainly due to Neolithic expansions.

It took me a long time to dawn on me that R probably like Q only expanded over a wide area after the LGM and this was associated with pressure flaked microblades. The same could be true for N and O. There was an explosion of this in various area of east Asia after the LGM. Not just Altair but other areas. A functional explanation is possible but that is not mutually exclusive with migration. Its apparently not a skill that is easily copied by casual contact. I dont honestly know enough about N, O etc or east Asian microblade groups but I suspect there is a genetic link.

Perhaps Q and R retreated to the Altai refugium while N and O perhaps were the groups of the north Siberian tradition who lived in NW China and Mongolia and were displaced during the LGM. They surely didnt all head to Altai. From the LGM map I have seen it seem logical for people in NW China and Mongolia to either head to the Pacific Coast of China or into SE Asia south of China and then re-expand into the abandoned area in post-LGM times. There is a lot of information on microblade groups and from memory very early ones in Pacific East Asia. Its something I need to have a dig into.

J Man
11-15-2014, 01:20 AM
N most likely did not originate in Europe. East Asia seems to be a better candidate.

parasar
11-15-2014, 01:53 AM
I am getting around to thinking all P and perhaps much of K2 derived lines came originally from SW Asia into north-central Asia and Siberia. We have K2, R and possibly Q ancient DNA from upper palaeolithic Siberia. IMO the archaeological evidence points to a very distinct and very early move in that directions c. 45000BC-40000BC and it did later spill into NW China and Mongolia. So based on simple logic I suspect NW China and much of Mongolia featured lines in some way related to the K2, R and Q Siberians. During the LGM NW China and Mongolia was largely abandoned so I suspect K2 derived lines probably headed south or south-east. If the Siberian culture commenced at a K2 level then I wouldnt rule out any of the K2 derived lines as having spread east by the north Asian route regardless of where they ended up. The LGM must have had an incredibly effect on human settlement in places like Mongolia and China so its possible that modern distribution is very different and mainly due to Neolithic expansions.

It took me a long time to dawn on me that R probably like Q only expanded over a wide area after the LGM and this was associated with pressure flaked microblades. The same could be true for N and O. There was an explosion of this in various area of east Asia after the LGM. Not just Altair but other areas. A functional explanation is possible but that is not mutually exclusive with migration. Its apparently not a skill that is easily copied by casual contact. I dont honestly know enough about N, O etc or east Asian microblade groups but I suspect there is a genetic link.

Perhaps Q and R retreated to the Altai refugium while N and O perhaps were the groups of the north Siberian tradition who lived in NW China and Mongolia and were displaced during the LGM. They surely didnt all head to Altai. From the LGM map I have seen it seem logical for people in NW China and Mongolia to either head to the Pacific Coast of China or into SE Asia south of China and then re-expand into the abandoned area in post-LGM times. There is a lot of information on microblade groups and from memory very early ones in Pacific East Asia. Its something I need to have a dig into.

That would essentially imply that the situation proposed by Anatole Klyosov would work. Or the one posited by German Dziebel.

The former thinks that "Haplogroup B is descended from β-haplogroup likely migrated to Africa after 46,000 ybp with β-haplogroup originating from somewhere within a "vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south." And that that β-haplogroup died out in West Eurasia now making it appear that B is of African origin. Even going further: As a result, the evolution (Y-chromosomal) tree produced at least five waves of migrants to Africa (haplogroups A00, A0, A1a, A1b1, and B ), while the rest of the tree consists of four non-African (by origin) haplogroups, that is A0-T, A1, A1b, and BT, along with the downstream subclades of the latter."

The latter conjures of a scenario whereby bookends C and Q remain in the Americas with rest dying out there. He is informed in his theories by linguistic measures. "Amerindians bookend the whole Y-DNA tree with having both most upstream C and most downstream Q lineages" and that "non-IJK lineages were simply lost in America as hg Q expanded across the whole continent."

So now we have a similar situation being proposed where all the M526, P27, P331, P295, P261, P402 etc. all headed to SE Asia over long periods of time in multiple waves, with now only the bookends P-M45 and K-M9(xM526) surviving where they originally came from (SW Asia into north-central Asia and Siberia).

parasar
11-15-2014, 02:01 AM
Europe starts at mainland China ;)

Within the borders!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427216/?report=classic

Ebizur
11-15-2014, 03:07 AM
N most likely did not originate in Europe. East Asia seems to be a better candidate.

I think we have two different issues at hand.

First is the question of where the MRCA of N-M231 and O-M175 has lived. This is a question of purely theoretical (via what route have anatomically modern humans spread across the globe? type) interest IMHO, and does not bear much relevance upon the genomic affinities among modern populations who carry these Y-DNA lineages vis-a-vis one another or vis-a-vis modern populations who do not contain any N-M231 or O-M175 lineages because the branch length between the K2 node and the NO node is short (approx. 4,000 years), and the MRCA of N and O should have lived only about 3,500 years after the Ust-Ishim specimen or the MRCA of that Telugu "X" person's lineage and NO-M214. I would say this is one of the shortest branch lengths between any pair of well-known nodes of the phylogenetic tree, and it illustrates how ephemeral the connection between haplogroups N and O actually is. I think it would almost be better for the general understanding if the M214 SNP had not been discovered so early and people only knew of haplogroups N and O as individual subclades of K-M9 (or even F-M89). The M214 SNP ranks up there with the likes of F929 (HIJK) and M523 (IJK) among the most delusive SNPs. This is qualitatively different from the likes of QR-M45, which indicates a quite significant exclusive relationship between haplogroups Q and R (approx. three times as significant as the relationship between N and O, or roughly 12,000 years of shared ancestry subsequent to the MRCA of K2a and K2b). In fact, the branch length between GHIJK and NO is only about 8,000 years (or roughly somewhere between 2,000 and 14,000 years considering the 95% confidence intervals), so the closeness of the relationship between N and O vis-a-vis haplogroup G is probably less than the closeness of the relationship between Q and R vis-a-vis haplogroup N or haplogroup O.

If two haplogroups related to the degree to which Q and R are related to each other may have expanded mainly among the ancestors of populations as different as modern Native Americans and modern Europeans, then N and O could have expanded among the ancestors of populations even more different than modern Native Americans and modern Europeans.

This leads us to the second issue: from where and from what sort of population has N-M231 spread since its emergence from a bottleneck approximately 22,000 to 23,500 YBP? If modern representatives of haplogroup N were mostly found only in one sort of population (e.g. Uralics), then it would be relatively uncontroversial to infer that haplogroup N has spread from a proto-Uralic sort of people living in whatever region proto-Uralic-type people are supposed to have originated. However, Haplogroup N is in fact much more common among modern East Asians than haplogroup Q is common among modern Europeans. So, although it is theoretically plausible that haplogroup N and haplogroup O might have developed and expanded from populations more different from each other than modern Europeans are different from modern Native Americans, the actual distribution shows both haplogroups, N and O, to be quite common among modern East Asians. What does this mean? Are modern East Asians hybrids between some sort of Uralic-type population and a different East Asian-type population? That might be an unpopular idea, but perhaps it should be considered.

If the presence of both N and O among modern East Asians were ascribable solely to long-term (on the order of 40,000 years!) maintenance of a large effective population size of a single East Asian meta-population, then I think we should not expect to observe such a great difference between the MRCA of O-M175 on the one hand (approx. 34,000 to 38,000 YBP) and the MRCA of N-M231 on the other (approx. 22,000 to 23,500 YBP). Perhaps there were at least two distinct populations in Palaeolithic East Asia, with the haplogroup O population being more successful than the haplogroup N population. Alternatively, perhaps only haplogroup O (or only haplogroup N) is really native to East Asia, and the other haplogroup has spread over the region relatively recently (probably from Siberia if haplogroup N is invasive or from Southeast Asia if haplogroup O is invasive).

MitchellSince1893
11-15-2014, 03:08 AM
At the risk of saying something dumb, I've always wondered when I read these threads about it taking tens of thousands of years for humans to get from Africa to Asia; why do we assume it took so long?

If they moved an average of 1 mile per month it would have only taken 500 years.

If they had gone 1 mile per year, only 5000 years.

Alexander the Great and his army went from Greece to India in 5 years.

I guess what I'm saying is, in 50000 years humans could have crossed from Africa to Asia, to Europe and back many times, but often the assumption is they camped out in an area for a few thousand years with little to no movement or they advanced at a speed of roughly 1 mile every 10 years.

BuffGeniusGuy
11-15-2014, 03:29 AM
Anatole Klyosov is one of the greatest science fiction writers of the early 21st century

vettor
11-15-2014, 03:37 AM
The research paper (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html) labels it only as "Iron Age, Pre-Scythian Mezőcsát Culture." I see only speculation that the Mezőcsát Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hungary_before_the_Hungarian_Conquest#I ron_Age) "may have consisted of ancient Iranian tribes that had seceded from the federation of the tribes living under the suzerainty of the Cimmerians."

.

Unless I am mistaken, JM is referring to the Cimmerian expulsion by the scythians around 700BC from Southern Ukraine and Crimea. These Cimmerians are noted by historians to have fled to 2 locations around 700BC ( iron -age) , these locations where Cappodacia in Anatolia and Pannonia in modern Hungaria .

BuffGeniusGuy
11-15-2014, 03:58 AM
I feel like the best way to resolve this discussion is extensive and thorough testing of those from Eastern Europe, Asia Minor, and Central Asia using all of the prominent trees as a testing guide so nothing is left ambiguous (ISOGG, Phylotree, YFull, FTDNA etc). I have a few friends that might be getting free DNA tests for Christmas.

lgmayka
11-15-2014, 04:07 AM
These Cimmerians are noted by historians to have fled to 2 locations around 700BC ( iron -age) , these locations where Cappodacia in Anatolia and Pannonia in modern Hungaria .
Which source(s) or historian(s) claim that the Cimmerians ended up in Pannonia? Can you give a reference?

Also note that the IR1 sample is dated 830-980 B.C., a couple centuries earlier than your cited 700 B.C.

BuffGeniusGuy
11-15-2014, 04:08 AM
I think this is a great topic frankly, I think we can all agree it beats the hell out of discussing the minutiae of haplogroup R

parasar
11-15-2014, 04:32 AM
At the risk of saying something dumb, I've always wondered when I read these threads about it taking tens of thousands of years for humans to get from Africa to Asia; why do we assume it took so long?

If they moved an average of 1 mile per month it would have only taken 500 years.

If they had gone 1 mile per year, only 5000 years.

Alexander the Great and his army went from Greece to India in 5 years.

I guess what I'm saying is, in 50000 years humans could have crossed from Africa to Asia, to Europe and back many times, but often the assumption is they camped out in an area for a few thousand years with little to no movement or they advanced at a speed of roughly 1 mile every 10 years.

Mainly natural boundaries. Once something becomes known though it is much easier.
Indus - India was well known to Alexander, the Gangetic portion not so much.

BuffGeniusGuy
11-15-2014, 04:49 AM
At the risk of saying something dumb, I've always wondered when I read these threads about it taking tens of thousands of years for humans to get from Africa to Asia; why do we assume it took so long?

If they moved an average of 1 mile per month it would have only taken 500 years.

If they had gone 1 mile per year, only 5000 years.

Alexander the Great and his army went from Greece to India in 5 years.

I guess what I'm saying is, in 50000 years humans could have crossed from Africa to Asia, to Europe and back many times, but often the assumption is they camped out in an area for a few thousand years with little to no movement or they advanced at a speed of roughly 1 mile every 10 years.

This is a good post.

BuffGeniusGuy
11-15-2014, 04:54 AM
I should clarify, sometimes the genetics gets carried away without the archaeology to back it up, and sometimes the archaeology gets carried away without the genetics to back it up. I think it's best to bear both in mind and keep your ears perked up to both. We're living in exciting times on the frontier of genetics.

vettor
11-15-2014, 05:33 AM
Which source(s) or historian(s) claim that the Cimmerians ended up in Pannonia? Can you give a reference?

Also note that the IR1 sample is dated 830-980 B.C., a couple centuries earlier than your cited 700 B.C.

one of many sites
http://historylib.org/historybooks/E-V-YArovoy_Drevneyshie-obshchnosti-zemledeltsev-i-skotovodov-Severnogo-Prichernomorya--V-tys--do-n-e----V-vek-n-e--/58

Ebizur
11-15-2014, 08:03 AM
Ah! So Rootsi updated without genotyping. In that case none of the NO* samples are certain.
Yes. I suspect that most (if not all) cases of NO*-M214 that have been reported in the literature are actually LLY22g- variants of N-M231.

Whether the NO*-M214 cases of Hammer et al. (2006) also may be declared confidently to be M178-, M128-, and P43- depends on the genotyping strategy used by the Karafet/Hammer team. If they used a sequential/hierarchical one according to the version of the haplotree that was generally accepted at the time, then they would have failed to genotype M178, M128, and P43 for samples that had been found to be LLY22g-.

Quoting the "Genetic markers" subsection of the "Materials and methods" section of Hammer et al. (2006):

The polymorphic sites in the present study included a set of 71 previously published binary Y chromosome markers (Karafet et al. 2005). Additionally, we genotyped seven polymorphisms (M25, M73, M55, M116, M124, M269, and M178) (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002). We also typed three novel polymorphisms within the arylsulfatase D-pseudogene (ARSDP) that were discovered in a panel of 92 Y chromosomes from sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, and the Americas (Hammer et al. 2003). These mutations (referred to as P42, P47, and P49, respectively) mark sub-clades of common Japanese haplogroups: a G → A transition at position 57,713, a C → T transition at position 73,152 and an A → T transversion at position 72,392. Primer sequences and conditions for allele-specific PCR are available upon request. We followed a hierarchical typing strategy (Underhill et al. 2000; Hammer et al. 2001), wherein additional genotyping of a sample was restricted to markers on the appropriate branch of the haplogroup tree.
Unfortunately, they have followed a hierarchical typing strategy, so we cannot infer whether the N-M231/LLY22g- samples (reported as NO*-M214(xN-LLY22g, O-M175) in the original source) are positive or negative for M178, M128, or P43.

Jean M
11-15-2014, 09:36 AM
Which source(s) or historian(s) claim that the Cimmerians ended up in Pannonia? Can you give a reference?

Ancient Near Eastern sources only refer to the Cimmerian attacks on Anatolia etc - i.e. the places they knew about. The Cimmerian move up the Danube to the Carpathian basin has been deduced from archaeology. From 900 BC weaponry and horse harness that we can trace to the Cimmerians appear in the Late Urnfield and related cultures of the Upper and Middle Danube region. See

Makhortyk, S. V. 2008. On the question of Cimmerian imports and imitations in Central Europe, In P. F. Biehl and Y. Ya. Rassamakin (eds.), Import and Imitation in Archaeology, 167-186. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran.
For the steppe background see Bouzek, J. 2001. Cimmerians and Early Scythians: the transition from geometric to early orientalising style in the North Pontic area, In Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), North Pontic archaeology: recent discoveries and studies, Colloquia Pontica 6, 33-44.

Jean M
11-15-2014, 10:41 AM
one of many sites
http://historylib.org/historybooks/E-V-YArovoy_Drevneyshie-obshchnosti-zemledeltsev-i-skotovodov-Severnogo-Prichernomorya--V-tys--do-n-e----V-vek-n-e--/58

That was useful. It makes clear the Classical source that lay behind the modern 'Thraco-Cimmerian' concept. I recall a while ago you were convinced that there was one. In Strabo's Geography, he refers to the Treres (Treri) in one passage as Thracians (13.1.8) and in another as a Cimmerian tribe (14.1.40). He was writing long after the events he describes in both sections.

"Now such were the conditions at the time of the Trojan War, but all kinds of changes followed later; for the parts round Cyzicus as far as the Practius were colonized by Phrygians, and those round Abydus [North West Anatolia] by Thracians; and still before these two by Bebryces and Dryopes. And the country that lies next was colonized by the Treres, themselves also Thracians." (13.1.8)

"In ancient times, also, it came to pass that the Magnetans were utterly destroyed by the Treres, a Cimmerian tribe." (14.1.40).

The Cimmerians had long gone by his day, and indeed they had been replaced as a power on the steppe by Scythians even in the time of Herodotus.

authun
11-15-2014, 11:14 AM
Europe starts at mainland China ;)


I have heard of the concept of lebensraum, but ....

aarnisotka
11-15-2014, 11:21 AM
For what it is worth, here is what I said about N in Ancestral Journeys.


The hardy speakers of Uralic languages long ago braved the icy forests of the far north, and many still live there today....The family takes its name from the deduction that the parent language – Proto-Uralic – developed near the Ural Mountains.2 An ancestral language was probably spoken somewhere in the Sayan region of south-central Siberia. ... Proto-Uralic was a language of hunter-gatherers; it had no words for farming. This is as we would expect if it was spoken in the north, where the Mesolithic lifestyle continued so long unchanged.

On Uralic:

It is not exactly exact to call their lifestyle Mesolithic. It seems many people make the mistake of trying to explain past through today, ie they find some people in the far north who are not very technologically advanced, and jump to the conclusion, that they must represent some kind of cultural relic of their most distant linguistic ancestors. A good example are the Ob-Ugrian peoples, especially the Khanty. We know that the Ob-Ugrians were driven from the steppe to Siberia, rather recently, by the Mongols, similarily how the Mongols chased Magyars to Hungary.

Naturally, the culture of the steppe Ob-Ugrians was quite different to that of the modern Ob-Ugrians of Siberia.

Here is a good link to the culture of Ob-Ugrians. http://hist.igni.urfu.ru/urc/english/Publications.htm As you can see only 500 years Khanty's had giant fortresses, yet today they are full blown nomad-hg-herderers.

What many people seem to miss that culturally, the Volga area was much more advanced, during the time of proto-Uralic, than fex areas in the Eastern Baltic and Skandinavia, & indeed the spread of Uralic, to Eastern Baltic areas, looks to be linked to advancements in technology.

Jean M
11-15-2014, 11:40 AM
It is not exactly exact to call their lifestyle Mesolithic.

I am not referring to modern Uralic speakers as Mesolithic, but simply saying that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle long continued in the far north. This was because farming was unsuitable for the area. The region was better suited to hunting and fishing. Hunting has changed to herding in historic times. New technology was embraced if it was useful to that lifestyle. I agree entirely that things are more complex than people simply staying where their ancestors lived. Other snippets from AJ:


The Saami spread into Scandinavia about 650 BC. They may have been reinforced at around that time by a new influx from the Volga-Ural region.


The hardy speakers of Uralic languages long ago braved the icy forests of the far north, and many still live there today. An exception is Hungarian, which arrived in Europe in the Middle Ages with the Magyars, sweeping up the Danube from the steppe.

aarnisotka
11-15-2014, 11:48 AM
I meant to say, that they looked to have been advanced in metallurgy, judging by reconstructed words linked to this skill. You are right about the farming stuff.

Jean M
11-15-2014, 12:14 PM
I meant to say, that they looked to have been advanced in metallurgy, judging by reconstructed words linked to this skill.

Not sure about that for Proto-Uralic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Uralic_language#Vocabulary . Are you thinking about a specific branch?

Seima-Turbino could well be linked to some Uralic languages. Csaba Barnabás Horváth 2014 suggests a link with Samoyedic and Y-DNA N1b http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/viewFile/4182/4018

[Added] A post below by Ebizur clarifies that Horváth is using N1b in the "traditional" way to refer to N-P43, or what is now haplogroup N1c2b-P43 as per the current version of the ISOGG tree.

alan
11-15-2014, 12:22 PM
My view that the north Asian route in the initial Upper Palaeolithic could potentially be responsible for most of K2 derived in east Asia cannot be described as Euro-centric as it doesnt involve Europe at all. Its a SW Asia to north central Asia to south Siberia to NW China and Mongolia and it is at least based on archaelogical evidence and is compatible with what the ancient DNA evidence to date.

Even if I am wrong about this extending to N, O etc, archaeology does show that long before the LGM people with the Siberian type early upper Palaeolithic culture did live in NW China and Mongolia. So, its only rational to think that they are in some way connect to the K2, R and Q peoples who we have ancient DNA for. The only question IMO is did those Siberian type culture Mongolians and NW Chinese survive the LGM and where did they overwinter in order to survive because they couldnt have survived in situ.

alan
11-15-2014, 12:29 PM
I should make clear that I am theorising a K2 movement in Siberia that then spawned P, Q and R in Siberia and wondering if N then occurred there or in the amost identical early upper palaeolithic cultures of Mongolia and NW China which appear to have moved there from Siberia - there dates are quite a lot later than the Siberian ones in Altai and even Baikal. What is the latest SNP counting dating age for N? If my theory is right it must date between about 40000 to 30000BC, preferably somewhere about bang in the middle. What is the age estimate for O these days

alan
11-15-2014, 12:52 PM
I think we have two different issues at hand.

First is the question of where the MRCA of N-M231 and O-M175 has lived. This is a question of purely theoretical (via what route have anatomically modern humans spread across the globe? type) interest IMHO, and does not bear much relevance upon the genomic affinities among modern populations who carry these Y-DNA lineages vis-a-vis one another or vis-a-vis modern populations who do not contain any N-M231 or O-M175 lineages because the branch length between the K2 node and the NO node is short (approx. 4,000 years), and the MRCA of N and O should have lived only about 3,500 years after the Ust-Ishim specimen or the MRCA of that Telugu "X" person's lineage and NO-M214. I would say this is one of the shortest branch lengths between any pair of well-known nodes of the phylogenetic tree, and it illustrates how ephemeral the connection between haplogroups N and O actually is. I think it would almost be better for the general understanding if the M214 SNP had not been discovered so early and people only knew of haplogroups N and O as individual subclades of K-M9 (or even F-M89). The M214 SNP ranks up there with the likes of F929 (HIJK) and M523 (IJK) among the most delusive SNPs. This is qualitatively different from the likes of QR-M45, which indicates a quite significant exclusive relationship between haplogroups Q and R (approx. three times as significant as the relationship between N and O, or roughly 12,000 years of shared ancestry subsequent to the MRCA of K2a and K2b). In fact, the branch length between GHIJK and NO is only about 8,000 years (or roughly somewhere between 2,000 and 14,000 years considering the 95% confidence intervals), so the closeness of the relationship between N and O vis-a-vis haplogroup G is probably less than the closeness of the relationship between Q and R vis-a-vis haplogroup N or haplogroup O.

If two haplogroups related to the degree to which Q and R are related to each other may have expanded mainly among the ancestors of populations as different as modern Native Americans and modern Europeans, then N and O could have expanded among the ancestors of populations even more different than modern Native Americans and modern Europeans.

This leads us to the second issue: from where and from what sort of population has N-M231 spread since its emergence from a bottleneck approximately 22,000 to 23,500 YBP? If modern representatives of haplogroup N were mostly found only in one sort of population (e.g. Uralics), then it would be relatively uncontroversial to infer that haplogroup N has spread from a proto-Uralic sort of people living in whatever region proto-Uralic-type people are supposed to have originated. However, Haplogroup N is in fact much more common among modern East Asians than haplogroup Q is common among modern Europeans. So, although it is theoretically plausible that haplogroup N and haplogroup O might have developed and expanded from populations more different from each other than modern Europeans are different from modern Native Americans, the actual distribution shows both haplogroups, N and O, to be quite common among modern East Asians. What does this mean? Are modern East Asians hybrids between some sort of Uralic-type population and a different East Asian-type population? That might be an unpopular idea, but perhaps it should be considered.

If the presence of both N and O among modern East Asians were ascribable solely to long-term (on the order of 40,000 years!) maintenance of a large effective population size of a single East Asian meta-population, then I think we should not expect to observe such a great difference between the MRCA of O-M175 on the one hand (approx. 34,000 to 38,000 YBP) and the MRCA of N-M231 on the other (approx. 22,000 to 23,500 YBP). Perhaps there were at least two distinct populations in Palaeolithic East Asia, with the haplogroup O population being more successful than the haplogroup N population. Alternatively, perhaps only haplogroup O (or only haplogroup N) is really native to East Asia, and the other haplogroup has spread over the region relatively recently (probably from Siberia if haplogroup N is invasive or from Southeast Asia if haplogroup O is invasive).

In itself the LGM bottleneck is suggestive of a north-east Asian origin IMO. The MRCA for
O-M175 actually does date very close to the date of the Siberian type upper Palaeolithic remains in NW China and Mongolia while N-M231 falls towards the later part of the LGM. If my musing that they originated or found their first home in NW China and Mongolia is correct then it would suggest perhaps that O managed to move to less brutal environment at or just before the LGM while N may have has a more edge of existence LGM experience somewhat more like R. The best environments around northern China and Mongolia other than Altai in the LGM were in the east of China and adjacent areas along the Pacific. The fact that O unlike N didnt bottleneck during the LGM suggest it had an easier time so I would tend to think eastern China is where O spent the LGM while N maybe was more to the north somewhere. I tend to think N may have overwintered with R and Q in Altai and would tend to associate it with the terminal Palaeolithic/very early Mesolitic move of pressure microblade groups towards the Urals and Baltic area. As I also tend to think of the movement of R as a similar more southerly stream of the same sort of cultural groups towards the Ukraine in the Mesolithic.

I wonder about the linguistic implications of this. A model which put both R1 and N in the same Altai or nearby refugium makes sense if one group is associated with IE in later times and another with Uralic. Perhaps their linguistic common root was somewhere like Altai or south Siberia back around 10000BC. I realise that Q doesnt have any clear linguistic commonality with R1 and N but that could easily be explain by the fact that the native Americans gained a large east Asian input before they made it to the Americas.

parasar
11-15-2014, 03:55 PM
Ancient Near Eastern sources only refer to the Cimmerian attacks on Anatolia etc - i.e. the places they knew about ...

Are you equating Cimmerians to the Gimirri?
If so, Gimirri is the Babylonian word for Sakka. And it is generic Sakka, as all three types of Sakka at Behistun are called Gimirri.

Jean M
11-15-2014, 04:00 PM
Are you equating Cimmerians to the Gimirri?
If so, Gimirri is the Babylonian word for Sakka. And it is generic Sakka, as all three types of Sakka at Behistun are called Gimirri.

That's interesting, as there has been debate over the language spoken by the Cimmerians. I assume that it fell within the Iranian branch and was related to Scythian, but direct evidence is limited (the names of three Cimmerian kings and the name of people itself).

[Added] Just found that I had a source discussing this. A.I. Ivantchik, The Current State of the Cimmerian Problem, Ancient Civilizations 7 (2001), pp. 317-318:


Akkadian texts from the reign of Esarhaddon mention the presence in that region of two groups of nomads — Cimmerians and Scythians. I.M. Diakonoff suggested in his day that Babylonian scribes of the 7th century BC used the name of Cimmerians in the same way as the scribes of the New Babylonian and Achaemenid era used to do, i.e. as a general term designating the Sakas and probably the Scythians from the Black Sea region. At the same time he assumed that Assyrian scribes, unlike Babylonian ones, consistently distinguished Scythians from Cimmerians, since they came from Northern Mesopotamia and were more closely acquainted with the nomads in question. On the basis of this assumption, I.M. Diakonoff held that in the reign of Esarhaddon the Cimmerians were exclusively to the West of the Assyria in Asia Minor, while the Scythians were in the East, in Manna and Media: the texts mentioning the presence of Cimmerians in this area, actually meant Scythians.

In my view, this hypothesis is not very convincing. I have endeavoured to show that the texts from the reign of Esarhaddon distinguish between Cimmerians and Scythians most consistently and that the presence not only of Scythians but also of Cimmerians in the Manna and Media region has been recorded in a perfectly reliable way.

vettor
11-15-2014, 05:02 PM
That's interesting, as there has been debate over the language spoken by the Cimmerians. I assume that it fell within the Iranian branch and was related to Scythian, but direct evidence is limited (the names of three Cimmerian kings and the name of people itself).

[Added] Just found that I had a source discussing this. A.I. Ivantchik, The Current State of the Cimmerian Problem, Ancient Civilizations 7 (2001), pp. 317-318:

IIRC, Herordos states, the thracians are the second most populace nation in the world after the Indians and that the Cimmerians are "cousins" of the Thracians. And that the Thracians split the Illyrians from the "dorian" ( or was it pelagasians ) greeks of modern Albania ( I guess he meant they where in modern montenegro and serbia )

Jean M
11-15-2014, 05:36 PM
IIRC, Herordos states ... that the Cimmerians are "cousins" of the Thracians.

No he doesn't. That's what we established in the last discussion of this topic. Herodotus has plenty to say about the Cimmerians. I have read every word. He does not link them to the Thracians. Nor would I link them to the Thracians.

vettor
11-15-2014, 05:43 PM
No he doesn't. That's what we established in the last discussion of this topic. Herodotus has plenty to say about the Cimmerians. I have read every word. He does not link them to the Thracians. Nor would I link them to the Thracians.

from some sites

Herodotus thought the Cimmerians and the Thracians closely related, writing that both peoples originally inhabited the northern shore of the Black Sea, and both were displaced about 700 BC, by invaders from the east. Whereas the Cimmerians would have departed this ancestral homeland by heading east and south across the Caucasus, the Thracians migrated southwest into the Balkans, where they established a successful and long-lived culture. The Tauri, the original inhabitants of Crimea, are sometimes identified as a people related to the Cimmerians and later the Taurisci.

Jean M
11-15-2014, 06:04 PM
from some sites

We can't believe everything we read online. We need to get back to the original source and check what Herodotus actually said. Herodotus, The Histories is online. http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.html

Book five, paragraph three is where he talks about the population of Thrace. He discusses the customs of Thracians in the following paragraphs.

parasar
11-15-2014, 06:40 PM
I should make clear that I am theorising a K2 movement in Siberia that then spawned P, Q and R in Siberia and wondering if N then occurred there or in the amost identical early upper palaeolithic cultures of Mongolia and NW China which appear to have moved there from Siberia - there dates are quite a lot later than the Siberian ones in Altai and even Baikal. What is the latest SNP counting dating age for N? If my theory is right it must date between about 40000 to 30000BC, preferably somewhere about bang in the middle. What is the age estimate for O these days

When you say P you have to define which P you mean? Because P-P295 is very different in age from P-P27.
For example the Aeta folk have P-P295* (exclusive of P-P27).
Aeta: 12.0% M214 60.0%P378 28.0%P295* http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ejhg2014106t1.html
It is the age of P295 that is in the ballpark of the age Ust-Ishim around 50000-45000ybp. P27 is much younger.

Therefore to me this Aeta closeness to Ust-Ishim is significant. Obviously the direction of movement is not known. You think that the movement was from Siberia or West Asia which would involve the Siberians bringing their tools and genes to SE Asia.
I think on the other hand, due to the minimal if any basal European in Ust-Ishim, that the movement cannot be from West Asia (or even South Asia, unless South Asian populations at that time lacked basal European*) which had basal European per K14, but was from the Laos-Vietnam region.

*The reason I have been calling it basal European or the "so called basal Eurasian" is because the ancient DNA is from Europe, and it is the Ust-Ishim type that I think of as the real basal Eurasian.

Ust-Ishim
Harappaworld
Using 1 population approximation:
1 great-andamanese @ 25.363333
2 onge @ 29.846519

MDLP k23b
1 Ayta_AE @ 24.783888
2 Nepalese @ 27.270012

vettor
11-15-2014, 07:14 PM
We can't believe everything we read online. We need to get back to the original source and check what Herodotus actually said. Herodotus, The Histories is online. http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.html

Book five, paragraph three is where he talks about the population of Thrace. He discusses the customs of Thracians in the following paragraphs.

I know we cannot believe everything we read , especially with the inception of nationalism, where historical lies has come into effect in schools to clearly maintain nationalistic pride to replace the truth.
Maybe years of ~1830 or before where more exacting in their historical data.

As for the Cimmerians, the "nationalistic " replacement by some claiming they should be referred to proto-sycthian clearly is aimed in bringing these "sycthians" into central europe far earlier than what is true :biggrin1:

Jean M
11-15-2014, 07:39 PM
As for the Cimmerians, the "nationalistic " replacement by some claiming they should be referred to proto-sycthian clearly is aimed in bringing these "sycthians" into central europe far earlier than what is true

Strange idea. Very peculiar. So strange that I'm racking my brains to get any idea where you might have got it.

Ebizur
11-15-2014, 07:47 PM
Seima-Turbino could well be linked to some Uralic languages. Csaba Barnabás Horváth 2014 suggests a link with Samoyedic and Y-DNA N1b http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/viewFile/4182/4018
Quoting a relevant section of the linked article:


If the Finno-Ugric population had arrived with the Seima-Turbino migration, Finno-Ugric languages would be younger than Balto-Slavic lanugages. Therefore, diversity among Finno-Ugric languages should be lower, than diversity among Balto-Slavic languages. We can see the very opposite however. The linguistic distance between Finno-Permian and Ugric languages is extremely far in the first place, and even Permian languages are so distinct, that some scholars view them as an entirely separate branch of Finno-Ugric languages. The time and geographic range of the Seima-Turbino migrations coincide with the dating and geographic range of haplogroup N1b (N-P43), however since haplogroup N1b is estimated to be about 4000 years old, and spread northwards and westwards from Southern Siberia exactly the same time and same way as the Seima-Turbino migrations did. This dating and geographical range may coincide with a narrower language group of Uralic however: the Samoyedic languages. They are indeed thought to originate from Southern Siberia, and their diversity support a dating of about 4000 years ago. As we can see above, Samoyedic languages did cover most of today‘s Komi Republic and Arkhangelsk Oblast as recently as 1600 years ago, so Samoyedic language and haplogroup N1b are plausible linguistic and genetic candidates to be associated with the Seima-Turbino migration.

Please recall that the Sayan Samoyeds (Kamas, Mator, etc.) have existed as distinct ethnolinguistic groups in southern Siberia until as recently as the 19th century, and the Kamas language has persisted in a moribund state for another century beyond that.

Furthermore, for the sake of avoiding potential confusion, please note that the author has used the alphanumeric designation N1b in the "traditional" way to refer to N-P43, or what is now haplogroup N1c2b-P43 as per the current version of the ISOGG tree. This clade is separate from that to which I have referred as N1b (N-F2905) in some of my previous posts in this thread, only sharing a most recent common ancestor in N-Z4762.

alan
11-15-2014, 08:23 PM
I think that what is probably confusing because there has been a repetitive flow from Siberia and the Urals towards the east Baltic and Finland.

vettor
11-15-2014, 08:29 PM
Strange idea. Very peculiar. So strange that I'm racking my brains to get any idea where you might have got it.

strange that you write something and then you rack your brains? ...........either you believe your statement below or not, you cannot make a comment like this to me , when I read it online, thats a cheap shot.

you stated - We can't believe everything we read online.

Jean M
11-15-2014, 08:40 PM
Furthermore, for the sake of avoiding potential confusion, please note that the author has used the alphanumeric designation N1b in the "traditional" way to refer to N-P43, or what is now haplogroup N1c2b-P43 as per the current version of the ISOGG tree. This clade is separate from that to which I have referred as N1b (N-F2905) in some of my previous posts in this thread, only sharing a most recent common ancestor in N-Z4762.

A very useful clarification and yet one more example of why authors need to state the SNP.

Jean M
11-15-2014, 08:49 PM
you stated - We can't believe everything we read online.

Vettor - I was making the standard distinction between secondary and primary sources. This is basic to how historians work. Primary sources are the original pieces of evidence. Secondary sources interpret primary sources. A history book is a secondary source. A website like the one you quoted is a secondary source. It could be right. It could be wrong. People make mistakes. So historians go back to the primary source and read the original to be sure what it actually says. It might turn out that the secondary source is absolutely accurate. But a good historian checks.

If the secondary source claims that Herodotus says X, we need to make sure that he does. It's just basic research. OK?

vettor
11-15-2014, 09:09 PM
Vettor - I was making the standard distinction between secondary and primary sources. This is basic to how historians work. Primary sources are the original pieces of evidence. Secondary sources interpret primary sources. A history book is a secondary source. A website like the one you quoted is a secondary source. It could be right. It could be wrong. People make mistakes. So historians go back to the primary source and read the original to be sure what it actually says. It might turn out that the secondary source is absolutely accurate. But a good historian checks.

If the secondary source claims that Herodotus says X, we need to make sure that he does. It's just basic research. OK?

summary

1. i made a comment on herodous relating thracians with cimmerians

2. you said it is not stated anywhere

3. I copied info form Net

4. you state - you cannot believe everything read online

5. I agreed

6. I made comment on proto-scythian

7. you come back with a cheap shot
Clearly you should have stood by your - you cannot believe everything read online instead of a cheap shot, clearly if I already agreed with you , that you cannot believe everything you read online ( regardless on who states it), then clearly I read it and have my doubts.

In future - when you read my comments, just think - that vettor does not believe everything written on line

Jean M
11-15-2014, 09:15 PM
that vettor does not believe everything written on line

I understand now Vettor. We got crossed wires. You started thinking about possible bias. I was thinking about possible inaccuracy. Both can be problems in secondary sources.

The particular possible bias you came up with totally threw me, because the archaeologists who have identified Cimmerian remains in the Carpathian Basin are of various nationalities. The two sources I gave are Ukrainian I think. I know of no reason why Hungarians would be particularly keen on Cimmerians out of all the many peoples who have passed through what is now their territory.

Ebizur
11-15-2014, 09:35 PM
In itself the LGM bottleneck is suggestive of a north-east Asian origin IMO. The MRCA for
O-M175 actually does date very close to the date of the Siberian type upper Palaeolithic remains in NW China and Mongolia while N-M231 falls towards the later part of the LGM. If my musing that they originated or found their first home in NW China and Mongolia is correct then it would suggest perhaps that O managed to move to less brutal environment at or just before the LGM while N may have has a more edge of existence LGM experience somewhat more like R. The best environments around northern China and Mongolia other than Altai in the LGM were in the east of China and adjacent areas along the Pacific. The fact that O unlike N didnt bottleneck during the LGM suggest it had an easier time so I would tend to think eastern China is where O spent the LGM while N maybe was more to the north somewhere. I tend to think N may have overwintered with R and Q in Altai and would tend to associate it with the terminal Palaeolithic/very early Mesolitic move of pressure microblade groups towards the Urals and Baltic area. As I also tend to think of the movement of R as a similar more southerly stream of the same sort of cultural groups towards the Ukraine in the Mesolithic.

I wonder about the linguistic implications of this. A model which put both R1 and N in the same Altai or nearby refugium makes sense if one group is associated with IE in later times and another with Uralic. Perhaps their linguistic common root was somewhere like Altai or south Siberia back around 10000BC. I realise that Q doesnt have any clear linguistic commonality with R1 and N but that could easily be explain by the fact that the native Americans gained a large east Asian input before they made it to the Americas.In regard to the topology of the Y-DNA phylotree as it is currently known, O-M175 is similar to P1-M45 (i.e. all of Q-M242 and R-M207 considered as a single haplogroup). For example, the TMRCA of O3-M122 and O1'2-F75 (approx. 34,000 to 38,000 YBP) is not significantly different from the TMRCA of Q-M242 and R-M207, the TMRCA of O3a-M324 and O3*-M122(xM324) alias O-F742 (approx. 30,000 YBP) is not significantly different from the TMRCA of Q1a-MEH2 and Q1b-L275, and so forth.

In contrast, the topology of haplogroup N-M231 is significantly different, exhibiting a very ancient MRCA with haplogroup O-M175 (approx. 41,000 to 44,000 YBP, nearly as old as the whole of K2-M526), a relatively recent MRCA of all extant N-M231 (approx. 22,000 to 23,500 YBP), and a rapid accumulation of diversity after emerging from that bottleneck (e.g. N1c2a-M128 is very marginally, roughly 16 SNPs or perhaps about 1,000 years marginally, more closely related to N1c1-M46 than either of those is related to N1b-L732). Do you know of any archaeological phenomenon in Eurasia that might correspond to rapid growth (and perhaps concurrent range expansion) of a recently bottlenecked population at some time around 20,000 YBP?

lgmayka
11-15-2014, 11:21 PM
In contrast, the topology of haplogroup N-M231 is significantly different, exhibiting a very ancient MRCA with haplogroup O-M175 (approx. 41,000 to 44,000 YBP, nearly as old as the whole of K2-M526), a relatively recent MRCA of all extant N-M231 (approx. 22,000 to 23,500 YBP), and a rapid accumulation of diversity after emerging from that bottleneck (e.g. N1c2a-M128 is very marginally, roughly 16 SNPs or perhaps about 1,000 years marginally, more closely related to N1c1-M46 than either of those is related to N1b-L732).
Not exactly--N is even "weirder" than that. N first split into subclades that became N-Y6503 (parent of N-P189) and N-Z4762 (or N-Page56).

- N-Y6503 languished for 98 SNPs (129 SNPs if we don't count long-dead skeletons) before appearing in Europe.

- N-Z4762 languished for 64 SNPs before splitting into N-L729 and N-F2905. Only 16 SNPs later, N-L729 splits into N-Tat and N-L666, which then languish for 119 and 72 SNPs respectively.

The real mystery is: Why did N split in two, with each subclade separately barely surviving for many thousands of years?

vettor
11-16-2014, 12:42 AM
I understand now Vettor. We got crossed wires. You started thinking about possible bias. I was thinking about possible inaccuracy. Both can be problems in secondary sources.

The particular possible bias you came up with totally threw me, because the archaeologists who have identified Cimmerian remains in the Carpathian Basin are of various nationalities. The two sources I gave are Ukrainian I think. I know of no reason why Hungarians would be particularly keen on Cimmerians out of all the many peoples who have passed through what is now their territory.

No Problem


The pannonia basin IMO was infested by Cimmerians, Illyrians, Dacians and Celts to name 4 distinct ( not in any order) people even before the Romans got anywhere near it.
Pannonia IIRC was eventually classified linguistically as a Celtic/Dacian mixed ( where celt met dacian and not entwined ).

After the Romans......I am unsure if the rugii and lombards passed through it as well as Alans, Huns etc etc

Ebizur
11-16-2014, 12:57 AM
- N-Z4762 languished for 64 SNPs before splitting into N-L729 and N-F2905. Only 16 SNPs later, N-L729 splits into N-Tat and N-L666, which then languish for 119 and 72 SNPs respectively.
Thank you for pointing that out to me. In fact, the sources that I have been using do not include any samples that unambiguously belong to the N-Y6503 branch (and they should not include any of such if that clade actually is limited to European populations as you have suggested), so it is possible that the first split within haplogroup N-M231 may be considerably earlier than I have stated it to be on the basis of those sources. In that case, the split between N-Y6503 and N-Z4762 may have occurred in roughly the same era as the earliest splits within O-M175 and P1-M45.

However, I still think it deserves mention that the N-M231 phylotree has very sparse branches near the trunk (although it does have a few twiggy tufts around the crown of the tree, so to speak).

On the other hand, some branches of O-M175 and P1-M45 have been "pruned" severely in a similar manner, notably the O1a (TMRCA of O1a1-P203 and O1a2-M110 is approximately 18,000 years less than the TMRCA of O1-MSY2.2 and O2-P31) and R2 (TMRCA of R2a-M124 and R2*(xM124) is approximately 14,000 years less than the TMRCA of R1-M173 and R2-M479) branches. What is your thinking about such patterns? Would you propose a hypothesis regarding the question of where any of these bottlenecks might have occurred?

alan
11-16-2014, 02:54 AM
In regard to the topology of the Y-DNA phylotree as it is currently known, O-M175 is similar to P1-M45 (i.e. all of Q-M242 and R-M207 considered as a single haplogroup). For example, the TMRCA of O3-M122 and O1'2-F75 (approx. 34,000 to 38,000 YBP) is not significantly different from the TMRCA of Q-M242 and R-M207, the TMRCA of O3a-M324 and O3*-M122(xM324) alias O-F742 (approx. 30,000 YBP) is not significantly different from the TMRCA of Q1a-MEH2 and Q1b-L275, and so forth.

In contrast, the topology of haplogroup N-M231 is significantly different, exhibiting a very ancient MRCA with haplogroup O-M175 (approx. 41,000 to 44,000 YBP, nearly as old as the whole of K2-M526), a relatively recent MRCA of all extant N-M231 (approx. 22,000 to 23,500 YBP), and a rapid accumulation of diversity after emerging from that bottleneck (e.g. N1c2a-M128 is very marginally, roughly 16 SNPs or perhaps about 1,000 years marginally, more closely related to N1c1-M46 than either of those is related to N1b-L732). Do you know of any archaeological phenomenon in Eurasia that might correspond to rapid growth (and perhaps concurrent range expansion) of a recently bottlenecked population at some time around 20,000 YBP?

The end of the LGM and the rapid spread of pressure flaked microblade using peoples in east Asia and south Siberia

alan
11-16-2014, 02:58 AM
Thank you for pointing that out to me. In fact, the sources that I have been using do not include any samples that unambiguously belong to the N-Y6503 branch (and they should not include any of such if that clade actually is limited to European populations as you have suggested), so it is possible that the first split within haplogroup N-M231 may be considerably earlier than I have stated it to be on the basis of those sources. In that case, the split between N-Y6503 and N-Z4762 may have occurred in roughly the same era as the earliest splits within O-M175 and P1-M45.

However, I still think it deserves mention that the N-M231 phylotree has very sparse branches near the trunk (although it does have a few twiggy tufts around the crown of the tree, so to speak).

On the other hand, some branches of O-M175 and P1-M45 have been "pruned" severely in a similar manner, notably the O1a (TMRCA of O1a1-P203 and O1a2-M110 is approximately 18,000 years less than the TMRCA of O1-MSY2.2 and O2-P31) and R2 (TMRCA of R2a-M124 and R2*(xM124) is approximately 14,000 years less than the TMRCA of R1-M173 and R2-M479) branches. What is your thinking about such patterns? Would you propose a hypothesis regarding the question of where any of these bottlenecks might have occurred?

This is a fascinating subject. I really have a lot to learn in terms of both the genetics and archaeology in this area. I will have to get my nose into some books and papers and get back when I know more. My gut feeling is though that N came from a northern Asian stream originally, was forced south by the LGM and expanded after but I need to do a bit of studying on this subject.

lgmayka
11-16-2014, 03:18 AM
Would you propose a hypothesis regarding the question of where any of these bottlenecks might have occurred?
My own opinion is that we do not need to invoke the notion of a "bottleneck." IMHO, prior to the rapid population growth brought by agriculture, almost any cohesive tribe would over time converge toward a single yDNA lineage. Thus, the creation of subclades occurred only when the tribe itself would split--one portion migrating in one direction and the other staying put (or perhaps migrating in another direction).

In short, I think that each ancient yDNA bifurcation represents a migration. Moreover, the more successful (expansionary) of the two resulting subclades is probably the one that migrated--although the less successful subclade might also migrate, centuries or millennia later.

Ebizur
11-16-2014, 06:02 AM
The end of the LGM and the rapid spread of pressure flaked microblade using peoples in east Asia and south SiberiaThanks, alan.

However, please note that I probably should have referred to a relatively recent MRCA of all extant N-Z4762 rather than all extant N-M231 in my post that you have quoted.

Jenny
07-03-2018, 07:46 AM
A bottleneck population in Finland is well documented

Ebizur
07-08-2018, 02:28 AM
YFull now has some interesting members of N2 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y6503/) from Suceava, Romania and Devon, England.

The individual who has reported ancestry in Suceava appears to be closely related to the majority of extant members of N2, most of whom are West Balkan Slavs at present, but the individual from Suceava does not share the Y7313/FGC28456 SNP with the West Balkan Slavs. In the FTDNA N North Eurasian Y-DNA Project, there is a Hungarian who has reported having an ancestor surnamed Kozma from Bukovina who belongs to the same clade, N-F14667, as the individual from Suceava and the West Balkan Slavs. I suspect that this Hungarian individual may in fact be identical to id:YF11205 Romania (Suceava) on the YFull tree; note that Suceava is located in the historical region of Bukovina.

The individual who has reported ancestry in Devon, England has a much more clearly basal lineage. YFull has estimated that he shares a MRCA approximately 4,600 [95% CI 3,600 <-> 5,700] ybp with a N-Y6516 clade that subsumes id:YF11205 Romania (Suceava), the West Balkanites, and id:YF01795 of unreported origin.

There are also a Slovakian member of N-P189 (144471 Molnar Slovakia N-P189) and a Mr. Du Bois in the FTDNA N North Eurasian Y-DNA Project. Their Y-STR haplotypes are a bit divergent from those of the West Balkanites. I suppose id:YF01795 of unreported origin may be identical to Mr. Molnar or Mr. Du Bois from the FTDNA project, and id:YF09762 United Kingdom (Devon) may be identical to Mr. Du Bois, but the likelihood that id:YF11205 Romania (Suceava) is identical to Kozma from Bukovina is greater than either of those possibilities.

Pribislav
07-08-2018, 08:04 PM
YFull now has some interesting members of N2 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y6503/) from Suceava, Romania and Devon, England.

The individual who has reported ancestry in Suceava appears to be closely related to the majority of extant members of N2, most of whom are West Balkan Slavs at present, but the individual from Suceava does not share the Y7313/FGC28456 SNP with the West Balkan Slavs. In the FTDNA N North Eurasian Y-DNA Project, there is a Hungarian who has reported having an ancestor surnamed Kozma from Bukovina who belongs to the same clade, N-F14667, as the individual from Suceava and the West Balkan Slavs. I suspect that this Hungarian individual may in fact be identical to id:YF11205 Romania (Suceava) on the YFull tree; note that Suceava is located in the historical region of Bukovina.

The individual who has reported ancestry in Devon, England has a much more clearly basal lineage. YFull has estimated that he shares a MRCA approximately 4,600 [95% CI 3,600 <-> 5,700] ybp with a N-Y6516 clade that subsumes id:YF11205 Romania (Suceava), the West Balkanites, and id:YF01795 of unreported origin.

There are also a Slovakian member of N-P189 (144471 Molnar Slovakia N-P189) and a Mr. Du Bois in the FTDNA N North Eurasian Y-DNA Project. Their Y-STR haplotypes are a bit divergent from those of the West Balkanites. I suppose id:YF01795 of unreported origin may be identical to Mr. Molnar or Mr. Du Bois from the FTDNA project, and id:YF09762 United Kingdom (Devon) may be identical to Mr. Du Bois, but the likelihood that id:YF11205 Romania (Suceava) is identical to Kozma from Bukovina is greater than either of those possibilities.

You are right about YF11205 being Kozma from Bukovina. YF09762 from Devon is Wood/Pulliblank, and YF01795 is Reace, both of British ancestry. Molnar and DuBois haven't done BigY AFAIK, but Molnar's closest match did (Varger, N30574; 6/111), although he didn't submit BAM to Yfull yet. This is how the tree should look:

24511

Ebizur
07-23-2018, 02:07 AM
It appears that an example of N2 from a population in Asia finally has turned up.

According to the latest version of the YFull tree, ERS2478500 ("Altais.1" from the data set of Peter de Barros Damgaard, Rui Martiniano, Jack Kamm, et al. (2018), "The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia." Science 09 May 2018: eaar7711 DOI: 10.1126/science.aar7711) belongs to N-Y6503*(xP189.2). Its TMRCA with the N-P189.2 clade is estimated to be 12,700 [95% CI 10,900 <-> 14,500] ybp.

The split from the European N-P189.2 clade (TMRCA 4,600 [95% CI 3,600 <-> 5,700] ybp) is quite ancient, having occurred more than 10,000 years ago according to YFull's estimate.

Where would the IR1 specimen of Gamba et al. (2014) fit in this phylogeny? Has that archaeological specimen been found to be positive for P189.2 or any other SNP that YFull currently considers to be phylogenetically equivalent to it?

MikkaK
07-23-2018, 04:07 AM
It appears that an example of N2 from a population in Asia finally has turned up.

According to the latest version of the YFull tree, ERS2478500 ("Altais.1" from the data set of Peter de Barros Damgaard, Rui Martiniano, Jack Kamm, et al. (2018), "The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia." Science 09 May 2018: eaar7711 DOI: 10.1126/science.aar7711) belongs to N-Y6503*(xP189.2). Its TMRCA with the N-P189.2 clade is estimated to be 12,700 [95% CI 10,900 <-> 14,500] ybp.

The split from the European N-P189.2 clade (TMRCA 4,600 [95% CI 3,600 <-> 5,700] ybp) is quite ancient, having occurred more than 10,000 years ago according to YFull's estimate.

Where would the IR1 specimen of Gamba et al. (2014) fit in this phylogeny? Has that archaeological specimen been found to be positive for P189.2 or any other SNP that YFull currently considers to be phylogenetically equivalent to it?

Is there any more information on how old the Altais.1 sample is or is he a living tester?

IR1 was found to be Y6503+ P189.2- as well. He was on older versions of YFull however he was taken off for some reason in later versions.

Posted by Igmayka on Molgen forum back in 2014.
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?t=1830&p=22889

Ebizur
07-23-2018, 04:29 AM
Is there any more information on how old the Altais.1 sample is or is he a living tester?I think it is a sample that has been obtained from a living Altaian.

gravetti
07-23-2018, 05:50 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sz%C3%A9kelys_of_Bukovina
Some Székely groups migrated from Transylvania to the province of Bukovina in the second half of the 18th century and established new villages, where they retained their distinctive culture and folk traditions into the 20th century. The migration was a reaction to the organization by the Habsburg Empire of the Székely Frontier Zone, which jeopardized certain of the Székelys' ancient privileges and rights.

Hungarians in Moldavia
http://www.kia.hu/konyvtar/erdely/moldvang.htm
The Hungarian settlers occupied the wide and fertile river flats of the Siret/Szeret and, in particular, the territories around the deltas of its western tributaries (Moldova/Moldva, Bistriţa/Beszterce, Trotuş/Tatros). At this time, the territories populated by Hungarians were composed of enclosed settlements, interconnected by unbroken lines of dwellings (e. g. between Suceava/Szucsava and Roman/Románvásár, around Bacău/Bákó, right of the Siret/Szeret river, in the Lower Trotuş/Tatros region etc.).

MikkaK
07-23-2018, 08:31 PM
IR1 is very interesting to me.

His MtDNA is G2a1 which is Asian in origin and could be evidence he came from the Altai region (although it is also found at low frequencys in eastern and northern Europe).

The Mezocsat culture, which IR1 belongs to is thought to be Iranian in origin brought to Hungary from the Pontic steppe.

But with that being said his gedmatch number is F999929 and there is nothing very "Altaian" about him autosomally.

wiencug
07-23-2018, 11:27 PM
Actually, as can be seen from the Admixture graph in the supplementary materials from the work by Siska et al, 2016
"Genome-wide data from two early Neolithic East Asian individuals dating to 7700 years ago"

in the following file
5_DevilsGateAdmixture_world_all.pdf

at K=14-19 this IR1 has some of "a light brown component" which is maximum in the Japanese and Koreans. He has also a pink component which is maximum in the Nganasans, as well as some of a violet component which is maximum in the Chukchi. So this reveals his eastern admixture, whether it is from the Altai or not.

Unfortunately I'm not allowed to post links, but I have uploaded the fragment of the admixture graph which I'm talking about here:
i.imgur.com/3MP56jz.jpg

Ebizur
07-24-2018, 05:21 AM
MtDNA haplogroup G appears to be most diverse among East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans). Therefore, it is most likely that the haplogroup as a whole has evolved in East Asia.

However, as a proportion of a population's total mtDNA pool, haplogroup G has been found with the greatest numbers in indigenous populations around the Sea of Okhotsk and in sparsely populated Inner Asia and High Asia. The high frequency around the Sea of Okhotsk may be attributed to its subclade G1b. The high frequency in Inner Asia/High Asia and vicinity (e.g. Tharus of the Terai) may be attributed primarily to its subclade G2a.

One might suppose that the matrilineal ancestor of IR1 was probably an inhabitant of Inner/High Asia prior to the eastward advance of populations coming from the western steppe (Afanasievo, Andronovo, etc.). However, members of G2a1 also have been found alongside members of other branches of haplogroup G among Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. If greater phylogenetic resolution of mtDNA is impossible, then I suppose analysis of the DNA of other ancient specimens from across Eurasia might be the only means to elucidate the ancestral origins of IR1. (For one, it would be nice to know whether G2a1 is really native to East Asia or whether its ancestor has migrated away to the west, followed by some descendants' eventually migrating back into East Asia.)

Kristiina
07-24-2018, 08:25 AM
I checked the ancient G2a1 record. The oldest G2a1 finds are from Eneolithic Baikal (Shamanka) (yDNA N).

Baikal EN Shamanka Russia SHA_2006.076/ DA245 c. 7100 BP G2a1 (y line N-L666),
Baikal EN Shamanka Russia SHA_1998.006/ DA250 c. 6500 BP G2a1 (y line NO-M214),
Baikal EN Shamanka Russia SHA_2004.042.01/ DA252 c. 6400 BP G2a1,
Baikal EBA Shamanka Russia SHA_2008.111/ DA339 c. 3700 BP G2a1 (y line Q-L330)

G2a1 (G2a) has also been found in BA/IA Kazakhstan and Khakassia.
Kyzlbulak_MBA2 Kyzlbulak1 Kazakhstan I4784 c. 1600 BCE G2a1e,
Scytho Siberian Khakassia Tagar c. 700-0 BC Oust-Abakabsty S25 G2a (93 223 234 288 298 327)

G2a1 was probably also found among Jinggouzi pastoralists:
Iron Age Inner Mongolia Jinggouzi T16-20,28,42 G2a1g (223-227-278-293-362),
Iron Age Inner Mongolia Jinggouzi T17-30,40 G2a1 (93 223-227-234-278-309-362),
Iron Age Inner Mongolia Jinggouzi T20-9 G2a1 (223-278-293-362)

G2a1 has also been detected in ancient Hungarians:
Hun Conq Kenézlő-Fazekaszug Kenézlő Hungary -F/1025 G2a1,
Hun Conq Karos-Eperjesszög Bodrogköz Hungary Karos2/37 G2a1d2

wiencug
07-24-2018, 12:38 PM
According to this paper

Major Population Expansion of East Asians Began before Neolithic Time: Evidence of mtDNA Genomes
Hong-Xiang Zheng , Shi Yan , Zhen-Dong Qin, Yi Wang, Jing-Ze Tan, Hui Li, Li Jin
Published: October 6, 2011


the age of expansion of G2a1 in its Chinese and Japanese bearers is more then 10000 years ago, so it by far predates the expansion of nomadic peoples from west to east.

The age can be found here:

Table 2. Age estimations of each cluster with distinct expansion in East Eurasians.

Kristiina
07-24-2018, 03:26 PM
My guess is that G will be proven to have its origin in Northeast Asia.

G1a has been found in ancient Dadianzi, lower Xiajiadian culture, 3600 YBP. Today, G1a and G1a1 are typical for Uyghurs and Japanese. G1b is specific to Northeast Asia, and it has been detected in Edo Ainu, Hokkaido Jomon and ancient Okhotsk population.

The oldest G2a is from the Baikal area: Neolithic Baikal Lokomotiv Kitoi LOK_1990.042 G2a (223 227 278), Neolithic Baikal Shamanka Kitoi SHA_2002.021.02 G2a, Neolithic Cis-Baikal Novyj Kachug Irkutsk Oblast irk067 3755-3745 cal BCE G2a+152

Instead, G2b1a has been found in Iron Age Thailand.

G3 seems to be oldest in China, including Tibet, while G4 is specific to Japan.

Ebizur
07-24-2018, 04:48 PM
Is there any more information on how old the Altais.1 sample is or is he a living tester?

IR1 was found to be Y6503+ P189.2- as well. He was on older versions of YFull however he was taken off for some reason in later versions.

Posted by Igmayka on Molgen forum back in 2014.
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?t=1830&p=22889I have confirmed that Altais.1 (id:ERS2478500) is a sample obtained from a living Altaian male.

Damgaard et al. (2018), p. 2:

Additionally, we sequenced 41 high-coverage (30X) present-day Central Asian genomes, representing 17 self-declared ethnicities (Fig. S5) as well as collected and SNP-typed 140 individuals from 5 IE-speaking populations in northern Pakistan.

In Fig. S24, his Y-DNA is indicated to belong to N/K2a1(xN1), like the Y-DNA of BOT15 from the Botai culture (Copper Age hunter-herders of the central steppe, ca. 5500–5300 ybp) and the Y-DNA of DA247 from the Shamanka Early Neolithic (ceramic-using hunter-gatherers of the Cis-Baikal region, ca. 7200–6200 ybp). According to Table S15, BOT15 belongs to mtDNA haplogroup R1b1, and DA247 belongs to mtDNA haplogroup C4. As Kristiina has already mentioned, several of the Shamanka specimens (three from the "Early Neolithic" and one from the Early Bronze Age) belong to mtDNA haplogroup G2a1; others belong to C4 (three from the "Early Neolithic", including DA247 himself, and four from the Early Bronze Age), F1b1 (one from the "Early Neolithic" and one from the Early Bronze Age), D4e1 (two from the "Early Neolithic"), or D4j (one from the "Early Neolithic").

MikkaK
07-24-2018, 11:41 PM
On molgen forum Botai15 was found to be N-Y6503* as well.

Although im not sure about the BHG sample. Most were N-L666*.

Ebizur
07-25-2018, 02:37 AM
On molgen forum Botai15 was found to be N-Y6503* as well.

Although im not sure about the BHG sample. Most were N-L666*.According to Table S14 of Damgaard et al. (2018):

Group SampleID Haplogroup Ancestral counts Derived counts
Shamanka_EN DA247 A00 39 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 A0-T 0 21
Shamanka_EN DA247 A0 24 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 A1 0 6
Shamanka_EN DA247 A1a 8 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 A1b 2 21
Shamanka_EN DA247 BT 0 262
Shamanka_EN DA247 B 1 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 CT 0 144
Shamanka_EN DA247 DE 19 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 CF 0 3
Shamanka_EN DA247 C 8 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 F 0 23
Shamanka_EN DA247 F1 1 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 F2 1 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 F3 1 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 GHIJK 0 1
Shamanka_EN DA247 G 123 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 HIJK 0 1
Shamanka_EN DA247 H 15 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 IJK 0 2
Shamanka_EN DA247 IJ 7 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 K 0 2
Shamanka_EN DA247 LT/K1 5 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 K2 0 1
Shamanka_EN DA247 NO/K2a 0 5
Shamanka_EN DA247 NO1 1 3
Shamanka_EN DA247 N/K2a1 0 2
Shamanka_EN DA247 N1 1 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 N1a 1 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 N1c 1 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 N1b1 2 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 N1c1 2 0
Shamanka_EN DA247 N1c2 1 0

Group SampleID Haplogroup Ancestral counts Derived counts
Botai_CA BOT15 A00 42 0
Botai_CA BOT15 A0-T 0 25
Botai_CA BOT15 A0 28 0
Botai_CA BOT15 A1 0 9
Botai_CA BOT15 A1a 12 0
Botai_CA BOT15 A1b 2 27
Botai_CA BOT15 BT 0 272
Botai_CA BOT15 B 1 0
Botai_CA BOT15 CT 0 163
Botai_CA BOT15 DE 21 0
Botai_CA BOT15 CF 0 3
Botai_CA BOT15 C 7 0
Botai_CA BOT15 F 0 20
Botai_CA BOT15 F1 2 0
Botai_CA BOT15 F2 1 0
Botai_CA BOT15 GHIJK 0 2
Botai_CA BOT15 G 135 0
Botai_CA BOT15 HIJK 0 1
Botai_CA BOT15 H 19 0
Botai_CA BOT15 IJK 0 2
Botai_CA BOT15 IJ 7 0
Botai_CA BOT15 K 0 2
Botai_CA BOT15 LT/K1 10 0
Botai_CA BOT15 K2 0 1
Botai_CA BOT15 NO/K2a 0 4
Botai_CA BOT15 NO1 0 4
Botai_CA BOT15 N/K2a1 0 2
Botai_CA BOT15 N1 1 0
Botai_CA BOT15 N1c 1 0
Botai_CA BOT15 N1b1 2 0
Botai_CA BOT15 N1c1 2 0
Botai_CA BOT15 N1c2b 1 0


According to Figure S24A, the data indicating that the Y-DNA of Shamanka_EN DA247 belongs to N(xN1) are actually somewhat stronger than the data indicating that the Y-DNA of BOT15 belongs to this category; DA247 has at least one negative (ancestral) call for SNPs for N1a and N1c2 and is missing data only for N1c2b and N1b, whereas BOT15 has at least one negative (ancestral) call for N1c2b but is missing data for N1a, N1c2, N1c1a1a2b, N1c1a1a2a1, N1c1a1a2a1a1, N1c1a1a1a, N1c1a1a1a1b, N1c1a1a1a1a3, and N1b.

So, at least according to the data as presented by the authors of the study themselves, if we accept that BOT15 belongs to N2, we also should accept that DA247 belongs to N2.

MikkaK
07-31-2018, 10:21 PM
Theres a new sample on Yfull who belongs to N-F1101* (TMRCA 8000ybp) which is basal to the east Asian N-L666 branches but not N-P43.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-F1101/
id.ELT50076

Ebizur
08-01-2018, 09:40 AM
Theres a new sample on Yfull who belongs to N-F1101* (TMRCA 8000ybp) which is basal to the east Asian N-L666 branches but not N-P43.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-F1101/
id.ELT50076IDs bearing the ELT prefix have been tested by a Chinese genomics company, so the individual to whom this Y-DNA belongs is most likely Chinese.

Pre-M128 lineages have been found among Mongol, Han, Qiang, and Tibetan according to Kang Hu, Shi Yan, Kai Liu, et al. (2015), "The dichotomy structure of Y chromosome Haplogroup N":

N-F1154(xF2759)
1/62 = 1.6% Mongol, Ööled, Hulun Buir

N-F1154(xM128)
3/499 = 0.60% Han, East

N-F2759(xM128)
1/23 = 4.3% Mongol, Bargud, Hulun Buir
1/84 = 1.2% Han, Northeast
11/1126 = 0.98% Han, Gansu
2/219 = 0.91% Han, North
1/149 = 0.67% Qiang
5/874 = 0.57% Han, Shandong
1/264 = 0.38% Tibetan, Gannan

Note that the authors have placed F1154 upstream of F2759 on the basis of 1/62 = 1.6% Mongol, Ööled, Hulun Buir who allegedly has been found to be positive for F1154 and negative for F2759. This conflicts with YFull's current phylogeny, which has placed F2759 coordinate to F1101 and F1154 subordinate to those SNPs.

Ebizur
08-01-2018, 01:06 PM
@Ebizur

Do you have any information on from where in China the basal N-L729 is from on Yfull? id:ELT50035CHNSI Table 3 of Hu et al. (2015), "The dichotomy structure of Y chromosome Haplogroup N" contains 17-loci Y-STR haplotypes for several examples of Y-DNA that have a phylogenetic position similar to that of id:ELT50035.

N1a-F1206/F2130/F3094/F3312/F3361(xN1a1-M46, N1a2-F3163/F3665)
1/34 = 2.9% Han, Wuchang, Heilongjiang
1/48 = 2.1% Mongol, others
1/53 = 1.9% Mongol, Buriyad, Hulun Buir
11/1126 = 0.98% Han, Gansu
3/499 = 0.60% Han, East
4/874 = 0.46% Han, Shandong
1/219 = 0.46% Han, North

YCH205
China
Han, North (from Shandong according to Table S1 of Yan et al. (2014), "Y Chromosomes of 40% Chinese Descend from Three Neolithic Super-Grandfathers")
N1*
F2130+, F3163-, M46-

YCH1036
China
Han, East
N1*
F2130+, F3163-, M46-

YCH1039
China
Han, East
N1*
F2130+, F3163-, M46-

CAO-AH0
China
Han, East
N1*
F2130+, F3163-, M46-

HLB-022
China
Mongol, Buriyad, Hulun Buir
N1*
F2130+, F3163-, M46-

HLB-084
China
Dahur
N1*
F2130+, F3163-, M46-

HLB-121
China
Evenk
N1*
F2130+, F3163-, M46-

HLB-163
China
Mongol
N1*
F2130+, F3163-, M46-

Such Y-DNA seems to be present among non-Han populations of Hulun Buir, which is the northernmost part of Inner Mongolia (and the northwestern part of Manchuria according to some definitions of that region), so it is not strictly limited to Han people.

This table contains yet another example of N-F4063, a clade that has been found in two Japanese, an Oroqen, a Daur, and a Tibetan from Shigatse in other academic studies and in an individual with reported ancestry in Sado Island, Japan and an individual with reported ancestry in Hebei Province of China in commercial testing:

YCH931
China
Han, East
N1b1
M178+, F3080+, F4063+, F3331+, F1419-, F4325-

It also contains an example of an individual whose Y-DNA is allegedly M178+ and F3331-, which would force a reorganization of YFull's phylogeny if confirmed:

CAO-AT0
China
Han, East
N1b1*
M178+, F3331-

(This would place M178 upstream rather than downstream of F3331, and this individual's lineage would belong to the most basal branch of N-M178.)

MikkaK
09-22-2018, 05:14 PM
Posted to ISBA thread as well.

From "Genomic insight into the peopling of Northeast China"
https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/1042427030455967746

(7430 - 7320 ybp) N1b1 from Houtaomuga site in Northeast China.

According to user Ebizur this study is most likely using nomenclature from "The dichotomy structure of Y chromosome Haplogroup N," which means this "N1b1" is N-Tat.

Shaikorth
09-22-2018, 05:29 PM
Posted to ISBA thread as well.

From "Genomic insight into the peopling of Northeast China"
https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/1042427030455967746

(7430 - 7320 ybp) N1b1 from Houtaomuga site in Northeast China.

According to user Ebizur this study is most likely using nomenclature from "The dichotomy structure of Y chromosome Haplogroup N," which means this "N1b1" is N-Tat.

It would be kind of strange if they used their own terminology mixed with what looks like ISOGG terminology for C2b, but there is an old N-Tat branch there, split close to 12k bp and MRCA in the Neolithic.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y23747/

Ebizur
09-22-2018, 06:58 PM
It would be kind of strange if they used their own terminology mixed with what looks like ISOGG terminology for C2b, but there is an old N-Tat branch there, split close to 12k bp and MRCA in the Neolithic.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y23747/"N1b1" according to ISOGG 2018 nomenclature would be N1b1-CTS582, the less common of the two primary subclades of "Sino-Tibetan" N1b-F2930/M1881/V3743, which accounts for a majority of erstwhile East Asian N*. That would be an interesting finding in its own right, but the branch of C2 found in later strata at the same site is a northern branch. I would be somewhat surprised if a currently southern branch of N (i.e. N1b1-CTS582) were found in a geographically northern location in the Early Neolithic, with a currently northern branch of C2 (i.e. C2b1a1b1-F1756 ISOGG 2018, also variously known as C3*-DYS448del, C3b1a1a1a-F1756, C3b-F1756, etc.) turning up in Bronze Age and Early Iron Age layers at the same location. I think present-day populations in which N1b1-CTS582 is found tend to contain members of southern branches of C2-M217 (e.g. C-F845, C-CTS2657(xM407), C-Z8440, C-CTS4660) rather than northern branches like C-F1756.

Primarily, though, my hunch that N1b1 in the table pictured in Alexander M. Kim's tweet refers to N-M178 is based on the nomenclature used by the same researcher (Chao Ning) in a previous publication. I think he most likely has finally come around to renaming C3b-DYS448del > C2b-DYS448del, but may still be using his former nomenclature of N1b1-M178.

Shaikorth
09-22-2018, 07:11 PM
"N1b1" according to ISOGG 2018 nomenclature would be N1b1-CTS582, the less common of the two primary subclades of "Sino-Tibetan" N1b-F2930/M1881/V3743, which accounts for a majority of erstwhile East Asian N*. That would be an interesting finding in its own right, but the branch of C2 found in later strata at the same site is a northern branch. I would be somewhat surprised if a currently southern branch of N (i.e. N1b1-CTS582) were found in a geographically northern location in the Early Neolithic, with a currently northern branch of C2 (i.e. C2b1a1b1-F1756 ISOGG 2018, also variously known as C3*-DYS448del, C3b1a1a1a-F1756, C3b-F1756, etc.) turning up in Bronze Age and Early Iron Age layers at the same location. I think present-day populations in which N1b1-CTS582 is found tend to contain members of southern branches of C2-M217 (e.g. C-F845, C-CTS2657(xM407), C-Z8440, C-CTS4660) rather than northern branches like C-F1756.

Primarily, though, my hunch that N1b1 in the table pictured in Alexander M. Kim's tweet refers to N-M178 is based on the nomenclature used by the same researcher (Chao Ning) in a previous publication. I think he most likely has finally come around to renaming C3b-DYS448del > C2b-DYS448del, but may still be using his former nomenclature of N1b1-M178.

Looks like CTS582 has two branches itself, and the Y6374-branch which has no identified southern Chinese in Yfull has an older MRCA and possibly a more northern distribution. Y23789 has southern Han but a much more recent MRCA. Post Neolithic move southwards may not be ruled out, but the final paper should have SNP identification to make things clear.

Ebizur
09-23-2018, 02:59 AM
Kang Hu, Shi Yan, Kai Liu, Chao Ning, Lan-Hai Wei, et al. (2015), "The dichotomy structure of Y chromosome Haplogroup N":

N2b-F2569 (≈ N-CTS582 according to YFull YTree v6.05.10)
≥4/113 = 3.54% Tibetan, Dingri
1/44 = 2.3% Han, Northwest
≥7/499 = 1.40% Han, East
≥12/874 = 1.37% Han, Shandong
2/173 = 1.16% Han, South
2/219 = 0.91% Han, North
2/264 = 0.76% Tibetan, Gannan
1/149 = 0.67% Qiang
≥2/429 = 0.47% Tibetan, Khams
≥5/1126 = 0.44% Han, Gansu
≥2/506 = 0.40% Tibetan, Amdo
≥1/286 = 0.35% Hui

0/23 Mongol, Bargud, Hulun Buir
0/53 Mongol, Buriyad, Hulun Buir
0/62 Mongol, Ööled, Hulun Buir
0/48 Mongol, others

At least at the time of publication of this electronic preprint in 2015, Chao Ning, Lan-Hai Wei, et al. were using the alphanumeric name "N2b" for N-F2569/N-CTS582 (i.e. N1b1-CTS582 as per ISOGG 2018), while they used "N1b1" in reference to N-M178.

N-F2569/N1b1-CTS582 (ISOGG 2018) is a rare clade at present, much less common than its sister group, N-CTS12473/N1b2-M1819 (ISOGG 2018), though this difference is not reflected very well in the current YFull tree (probably in some part because of the overrepresentation of Beijing Han members of this clade on the YFull tree; the CHB sample of the 1000 Genomes Project has an unusually great proportion of N-F2569/N1b1-CTS582). Of course, that does not preclude it from being present at an Early Neolithic site in Jilin, but the distributional pattern in modern populations does not strongly point toward Manchuria (despite the CHB sample). Note the absence or rarity of this clade among ethnic Mongols in the northeast of the PRC and its presence instead among Tibetans and Qiang in the southwest of the PRC.

Kristiina
09-23-2018, 05:41 AM
Very often ancient DNA has yielded rare or extinct branches. Farther back in time we go, more extinct branches we find. In the light of this finding, there is no need that this Houtaomuga N1b1 must be important in modern populations. The general rule is that current male populations carry haplogroups that exploded during the Bronze Age.

Ebizur
09-23-2018, 04:05 PM
Very often ancient DNA has yielded rare or extinct branches. Farther back in time we go, more extinct branches we find. In the light of this finding, there is no need that this Houtaomuga N1b1 must be important in modern populations. The general rule is that current male populations carry haplogroups that exploded during the Bronze Age.Another slide from the same presentation shows that the speaker reported that researchers had found evidence of long-term genetic continuity in Tungusic-populated areas. If you follow Alexander M. Kim's twitter feed, you will find that a different speaker giving a different presentation at the same conference also reported a similar finding (long-term persistence of demes in northeastern Asia with high levels of genetic distance between demes). You can also see that the N1b1 individual from the Early Neolithic stratum at Houtaomuga shares the same highly derived subclade of mtDNA haplogroup B with one of the individuals from the Early Iron Age stratum at the same site.

Y-DNA haplogroup N-M178 has known representatives in at least two different branches of possibly Neolithic time depth among the Nanai and Oroqen, who preserve their distinct cultures in parts of Northeast China even today. On the other hand, I have not encountered any clear case of Y-DNA haplogroup N-CTS582 among non-Han inhabitants of Northeast China. N1b-F2930 as a whole seems to be relatively common among (Lolo-Burmese, Palaung-Wa, Daic, etc.) populations of the southwest.

Anyway, I think the circumstantial evidence all points toward a likelihood that this specimen from an Early Neolithic stratum at the Houtaomuga site may belong to N-M178. I do not see any evidence that would lead me to expect the specimen to be N-CTS582 rather than N-M178. I would be happy with whatever the researchers discover as long as they deign to note which Y-SNPs they have tested.

MikkaK
09-23-2018, 05:51 PM
Do Tungustic speakers differ much from Han genetically? I seem to remember seeing them being somwhat closer to Siberian populations but cant remember where.

Edit:
I found these two pictures from the new Uralic paper.
26144
26145

Nibelung
09-23-2018, 07:19 PM
Wow I seem to have created a firestorm over at Eurogenes simply by guessing (somewhere else) the Kostroma or another phenomenon could be Eastern Corded Ware related! David's a talented person but damn is he defensive of CW or what? I wasn't even suggesting it could be a Uralic phenomenon. By it I meant CW influenced. We know some was absorbed later around the Baltic and he's mentioned that himself. And who is Carlos again?

Jesus

Nibelung
09-29-2018, 02:37 PM
No offense to Lukasz and others.

Ryukendo
09-29-2018, 06:28 PM
?????

Onur Dincer
09-30-2018, 09:47 AM
PERSONALIZATION OF DISCUSSIONS IS NOT TOLERATED HERE AND IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. THOSE WHO REPEATEDLY BREAK THIS RULE SHALL BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES.

NAN YI XIAO CHUO
11-06-2018, 03:55 PM
I'm N-Y731*,I believe that N haplogroup originated in Europe.

palamede
11-06-2018, 09:04 PM
duplicate

palamede
11-06-2018, 09:07 PM
I'm N-Y731*,I believe that N haplogroup originated in Europe.
You are N-L731
https://yfull.com/tree/N-L731/

The basal branches of the haplogroup N are asiatic. Probably the haplogroup N was born in China, spred into Siberia and reached the north-east of Europe relatively recently.

Your branch N > Z4762(18000BP) > F2905 (15700) > Z4784 (12700) > Y6374 (12700) > L727 (12500) > L732 (7700) > Y15972 (5600) > L730 (2600BP) is mainly Chinese.

rock
11-06-2018, 09:58 PM
actually, his L731 was no call, Enlighten not cover this SNP. I double if L731 is a very recent family SNP.

NAN YI XIAO CHUO
12-23-2018, 04:18 PM
You are N-L731

The basal branches of the haplogroup N are asiatic. Probably the haplogroup N was born in China, spred into Siberia and reached the north-east of Europe relatively recently.

Your branch N > Z4762(18000BP) > F2905 (15700) > Z4784 (12700) > Y6374 (12700) > L727 (12500) > L732 (7700) > Y15972 (5600) > L730 (2600BP) is mainly Chinese.

Gene tree is just a hypothesis

SG_Jun
06-19-2021, 02:33 PM
Another slide from the same presentation shows that the speaker reported that researchers had found evidence of long-term genetic continuity in Tungusic-populated areas. If you follow Alexander M. Kim's twitter feed, you will find that a different speaker giving a different presentation at the same conference also reported a similar finding (long-term persistence of demes in northeastern Asia with high levels of genetic distance between demes). You can also see that the N1b1 individual from the Early Neolithic stratum at Houtaomuga shares the same highly derived subclade of mtDNA haplogroup B with one of the individuals from the Early Iron Age stratum at the same site.

Y-DNA haplogroup N-M178 has known representatives in at least two different branches of possibly Neolithic time depth among the Nanai and Oroqen, who preserve their distinct cultures in parts of Northeast China even today. On the other hand, I have not encountered any clear case of Y-DNA haplogroup N-CTS582 among non-Han inhabitants of Northeast China. N1b-F2930 as a whole seems to be relatively common among (Lolo-Burmese, Palaung-Wa, Daic, etc.) populations of the southwest.

Anyway, I think the circumstantial evidence all points toward a likelihood that this specimen from an Early Neolithic stratum at the Houtaomuga site may belong to N-M178. I do not see any evidence that would lead me to expect the specimen to be N-CTS582 rather than N-M178. I would be happy with whatever the researchers discover as long as they deign to note which Y-SNPs they have tested.


Looks like CTS582 has two branches itself, and the Y6374-branch which has no identified southern Chinese in Yfull has an older MRCA and possibly a more northern distribution. Y23789 has southern Han but a much more recent MRCA. Post Neolithic move southwards may not be ruled out, but the final paper should have SNP identification to make things clear.

Hi everyone, I am the Singaporean sample (ID: YF77954) belonging to the N1b1b-Y139167 subclade on yFull tree. I thought I'd bring some more recent evidence to the table because most of the research being done on N1b-F2905 is largely done within China by Chinese researchers only, therefore most material and information regarding these branches are only released in Chinese language which unfortunately does not find its way to a more international audience.

Currently the most ancient archaeological evidence we have of N1b1-CTS582 are three samples from 3 different neolithic sites dating back 9600 to 8000 years ago namely Bianbian Cave, Xiaojingshan and Boshan located in Shandong Province which is eastern China; these remains were excavated by a local team under the leadership of Professor Fu Qiaomei at Fudan University quite recently (towards the end of last year). Other samples of N1b1-CTS582 also include one which was found at an archaeological site of the Lower Xiajiadian culture by a research team at Jilin University. Furthermore, autosomal DNA shows that these ancient human remains of the Shandong Early Neolithic and the people of the later Hongshan culture in fact clustered with one another and they shared similar cultural artefacts in terms of pottery. The autosomal DNA of these ancient people in Shandong early neolithic with N1b1-CTS582 were also found to have a much greater Northeast Asian component than modern day inhabitants living in the same region.

These 3 samples of N1b1-CTS582 excavated in Northern China are, at the moment, some of the most ancient samples of N-M231 discovered to date. Generally a much greater diversity of N-M231 branches in Northern China combined with its current distribution pretty much debunks the idea that N-M231 or even N1b-F2905 could have originated in the southwest region of the country. This is greater supported by the discovery of N2-P189.2 which also has ancient samples distributed in southern Siberia, Central Asia (northern Kazakhstan's Botai culture). Today N2-P189.2 is mainly found in Europe and the Balkans but a few samples have also been discovered in northern China.

In fact, the ethnic Yi who largely belong to subclades of N1b2-M1819 are known to have descended from an ancient Qiang population located in Northwest China who later migrated south. The Yi are known to have a caste system and a diverse range of different backgrounds and Y-haplogroups. N1b1-CTS582 is today still mostly found in eastern China and during the neolithic and bronze age era it was mainly distributed along the Bohai Sea in Shandong province, Liaoning province and Inner Mongolia along the Liao River.

The sample found at Houtaomuga indeed does not belong to N1b1-CTS582 but rather to N1a1-TAT. It's just poor nomenclature which resulted in confusion.

On the 23mofang platform we actually do have the ability to check for other users who belong to the same patrilineal haplogroup subclade and also its distribution map. At the moment my branch has 2 ethnic Mongolians, 1 ethnic Manchu, 1 Hui Muslim from Fujian province, and no Palaungic/Wa/Daic minorities unlike what you've mentioned -- the rest are all Han Chinese. Most people who belong to my branch (Y139167) are also Chinese from northern parts of the country rather than the south. N1b1-CTS582 is generally not found in ethnic minorities of the southwest, which largely belong to N1b2-M1819 instead (there is a separation of 15800 years in between).

It is true however that Fujian province (southern China) does actually have a relatively large population of N-Y23789 but these mainly belong to the N-MF15025 subclade which is not shown on the YFull tree. This owes to the unique history of the region of Fujian province which is very mountainous and used to be sparsely populated. Some time starting from the Han Dynasty ~2000 years ago, the kingdom of Minyue was destroyed by the Chinese and many large families moved from northern parts of the country to the south. One of these families was known as the Zheng clan of Min which belongs to this branch (N-Y23789>N-MF15025); this family had underwent a population boom during their time in Fujian and in fact one of China/Taiwan's important historical figures known as Koxinga is from this family. He was known as a Ming loyalist, pirate warlord who tried to fight against the Manchu invasions of the Qing Dynasty, and for his military prowess in defeating the Dutch in Formosa and establishing Chinese control over Taiwan. In Taiwan today he is revered as a deity and there is great respect towards him in China and Japan (his mother was Japanese) as well. Side note Koxinga had a younger brother Tagawa Shichizaemon who stayed on in Japan who went on to have many descendants, so this subclade exists in Japan today as well.

SG_Jun
06-21-2021, 02:52 AM
I'll update here the PCA graph of autosomal DNA. Here it shows that the Shandong_EN (Shandong Early Neolithic) with N1b1-CTS582 clustering with Hongshan_MN (Hongshan Middle Neolithic) and L_Xiajiadian_LN (Later Xiajiadian Late Neolithic) samples.

45246

Here are the Y-DNA test results collected by Prof Fu & team at Fudan University

45247

Sample of N1b1-CTS582 found at Erdaojingzi Archaeological site of the Lower Xiajiadian culture by Jilin University:

45248

Samples of N1a1a2 and N1a1a3 at Houtaomuga Archaeological site:

45249

The samples of N1(xN1a, N1c) of the Hongshan culture does not literally belong to N1*. There are very likely some downstream mutations and SNPs that they did not test for. I certainly hope greater sequencing will be done in the future for the remains of these Hongshan individuals, but at the moment it seems likely that they could have consisted of a mix of N1a-F1206 and N1b1-CTS582 branches as they were distributed in the general vicinity.