PDA

View Full Version : [split] Uniparental Markers & Paleolithic Asia



alan
08-21-2015, 09:59 AM
I think the chap Alberto who comments on Eurogenes has similar thoughts to me on a lot of this. I believe there was a wave of ANE hunters that originated around Altai and at the end of the Younger Dryas started to fan out towards Europe reaching a wide from from the Dniester to Denmark by 7000BC, mixing with WHG's in Europe and with Basal types in the Stans, east Caspian, the Caucasus and IMO also Caspain Iran and perhaps even the Zagros. That is the way pressure flaked microblades track in the period 9500BC-7000BC. You can see that as well as entering Europe, the pressure blade groups also entered the east Caucasus and north Iran at the end of the Younger Dryas. I think too that the Keltiminar people who occupied the east Caspian/Aral area were almost certainly ANE people too and they also have the pressure microblades.

Actually a likely location where very high ANE was close to a largely basal or ENF group was the east Caspian where the Keltiminar hunter-fishers and the Jeitun farmers bordered each other during a wet phase when this area was more attractive than normal. However at some point this came to an end and I wonder if the two groups blended and were displaced when destification resumed.

Another curious thing is that the Samara hunter lived in an area where the first pottery (the first pot in Europe apparently) was of Elshanka type which seems to have its origin in the east Caspian. This was the followed up by a second phase where pottery influences reach Samara from the Lower Volga. Both of these connections had occurred before the Samara hunter lived. The Samara hunter is said to be on a branch closer to one heading to M73 than M269 so its interesting that to this day the Turkem have a major concentration of M73. That sounds a lot like the M73 among the Turkmen was probably already present in the east Caspian among the Keltimar hunters and has survived to this day in a slightly displaced location. The origins of the Keltiminar culture seems to lie in the pressure microblade using groups - apparently one that only moved into the East Caspian rather late in the Mesolithic when the area become less arid. It seems likely to me that the origins of Keltiminar pressure microblades lay in north central Asia where much earlier groups of pressure microblade using hunters existed from Altai to the north Pontic-Caspian area. Keltiminar also have the pointed based Eurasian hunter pottery at a time which was slightly earlier than anyone else in Europe. That points IMO to a north-central Asian origin for Keltiminar because it is only in those area that pointed pot pre-dates that in the Keltiminar. Nowhere in Europe predates Keltiminar for pointed pottery. The Elshanka pottery in the Samara Mesolithic is the oldest in Europe but a recent paper suggests this is derived from Keltiminar pottery rather than the other way round. So it seems to me there is a simple logic that points to the origin of Keltiminar as being in north-central Asia. I suspect we will find that they were P297 - probably mostly M73 - people and that the Samara hunter is in some way linked to this group.

Following this logic it appears to me that P297 must have originated in north-central Asia to the north of the desert belt between the Caspian and Altai.

What I am not sure is if the pressure microblades that spread across north Eurasia at the end of the Younger Dryas and the pointed pottery wave 2000 years later represent two distinct peoples or if they were just developments within the same basic groups. Generally though I think the whole history of the arrival of R1a and b in far eastern Europe relates somehow to the waves that saw pressure microblades and then some time later pointed pottery spread across northern Eurasian from origin points around Altai in the period 10000BC to 6000BC and that there was no R1, no ANE etc in Europe before that period.

Indeed I suspect that much prior to 10000BC, R1a, R1b and ANE probably were still located closer to the east end of north-central Asia near Altai. I dont expect to see any of these genetic indicators within Europe before 9500BC and with it only gradually tracking west to a Denmark-Dniester line by 7000BC. I expect that EHG was only created around 9000-7000BC when these eastern elements mixed with western elements in Europe.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-21-2015, 01:10 PM
I think the chap Alberto who comments on Eurogenes has similar thoughts to me on a lot of this. I believe there was a wave of ANE hunters that originated around Altai and at the end of the Younger Dryas started to fan out towards Europe reaching a wide from from the Dniester to Denmark by 7000BC, mixing with WHG's in Europe and with Basal types in the Stans, east Caspian, the Caucasus and IMO also Caspain Iran and perhaps even the Zagros. That is the way pressure flaked microblades track in the period 9500BC-7000BC. You can see that as well as entering Europe, the pressure blade groups also entered the east Caucasus and north Iran at the end of the Younger Dryas. I think too that the Keltiminar people who occupied the east Caspian/Aral area were almost certainly ANE people too and they also have the pressure microblades.

Actually a likely location where very high ANE was close to a largely basal or ENF group was the east Caspian where the Keltiminar hunter-fishers and the Jeitun farmers bordered each other during a wet phase when this area was more attractive than normal. However at some point this came to an end and I wonder if the two groups blended and were displaced when destification resumed.

Another curious thing is that the Samara hunter lived in an area where the first pottery (the first pot in Europe apparently) was of Elshanka type which seems to have its origin in the east Caspian. This was the followed up by a second phase where pottery influences reach Samara from the Lower Volga. Both of these connections had occurred before the Samara hunter lived. The Samara hunter is said to be on a branch closer to one heading to M73 than M269 so its interesting that to this day the Turkem have a major concentration of M73. That sounds a lot like the M73 among the Turkmen was probably already present in the east Caspian among the Keltimar hunters and has survived to this day in a slightly displaced location. The origins of the Keltiminar culture seems to lie in the pressure microblade using groups - apparently one that only moved into the East Caspian rather late in the Mesolithic when the area become less arid. It seems likely to me that the origins of Keltiminar pressure microblades lay in north central Asia where much earlier groups of pressure microblade using hunters existed from Altai to the north Pontic-Caspian area. Keltiminar also have the pointed based Eurasian hunter pottery at a time which was slightly earlier than anyone else in Europe. That points IMO to a north-central Asian origin for Keltiminar because it is only in those area that pointed pot pre-dates that in the Keltiminar. Nowhere in Europe predates Keltiminar for pointed pottery. The Elshanka pottery in the Samara Mesolithic is the oldest in Europe but a recent paper suggests this is derived from Keltiminar pottery rather than the other way round. So it seems to me there is a simple logic that points to the origin of Keltiminar as being in north-central Asia. I suspect we will find that they were P297 - probably mostly M73 - people and that the Samara hunter is in some way linked to this group.

Following this logic it appears to me that P297 must have originated in north-central Asia to the north of the desert belt between the Caspian and Altai.

What I am not sure is if the pressure microblades that spread across north Eurasia at the end of the Younger Dryas and the pointed pottery wave 2000 years later represent two distinct peoples or if they were just developments within the same basic groups. Generally though I think the whole history of the arrival of R1a and b in far eastern Europe relates somehow to the waves that saw pressure microblades and then some time later pointed pottery spread across northern Eurasian from origin points around Altai in the period 10000BC to 6000BC and that there was no R1, no ANE etc in Europe before that period.

Indeed I suspect that much prior to 10000BC, R1a, R1b and ANE probably were still located closer to the east end of north-central Asia near Altai. I dont expect to see any of these genetic indicators within Europe before 9500BC and with it only gradually tracking west to a Denmark-Dniester line by 7000BC. I expect that EHG was only created around 9000-7000BC when these eastern elements mixed with western elements in Europe.

Im not sure if the spread of R1 groups, if true, from central Asia can be inked with pressure blades and pre-Neolithic pottery ,because those cultural phenomena originated much further east, didn't they ? (i.e. 'oriental')

alan
08-21-2015, 09:10 PM
Im not sure if the spread of R1 groups, if true, from central Asia can be inked with pressure blades and pre-Neolithic pottery ,because those cultural phenomena originated much further east, didn't they ? (i.e. 'oriental')

Damn - I lost a detailed reply so here goes again. Mal'ta R was in Baikal and similar prob in Altai refugia. Pressure microblades may have arisen in Altai in the LGM c. 20000BC and pottery apparently is extremely early in Baikal c. 11000BC. There is an incredible delay in either of these spreading west. The reason for the delay in the spread of pressure microblades is partly down to the LGM. However, it actually seems even later that it reached Europe with Botovo the earliest c. 9500BC and similar early dates on the northern fringe of SW Asia around north Iran and the Caucasus.

They seem to have spread from the Urals to Denmark across the period 9500-7000BC and further south they similarly spread, perhaps a little later across the Euro steppes. So by 7000BC they were known east of a line from Denmark to the Dniester. in doing so they overlapped with hunters coming from the western tradition in the opposite directon who had made it as far east as Karela. There was probably an ovelap of east and west c. 8000-7000BC all the way from Denmark to Karelia. To the south there was a similar mix of microblades wth local (probably gravettian derived) hunters in at least parts of Ukraine. So as well as Denmark to Karelia there was probably an overlap between eastern and western hunters in Ukraine.

Now, my hypothesis is that the whole R-R1-R1a-R1b phases up to at the earliest 10000BC took place in south-central Siberia and it is only with the spread of [pressure microblades and a later spread of pottery that there is evidence of links between this south-central Asian area and Europe. I also see the spread of these pressure microblades just after the Younger Dryas as behind ANE arriving in eastern and north-east Europe, the Caucasus and even north Iran.

Now the obvous question is why is there not a big load of basal R1, R1a and R1b in south-central Siberia/Altai etc? Well I think there are clear reasons to expect no continuity there or in the trail to Europe. North Eurasia was largely becoming forested over when the Younger Dryas created a drastic change which temporarily restored open landscapes of early post-glacial times across much of Eurasia. This would have brought both bitter cold but also major new hunting opportunities in the open land. Then there is the sucker punch end of the Younger Dryas/start of the (pre) Boreal. It warmed up but this meant that much of north Eurasia (except the far north) re-forested. So, in the space of just a few centuries the climate of north Eurasia swung from woods to open to woods again which is a recipe for major displacement.

My hunch is that the big factor which may have driven groups of microblade users west into specific areas like the extreme north-east of Europe close to the ice, the Euro steppes and perhaps even some area of central Asia and north mountain fringes of SW Asia was a desire for open land in a world of closing forests. The western hunters seem to have done similar following the reindeer close to the ice sheets through northern Europe.

As for pottery, it seems to have been present in Baikal c. 11000BC but not in Europe until Elshanka pottery c. 6000BC??- cant remember date as its often quoted in different ways. So the pottery seems to have been a later wave into Europe. The first phase of pottery in the Samara Mesolithic (and indeed anywhere in Europe) is the Elshanka pottery which a couple of recent authors have linked in its method and shape to the East Caspian/Aral area - I think to the Keltiminer hunters there (they also used pressure microblades among other technologies). Then the 2nd phase of pottery in the Samara Mesolithic is linked to the Lower Volga. The Samara hunter P297 guy is very interesting given all these connections. That hunter is said to be on a branch closer to M73 and M73. I seem to recall still has a hotspot among Turkmen. So there is a possible case that P297 could have some link to the early East Caspian hunters and their pot. Some distinctive types of arrowheads of the latter culture are also known in the Volga-Ural area.

How this all ties to R1a and b and ANE I am not sure but I strong suspect they are somehow involved in their entry into Europe and that prior to this post-Younger Dryas entry they were confined to north central Asia/south-central Siberia. The Swedish hunter with ANE is evidence of the northern branch and indeed microblades do appear in the assemblages for the first time in northern Europe shortly before he lived.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-21-2015, 10:59 PM
Alan

Thanks for your reply. That certainly makes sense , and is possible / probable.
I'm hopefull more palaeolithic genomes will tell us exactly when ANE and R groups arrived to european far East.

I've personally wondered whether the Holocene desertification of Central Asia had anything to do with it ?

alan
08-22-2015, 12:12 PM
Alan

Thanks for your reply. That certainly makes sense , and is possible / probable.
I'm hopefull more palaeolithic genomes will tell us exactly when ANE and R groups arrived to european far East.

I've personally wondered whether the Holocene desertification of Central Asia had anything to do with it ?

I think its increasingly clear that in many periods climate oscillations were the main factor in sudden movements. When it get dryer and sunnier to the north and west if generally gets horribly arid to the south and east. The east is especially sensitive to aridity phases. Regarding central Asia it depends what you mean. The band from the east Caspian through the Stans seems to have been a no-go zone for much of prehistory as it was a cold desert in the LGM then a warmer desert for much of the Holecene. I think in general movements of people were from slightly higher latitudes when crossing central Asia in prehistory. The exception is the wetter Atlantic phase when hunters from the north (Keltiminar) and farmers from NE Iran (Jeitun) seem to have been tempted into the east Caspian area which previously seems to have been mostly avoided by both except for some hunters clinging to the watery spots. Also recall the incredibly changes in this area which the far smaller than present Caspian sea then expanded way beyond the present sea and the Aral connected to it under in the early Holocene, followed by major retreat.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LK0O4XYbxUU/UZz4STLvPZI/AAAAAAAAA1Y/VBNCSYYBhoM/s1600/Pre-and-post-flood-size-of-the-Black-and-Caspian-Seas.png

This obviously must have had all sorts of complex effects in terms of opportunities for hunter-fishers and (something that should not be overlooked)it would have destroyed and deeply buried beyond normal recovery any traces of hunters in the expansion path of the sea. So, there is much that we could be missing. For example hunters in that zone would likely have retreated with the seas as they shrunk (the sea being the only real attraction in the very arid area) - presumably towards the Caspian and Aral basins.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-22-2015, 11:43 PM
I think its increasingly clear that in many periods climate oscillations were the main factor in sudden movements. When it get dryer and sunnier to the north and west if generally gets horribly arid to the south and east. The east is especially sensitive to aridity phases. Regarding central Asia it depends what you mean. The band from the east Caspian through the Stans seems to have been a no-go zone for much of prehistory as it was a cold desert in the LGM then a warmer desert for much of the Holecene. I think in general movements of people were from slightly higher latitudes when crossing central Asia in prehistory. The exception is the wetter Atlantic phase when hunters from the north (Keltiminar) and farmers from NE Iran (Jeitun) seem to have been tempted into the east Caspian area which previously seems to have been mostly avoided by both except for some hunters clinging to the watery spots. Also recall the incredibly changes in this area which the far smaller than present Caspian sea then expanded way beyond the present sea and the Aral connected to it under in the early Holocene, followed by major retreat.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LK0O4XYbxUU/UZz4STLvPZI/AAAAAAAAA1Y/VBNCSYYBhoM/s1600/Pre-and-post-flood-size-of-the-Black-and-Caspian-Seas.png

This obviously must have had all sorts of complex effects in terms of opportunities for hunter-fishers and (something that should not be overlooked)it would have destroyed and deeply buried beyond normal recovery any traces of hunters in the expansion path of the sea. So, there is much that we could be missing. For example hunters in that zone would likely have retreated with the seas as they shrunk (the sea being the only real attraction in the very arid area) - presumably towards the Caspian and Aral basins.

what do we know about the settlement of more southerly aspect of 'soviet' Central Asia - the oases strips of the 'Stans, Hindu Kush and Northern Iran in the pre-Neolithic ?

alan
08-23-2015, 11:13 AM
what do we know about the settlement of more southerly aspect of 'soviet' Central Asia - the oases strips of the 'Stans, Hindu Kush and Northern Iran in the pre-Neolithic ?

I did look into that too but the info was poor and confusing. I was considering the possibility that anyone moving westwards from an ancient R centre in places like Baikal and Altai had a choice to either go north of the deserts of former Soviet Central Asia (i really miss being about to use that useful term hahahaha)or they could go just south of it along the northern fringe of the mountains of inner Asia. This desert - whether cold or warm seems to have existed since the start of the LGM right through to today with just a few short periods when it was wetter. Evidence seems to show it was avoided by hunters in the glacial and even for a long time in the post-Glacial era. So any movement from the zone where Mal'ta lived to the west from 24000BC to even as late as 7000BC or so may have been posed with choice of going north or south of this very arid band that stretches from the Caspain's east shore to China.

I have largely focused on looking at the northern route and in doing so I found no evidence of a move of a Ma'lta type populations (his culture was known as the middle upper palaeolithic of south-central Siberia and was confined from Transbaikal/north Mongolia/NW corner of China in the north-east to Altai and eastern Kazakhstan in the south-east). I found no evidence of use of the northern route to head west in the entire period of human history right up to around 10000BC when evidence of ideas with origins in the Baikal/Altai zone do spread west - first pressure flaked microblades and their distinctive cores c. 9500BC onwards and then pre-farming north Eurasian pointed based pottery a couple of millennia later.

As for the southern route, there was at one time interesting singletons of R* or R1* or other unusual individuals strung along that southern route so I considered it as a possible route west. I looked very hard at this route but simply could find nothing to link then to a movement west from the sort of area Mal'ta boy lived. I tried very hard because a movement to escape the LGM along the southern route from Altai - in some ways appealed as I liked the idea that they could have followed it to the south Caspian shores which even in its shrunken LGM state must have been a great resource. However, I could find absolutely no connection between the hunters in the south Caspian or inner Asian mountain fringe and Mal'ta. Admittedly though the post-LGM super-flooding of the Caspian with its linking in a chain to the Black and Aral Seas etc must have destroyed or buried a great deal of evidence and caused some major population upheavals as the seas rose from thevery shrunken LGM forms to giant super-seas which were far larger than today before shrinking back towards modern forms- all in just a few thousand years. So we could be missing a lot of data in the East Caspian area regarding post-LGM hunter-gatherers.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-23-2015, 11:49 AM
Alan,

Ive read around the last couple of days about central Asia in the pre-Neolithic period, and this is what I understood. Now, this is tempered by the fact that most of this research was done in the 1970s by Russian archaeologists. It is limited by the less than abundant material, often self -contradictory claims within their own one piece of work (e.g. on one page they claim a site was 90cm deep, then on another 1.5m) and they often shift chronologies by centuries, albeit on the basis of exactly the same artefacts, etc.

1) As you mention - the Upper palaeolithic in central Asia (by that I mean northern Iran, and the -Stans) is scantily populated. A mere handful of sites, and the region might have been entirely abandoned during the LGM due to it being a cold desert.

2) there is sold evidence for 'Epipalaeolithic'/ Mesolithic populations from c. 10 ky BP. During a warmer, more humid oscillations, the Caspian sea transgressed eastward. As evidenced by microlith technology, which was standardised from northern Iran to southern Urals, such hunter-gatherers must have been in contact utilising the Caspian littoral as a point of contact. (many view this development spreading from south to north) A few other Mesolithic sites are also found further east, e.g. in the Pamir foothills.

3) evidence for early domestication in the "Jeitun culture' as early as M8 - goats and sheep, probably a response to aridification, requiring more intensive/ yielding economy in wake of resource crisis, as well as impulses from the Near Eastern centres. Just north of jeitun was occupied by the Kelteminar culture - which had a more mesolithic outlook. This might have mediated the appearance of pre-Neolithic pottery in Russian groups, with similarities as far as the Pitted Ware culture in eastern Scandinavia.

4) going into the Chalcolithic, there was an increased aridity again. I think it is here when the Kopet Dagh sequence begins, as humans retreated to mountainous foothills as a survival mechanism. The climax of this phase was of course the BMAC.

I think (2) above might underlie similarities between preNeolithic foragers in southern Russia/ Urals and central Asia. (3) Might explain the "Teal" people. All in all, when one considers these findings, and the new D-stats, it become evident that past calculations of the 'steppe ancestry' in modern central Asians, are probably over- exaggerated.


ADDENDUM

About the link to Mal'ta. I don't think there is anything direct to be had. Recent reappraisals of Dating suggests Siberia was virtually entirely depopulated during the LGM.
So the question is, where did the ANE -like population which re-colonised siberia and contribued to EHG, and presumably some Post-glacial Central Asian groups take refuge ?

alan
08-23-2015, 08:20 PM
Alan,

Ive read around the last couple of days about central Asia in the pre-Neolithic period, and this is what I understood. Now, this is tempered by the fact that most of this research was done in the 1970s by Russian archaeologists. It is limited by the less than abundant material, often self -contradictory claims within their own one piece of work (e.g. on one page they claim a site was 90cm deep, then on another 1.5m) and they often shift chronologies by centuries, albeit on the basis of exactly the same artefacts, etc.

1) As you mention - the Upper palaeolithic in central Asia (by that I mean northern Iran, and the -Stans) is scantily populated. A mere handful of sites, and the region might have been entirely abandoned during the LGM due to it being a cold desert.

2) there is sold evidence for 'Epipalaeolithic'/ Mesolithic populations from c. 10 ky BP. During a warmer, more humid oscillations, the Caspian sea transgressed eastward. As evidenced by microlith technology, which was standardised from northern Iran to southern Urals, such hunter-gatherers must have been in contact utilising the Caspian littoral as a point of contact. (many view this development spreading from south to north) A few other Mesolithic sites are also found further east, e.g. in the Pamir foothills.

3) evidence for early domestication in the "Jeitun culture' as early as M8 - goats and sheep, probably a response to aridification, requiring more intensive/ yielding economy in wake of resource crisis, as well as impulses from the Near Eastern centres. Just north of jeitun was occupied by the Kelteminar culture - which had a more mesolithic outlook. This might have mediated the appearance of pre-Neolithic pottery in Russian groups, with similarities as far as the Pitted Ware culture in eastern Scandinavia.

4) going into the Chalcolithic, there was an increased aridity again. I think it is here when the Kopet Dagh sequence begins, as humans retreated to mountainous foothills as a survival mechanism. The climax of this phase was of course the BMAC.

I think (2) above might underlie similarities between preNeolithic foragers in southern Russia/ Urals and central Asia. (3) Might explain the "Teal" people. All in all, when one considers these findings, and the new D-stats, it become evident that past calculations of the 'steppe ancestry' in modern central Asians, are probably over- exaggerated.


ADDENDUM

About the link to Mal'ta. I don't think there is anything direct to be had. Recent reappraisals of Dating suggests Siberia was virtually entirely depopulated during the LGM.
So the question is, where did the ANE -like population which re-colonised siberia and contribued to EHG, and presumably some Post-glacial Central Asian groups take refuge ?

Altai. There is a well attested refugium there. It had some sort of very favourable LGM micro-climate. Malta boy lived unusually late for his culture - he is literally the youngest date for his culture by 2000 years. Otherwise the place was evacuated including all the R people. It is likely that they moved south to Altai which is the nearest known LGM refugium where many people think the pressure microblade technique developed among those huddling there around 20000BC during the teeth of the LGM. This refugium may have been a Q and R refuge and in both cases the post-LGM/late upper palaeolithic expansion out of the refuge is marked by pressure flaked microblades and their distinctive, sometimes bullet shaped, cores. The Q group headed east and north-east mixing with east Asian before reaching America, while the R group might be tracked by the similar westwards spread of pressure microblades which reached eastern fringes of Europe and the north of SW Asia c. 9500BC.

What I think complicates this is that after 10000BC eastern Europe, Siberia and north cental Asia seems to have been settled by a string of groups of likely eastern origins. The Urals and the northern fringes of SW Asai were probably settled by them by 9500BC. If the microblade groups are an indicator there were different but possibly related groups all the way from Altai and Baikal to a line from the Baltic to the Dniester by 7000BC. Its also complex as any subgroup along that path could then have a secondary expansion in any direction and at any time. There is then the pointed pot which probably started in south-central Asia before spreading across Siberia to south Urals c. 6500BC. There was also pointed pot people in Keltiminar - some say the Elshanka pot is derived from them. So I think its not a simple single wave of pressure microblade users. Its more likely that that established a widespread ANE population across much of Siberia, north central Asia, the Urals and eastern Europe but there were then secondary expansions into areas like the east Caspian in the Altantic phase, pottery spread 2000 years behind the microblades, there may have been connections between the Urals, Keltiminar and Pit Comb - its complex. However, I think all of these people's were essentially linked to different aspects of the ANE expansions and multi-directional re-expansions.

I see no evidence for any such movement of this ANE population until the Younger Dryas sort of period or even the end of the latter. I see no evidence that Mal'ta type people moved west to SW Asia or south Asia during the LGM. As far as I can see the LGM basically trapped the Mal'ta population between cold low desert and upland polar deserts and there was no escape south unless they escaped before the LGM gripped.

The only even possible way out was the way the steppe tundra belt just about reached Cis Baikal but there is no evidence that anyone braved the crazy level of coldness in that end of the steppe tundra in the LGM. Pretty well Mal'ta Boy is the last date as far north as Baikal between 22000BC and maybe 10000 years later - certainly until well after the LGM ended. So IMO nothing happened in the way of a flight west in the LGM. Well no trace of a Siberian derived culture in Europe, SW Asia or south central Asia during the LGM that I have ever heard of despite looking fairly hard. However there is the pressure microblade and then pointed pot spreads - items that seem to have originated in Altai in the LGM and Baikal C. 8000BC respectively. So for that reason I see the ANE and R1 in Europe and adjacent parts of Asia as a post-LGM and probably post-Younger Dryas movement from Siberia.

Of course this is not all about a movement to eastern Europe. The microblades extended across Siberia to the Urals and into the Caucasus and the north of Iran/Zagross c. 9500BC and was apparently in Keltiminar in the east Caspain and other north-central Asian and south Siberian groups. The pointed pottery also moved in a similar trajectory although in its case it didnt move into south-west Asia - ASAIK Keltiminar is its southern point but I might be wrong. So if these spreads are linked to ANE (I would nearly offer to eat my hat if they are not) then some ANE moved into areas to the south of where the WHG-ANE mix that is associated with EHG came together. In the northern fringes of south-west Asia in Iran, perhaps the Caucasus and later in the east Caspian they moved into areas where ANE would be mixing with different kinds of hunter and/or farmers.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-23-2015, 09:40 PM
Alan
Thanks . One can't really disagree with any aspect of that reconstruction
Do we have evidence (references) for habitation of the Altai during the LGM ?

Hector
08-24-2015, 01:03 AM
Altai. There is a well attested refugium there. It had some sort of very favourable LGM micro-climate. ...

It still revolves around a rather bizarre theory that the pressure micro-blade industry that dominated northern East Asia(Mongolia, Northern China, Manchuria, Korea and even Japan) at the time was a result of purely cultural transmission( or the people associated with it completely became extinct and left very little genetic legacy in that area).

The original assignment of Malta boy to being "West Eurasian" was to highlight the flow of genetic influence between the ancestors of Native Americans and ANE.
It was not meant for the heart-warming and sentimental outburst of "We were there from the beginning until driven out". Because that is a very inaccurate picture.

alan
08-24-2015, 01:41 AM
It still revolves around a rather bizarre theory that the pressure micro-blade industry that dominated northern East Asia(Mongolia, Northern China, Manchuria, Korea and even Japan) at the time was a result of purely cultural transmission( or the people associated with it completely became extinct and left very little genetic legacy in that area).

The original assignment of Malta boy to being "West Eurasian" was to highlight the flow of genetic influence between the ancestors of Native Americans and ANE.
It was not meant for the heart-warming and sentimental outburst of "We were there from the beginning until driven out". Because that is a very inaccurate picture.

Even before the microlithic phase, NW China and northern Mongolia archaeologically belonged to the same middle upper palaeololithic culture as Mal'ta boy. There are some famous sites in both NW China and Mongolia with exactly the same material culture as Mal'ta Boy and his Siberian material culture. That corner of China and northern Mongolia were clearly more linked to the south-central Siberians from Altai to Transbaikal than they were to the remainder of China and Mongolia. They were almost certainly ANE like Mal'ta boy.

alan
08-24-2015, 01:51 AM
It still revolves around a rather bizarre theory that the pressure micro-blade industry that dominated northern East Asia(Mongolia, Northern China, Manchuria, Korea and even Japan) at the time was a result of purely cultural transmission( or the people associated with it completely became extinct and left very little genetic legacy in that area).

The original assignment of Malta boy to being "West Eurasian" was to highlight the flow of genetic influence between the ancestors of Native Americans and ANE.
It was not meant for the heart-warming and sentimental outburst of "We were there from the beginning until driven out". Because that is a very inaccurate picture.

Noone is saying all microblades are linked to one movement or group. It just happens to be that they (and at a later dated pointed pottery) spread west in a pretty nice date cline from south-central Siberia. Given that this is the zone where we earlier find Mal'ta Boy, Afantova etc this fits very well. We also know that NW China and north Mongolia were basically part of Mal'ta Boys Siberian middle upper palaeolithic material culture (details of the flint technology). The point is of course is we know ANE was in south-central Siberia in those tow bodies and we know one was R and the other may have been Q but its unclear. We know they were ANE. All of these are absent in European ancient samples before 7000BC (when it appears in Mesolithic Scandinavia but not in western Europe) and indeed in most of Europe until 3000-2500BC. Its pretty clear there was a movement or two from Siberia into eastern and north-east Europe that brought ANE, R etc in the Mesolithic but which remained bottled in by the farmers (who lacked it) until about 3000BC.

Hector
08-24-2015, 02:04 AM
Even before the microlithic phase, NW China and northern Mongolia ...

That does not explain Korea and Japan. Later a descendent industry called "small pebble industry" rose out of East Asia and encompassed more southerly locations as well.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-24-2015, 08:00 AM
Hector
I don't think Eske Willerslev, or whichever team it was, has any colonialist chauvanism or bias toward Uyghur separatism, if that's what you're getting at.

alan
08-24-2015, 12:59 PM
That does not explain Korea and Japan. Later a descendent industry called "small pebble industry" rose out of East Asia and encompassed more southerly locations as well.


It doesnt need to explain Korea and Japan. There may have been a few different pockers of refuges in and around Altai and parts to the east. The technology doesnt ALL have to have spread by a single population. It just in terms of the spread west it actually does beautifully fit with a post-LGM (apparently post-10000BC) spread west from central Siberia. The same explanation doesnt have to work in all cases. It is possible that Altai and other refugia to the south and east could have been in some contact during the LGM. Altai does naturally lead into NW China and Mongolia but the LGM seems to have created an impenetrable barrier to move further into China.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png

It might have been slightly easier to bridge the lesser gap between the east end of the Eurasian LGM Steppe Tundra around Baikal and the steppe tundra in Pacific coast Russia opposite north Japan. Once there it would be possible to use the coast as the Pacific coast to NE China and Korea was livable in the LGM. So there could have been LGM links that way in theory that could explain some ideas like Microblades.

alan
08-24-2015, 01:11 PM
It still revolves around a rather bizarre theory that the pressure micro-blade industry that dominated northern East Asia(Mongolia, Northern China, Manchuria, Korea and even Japan) at the time was a result of purely cultural transmission( or the people associated with it completely became extinct and left very little genetic legacy in that area).

The original assignment of Malta boy to being "West Eurasian" was to highlight the flow of genetic influence between the ancestors of Native Americans and ANE.
It was not meant for the heart-warming and sentimental outburst of "We were there from the beginning until driven out". Because that is a very inaccurate picture.

I am not sure what you are implying - I cant work it out. So any motives is inside your own head. I live in Atlantic Europe (where all my ancestors I know about have lived for 1000s of years) and have no wish to stake an ancestral or political claim to Altai or Baikal etc. I did however find the surprising fact that ancient DNA indicates my yDNA ancestors seem to have spent most of their existence through their K-P-R (and probably R1-R1b) sequence in south Siberia rather than Europe. That is not something I sought - it just happens to be the case.

alan
08-24-2015, 01:19 PM
Hector
I don't think Eske Willerslev, or whichever team it was, has any colonialist chauvanism or bias toward Uyghur separatism, if that's what you're getting at.

me neither LOL. I just read the archaeology, I have no political interest in the zone whatsoever and very little knowledge either. Only time I have been in any part of Asia ever was 2 weeks in Japan. it is clear that in the upper palaeolithic referring to national boundaries is insane except as geographical shorthand.

It is simply a fact that the Siberian cultures from around the Altai-Baikal areas seem to have persistent similarity with NW China (Shuidonggou) around Mongolia from a very early period c. 40000BC right through to the LGM. That goes right back to the initial upper palaeolithic period of the earliest modern man entered northern Eurasia. The technology of these initial upper palaeolithic groups such as the Bohunician of Europe, early upper paleolithic of south-central Siberia (Altai-to Baikal). Shuidonggou in NW China and those in Mongolia and even the Uzbekistan all seem to come from an ancestor in the Emiran culture of the Levant/sout-east Anatolia c. 46000BC. So this distinctive technology, which marked the phase when humans were transforming from middle to upper palaeolithic techniques and used a mix of both, marks the earliest movement of modern humans into a vast area from Europe to north central Asia to Altai/Baikal and NW China/Mongolia. They failed in Europe (replaced later by Aurignacian wave) but they become a permanent feature in northern central Asia. Ust Ishim lived in the pioneer phase shortly after the groups had moved from SW Asia to Siberia while and Mal'ta boy and Afansievo Gora 2 are likely also distant descendants.

lgmayka
08-24-2015, 01:24 PM
It doesnt need to explain Korea and Japan.
The dating of N-L727 and its subclades (http://yfull.com/tree/N-L727/) implies that a people living in northern East Asia 13,000 years ago split in two, and one part arrived in Europe no later than 7900 years ago. (YF03169, YF02093, and YF03641 all have patrilineage in what is now Poland and Belarus.)

Hector
08-24-2015, 01:53 PM
Probably more accurate than you're willing to accept. Denial is a wonderous thing isn't it?

Quite frankly, if mods allow flame war you don't stand a chance against me.
Mods apply different rules to me and you and that is your only advantage.


I am not sure what you are implying - I cant work it out. ...

OK let me rephrase. Is there anything that will falsify your claim that haplogroup P rose out of a West Eurasian population?
To me you guys seem invincible. You and your buddies have the thickest skin I have witnessed in my entire life.
I have never seen any of you guys say "Geez the new data suggest I was wrong".
I thought Ust Ishim's being K2a in the Y line and B in the maternal line was pretty bad for you guys.
But not in the least.
It shut you guys up for a few days but you had not lost much time until you guys came out saying that Ust Ishim instead disproved the SE Asian origin of K2.
Some even suggested that Ust Ishim was close to the West Eurasian male line that came to father East Asians with East Asian females.
Others shrugged him off as being before the division between East and West Eurasians took place. What a cop-out.

Basal Eurasians? just an insignificant tiny tiny nuisance that should not count?

You are working with a very peculiar definition of East and West Eurasians.

A scientific theory should be falsifiable. If not it is called faith or dogma.
Instead of explaining your theory tell me what will falsify your theory.
After Ust Ishim and Oase I really became curious about that.

P.S. Haplogroup P is like three level deep in the SE Asian/Oceanian K2's. If it arose in a far-away place like Central Asia(some even like West Asia LOL) and the three level deep structure was magically transported to SE Asia while becoming extinct in the place of origin... I say it is not science.

alan
08-24-2015, 02:13 PM
The dating of N-L727 and its subclades (http://yfull.com/tree/N-L727/) implies that a people living in northern East Asia 13,000 years ago split in two, and one part arrived in Europe no later than 7900 years ago. (YF03169, YF02093, and YF03641 all have patrilineage in what is now Poland and Belarus.)

Interesting. It makes reasonable sense to me given we have several pre-farming microblade and pottery types with apparent origins far to the east in central to east Siberia. I tried to convey this in a previous post but it appears to me that once c. 9500BC at the end of the Younger Dryas groups spread across Siberia and into eastern and north-east Europe and later into the east Caspian etc, then a whole zone was created where smaller secondary expansions in any direction could take place. The fact north Eurasian pointed pottery comes into Europe perhaps 3000 years after the microblades shows that once these vaguely related populations were strung through Siberia and central Asia the route was open to further internal movements within it and its probably complex. It could even be said that once the post-LGM north Eurasian route was opened up there have been phases of traffic along it in muliple directions ever since. The yN Poles subset you talk of could be something to do with these moves as early as the Mesolithic. Perhaps a rare remnant of some of the pointed pot Mesolithic hunters or even perhaps could be explained by the earlier pressure microblades that had reached that kind of area by 7000BC or a bit earlier.

I have often wondered what Y groups might have been involved in the more northerly branch of the microblade and then pointed pot influences. It doesnt at present look like R1b is likely. However the Karelia hunters do make me wonder if R1a could have been involved and I have thought for a long time that N is probably involved too somehow. Problem is after the Younger Dryas and through to the Bronze Age there are several waves from Siberia into NE Europe so its a case of sorting out the detail. To confuse mattes I think there was a lot of internal movement within the whole microblade and pointed pot zones with waxing and waning of elements within it. So its probably very complex. Need more hunter DNA from the area of course.

alan
08-24-2015, 02:17 PM
Quite frankly, if mods allow flame war you don't stand a chance against me.
Mods apply different rules to me and you and that is your only advantage.



OK let me rephrase. Is there anything that will falsify your claim that haplogroup P rose out of a West Eurasian population?
To me you guys seem invincible. You and your buddies have the thickest skin I have witnessed in my entire life.
I have never seen any of you guys say "Geez the new data suggest I was wrong".
I thought Ust Ishim's being K2a in the Y line and B in the maternal line was pretty bad for you guys.
But not in the least.
It shut you guys up for a few days but you had not lost much time until you guys came out saying that Ust Ishim instead disproved the SE Asian origin of K2.
Some even suggested that Ust Ishim was close to the West Eurasian male line that came to father East Asians with East Asian females.
Others shrugged him off as being before the division between East and West Eurasians took place. What a cop-out.

Basal Eurasians? just an insignificant tiny tiny nuisance that should not count?

You are working with a very peculiar definition of East and West Eurasians.

A scientific theory should be falsifiable. If not it is called faith or dogma.
Instead of explaining your theory tell me what will falsify your theory.
After Ust Ishim and Oase I really became curious about that.

P.S. Haplogroup P is like three level deep in the SE Asian/Oceanian K2's. If it arose in a far-away place like Central Asia(some even like West Asia LOL) and the three level deep structure was magically transported to SE Asia while becoming extinct in the place of origin... I say it is not science.

There is a massive problem in south-east Asia in studying the identity of hunter cultures. The very simplE flint probably was used to primarily make tools with bamboo means its almost impossible to interpret origins in the bamboo belt of SE Asia.

http://www.eeob.iastate.edu/research/bamboo/maps/world-total-woody.gif

The belt of course varied as the climate did so there will be periods when an area suddenly doesnt have the option of using bamboo it previously had. I think the very simply flint and likely bamboo tool dominated palaeolithic zone will never be possible to interpret without ancient DNA.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-24-2015, 02:20 PM
@ LGMayka and Alan

Also wasnt a very basal N lineage found in the Balkans ?
But I know some have been suggesting sampling biasing towards europeans, etc, who participate more in private testing etc
I'm also not sure how to equate calculated TMRCAs of subset of samples with overall "events".

About the "north eurasian route": phenomena out of the Altai continued well into bronze age and even proto-historic period : such as the Seima- Turbino phenomenon, and the oldest dated "Scythian" barrow in the Altai (but again, I don't trust the russian dating as it doesn't take into accounts "old wood" effects, and hasn't been independtly verified).

lgmayka
08-24-2015, 02:33 PM
Also wasnt a very basal N lineage found in the Balkans ?
Yes, N-Y6503 (http://yfull.com/tree/N-Y6503/) has been found only in Europe. It diverged from the rest of N about 22,000 years ago.

Shaikorth
08-24-2015, 02:34 PM
@ LGMayka and Alan

Also wasnt a very basal N lineage found in the Balkans ?
But I know some have been suggesting sampling biasing towards europeans, etc, who participate more in private testing etc
I'm also not sure how to equate calculated TMRCAs of subset of samples with overall "events".

About the "north eurasian route": phenomena out of the Altai continued well into bronze age and even proto-historic period : such as the Seima- Turbino phenomenon, and the oldest dated "Scythian" barrow in the Altai (but again, I don't trust the russian dating as it doesn't take into accounts "old wood" effects, and hasn't been independtly verified).

The most basal N in fact. Given how long this has been known, it's funny that it remains overlooked in Karmin et al, never mind that recent Chinese study about the structure of N. Anyway, we don't know when and how it got there. Could be a bronze/iron age steppe arrival, as IR1 has it and if Genetiker got it right, so does Mezhovskaya.

Tomenable
08-24-2015, 02:42 PM
RISE431, Leki Male, 2286-2048 BC (proto-Unetice) - he had R1a haplogroup: do we know what exact subclade of R1a was that ??? :noidea:

"Kurgan Cemetery in Leki Male - Unique Necropolis of Unetice Culture" (in Polish), by Iwona Hildebrandt-Radke (from Poznan University):

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wNn0mqe4HccJ:yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-article-BUJ5-0052-0032/c/hildebrandt_Cmentarzysko_kurhanowe.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pl

English abstract: "The burial mound in Łęki Małe is located on the northern side of the Warta–Obra Pradolina, in the plateau cut through by Mogilnica river. An esker adjoins this valley from the west. This elevation, looming over its vicinity, was used as the barrow burial ground. It constituted the most distinctive element of this lowland landscape. The burials of the Unetice culture people, of Early Bronze Age, took place there. Until nowadays four barrows have survived which is a bit more than 20 % of the whole necropolis. The tumuli differ in construction and equipment of main graves, in size of earth-mounds as well as in structure and inside collections of side graves. The unique form of the veneration of the dead may be the significance of social and material diversification within the ┌nýtice community. The barrows were burial places of the privileged."

Key words: Early Bronze Age, prehistoric burial mound, barrows, earthwork, chamber tomb

RISE431 was found in barrow IV, which is the largest of four surviving kurgans (originally there were 11, but Germans destroyed 7).

Hector
08-24-2015, 02:55 PM
The most basal N in fact. Given how long this has been known, it's funny that it remains overlooked in Karmin et al, never mind that recent Chinese study about the structure of N. Anyway, we don't know when and how it got there. Could be a bronze/iron age steppe arrival, as IR1 has it and if Genetiker got it right, so does Mezhovskaya.

IR1 also had its mtDNA hap assignment to G(a haplogroup whose gradient increases toward East and North Asia)but his autosomal genetics had a West Eurasian affinity.

P.S. Actually no discernable East Asian affinity.

Hector
08-24-2015, 03:22 PM
The currently accepted view by the archaeological community is that microblade technology arose in Northern East Asia, probably in present day Northern China, 30000 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microblade_technology

Pressure flaking and whatnots cannot avoid this ancestry.

Hector
08-24-2015, 03:42 PM
@ LGMayka and Alan

Also wasnt a very basal N lineage found in the Balkans ?
But I know some have been suggesting sampling biasing towards europeans, etc, who participate more in private testing etc.

It probably was I who suggested it.
N1-L732 was originally thought to be European as well(still labeled N1b by ISOGG) until Korean examples started popping up(it appears to be very numerous among Koreans, relatively speaking. Its frequency is never more than 10 percent but compared with Europeans... )
But YFull shows that it is about four level deep into the East Asian clade N-Z4764(5 or 6 if you count from N1 or N).
Curiously N-Z4764 has a generally southern distribution in East Asia. N1c has a far more northern distribution and N1c-TatC belongs to this clade.

Some 2000-5000 old graves in Manchuria turn up to be entirely of N. Many show TatC but many others don't. I suspect many are N-Z4764.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-24-2015, 03:50 PM
The most basal N in fact. Given how long this has been known, it's funny that it remains overlooked in Karmin et al, never mind that recent Chinese study about the structure of N. Anyway, we don't know when and how it got there. Could be a bronze/iron age steppe arrival, as IR1 has it and if Genetiker got it right, so does Mezhovskaya.

But were IR1 & RISE as "ancestral" as modern Balkan samples, or are they derived from more eastern ones ?
We need a tree like the R1b guys did

Shaikorth
08-24-2015, 04:45 PM
But were IR1 & RISE as "ancestral" as modern Balkan samples, or are they derived from more eastern ones ?
We need a tree like the R1b guys did

All of them are in the N-Y6503 branch, IR1 was IIRC upstream of the modern samples. It wasn't very high quality however, and RISE is much worse still. We do have some, since Karmin et al. quite convincing, evidence that N has moved both east and west in Eurasia like R1. Karmin et al. shows the N1c1-L1026 of Paleosiberians in Beringian coast is not from Russians but belongs to its own branch (B197). In other words they're closer to common European N1c1 types than Yakuts despite living in the far end of Eurasia. L1026 is not old and probably originates west of the Urals given the distribution of VL29, and B197 is not more basal L1026 than VL29's branch.


Curiously N-Z4764 has a generally southern distribution in East Asia. N1c has a far more northern distribution and N1c-TatC belongs to this clade.

Some 2000-5000 old graves in Manchuria turn up to be entirely of N. Many show TatC but many others don't. I suspect many are N-Z4764.

Do you mean N-Z4784? According to Yfull its brother clade N-CTS12473's most basal member is a Telugu (Kinh and Han are downstream). The MRCA of these clades goes back 16k years.

Ebizur
08-24-2015, 05:19 PM
It probably was I who suggested it.
N1-L732 was originally thought to be European as well(still labeled N1b by ISOGG) until Korean examples started popping up(it appears to be very numerous among Koreans, relatively speaking. Its frequency is never more than 10 percent but compared with Europeans... )
But YFull shows that it is about four level deep into the East Asian clade N-Z4764(5 or 6 if you count from N1 or N).
Curiously N-Z4764 has a generally southern distribution in East Asia. N1c has a far more northern distribution and N1c-TatC belongs to this clade.

Some 2000-5000 old graves in Manchuria turn up to be entirely of N. Many show TatC but many others don't. I suspect many are N-Z4764.
Only 10% of modern Manchu males (yes, even those who still live in Manchuria) and only 4% of modern Korean males belong to Y-DNA haplogroup N, and those are not all closely related to one another (they include representatives of the well-known N-M128, N-P43, and N-Tat, but most of them belong to other subclades of N).

Y-DNA haplogroup N is actually more common among (Han) Chinese (approx. 6%) than it is among Koreans (approx. 4%), by the way. It is especially rare among Japanese (approx. 2%), so it follows the typical pattern of Koreans sitting on a cline between Chinese and Japanese (exactly as one should expect on the basis of geography and history). The exceptions in Y-DNA are O2b-M176 (equally common among Koreans and Japanese; rare among Chinese) and C2-M217 (highest frequency among Koreans, moderate frequency among Chinese, and low frequency among Japanese).

Hector
08-24-2015, 07:36 PM
Only 10% of modern Manchu males (yes, even those who still live in Manchuria) and only 4% of modern Korean males belong to Y-DNA haplogroup N, and those are not all closely related to one another (they include representatives of the well-known N-M128, N-P43, and N-Tat, but most of them belong to other subclades of N).

I was talking about L732. I have seen about 5-6 Korean N results(Geno 2.0 or higher(in the detail hierarchy. There are not that many Korean results known overall). All 3 N-F2905's had L732 but lacked L731.
N-F2905 has two branches, one northern(includes Beijing Han) N-Z4784 and one southern(prevalent in Northern and Southern China and Vietnam) N-CTS12473. L732(and thus all known European N-F2905) belongs to the northern branch. Not very surprising.



Y-DNA haplogroup N is actually more common among (Han) Chinese (approx. 6%) than it is among Koreans (approx. 4%), by the way. It is especially rare among Japanese (approx. 2%), so it follows the typical pattern of Koreans sitting on a cline between Chinese and Japanese (exactly as one should expect on the basis of geography and history).

I hear that a lot especially from Japanese ultra nationalist hikomories - 2 Channel type - and it ranks as one of the most bogus BS. The cline has more to do with the huge Jomon/aboriginal ancestry of Japanese than Han Chinese admixture into Koreans.
Also if you get the subtype it becomes quite clear. For instance N-F2905 as mentioned in the above. Also from STR profiles Korean TatC seems to show more affinity to Yakut type(though quite rare)
O2a, nearly 20 percent among some Southern Chinese groups(as well as being common among Yangtze river ancient remains) is completely absent so far among 5000 SNP tested Koreans.(I am sure it will turn up at sometime in the future but it is extremely rare)(Some YSTR studies show it(Tanaka etc or was it Nonaka?) but they are more likely to be errors or perhaps very rare examples) Even in studies that had rare L1 or C1a1 or even Q-M25, O2a was still absent. A massive Chinese influx into the Korean male line seems like a comical fantasy of Japanese. "It is they who are mixed, not us" LOL But statistics is their worst enemies.

[off topic and derogatory text removed by moderator]

But their claims are unfalsifiable therefore worthless.

They posit that even O2b came from Southern China independently to Korea and Japan separately. I have even seen claims that it had come from Southeast Asia to Okinawa and to Japan and then to Korea. Japanese ancestors must have had such a keen sense of honor that they avoided, at all cost, that one place that their descendents would come to loathe with all their hearts.

And what should they do to Alexander Vovin who even has a Japanese wife yet claimed the following unspeakable?

http://www.ikga.oeaw.ac.at/Events/Immigrants_or_Overlords%3F


the exceptions in Y-DNA are O2b-M176 (equally common among Koreans and Japanese; rare among Chinese) and C2-M217 (highest frequency among Koreans, moderate frequency among Chinese, and low frequency among Japanese).

Thank you for weakening your own case.

By the way C2-M217 is higher among Japanese than southern Chinese. It was that way in the studies done earlier by Western scientists-Hammer Underhill etc. and even Li Jin. But most studies coming out today have very elevated levels of C2-M217 sometimes exceeding the Korean percentage(12-13 percent for South Koreans. The lowest in Jeju island - 7 percent and the highest in PyongAn province at 23 percent).

Curiously Jeju island, long suspected of being influenced by Mongols, and Hamkyong Province suspected of Jurchen influence, show very little evidence of elevated C2 level.

alan
08-25-2015, 08:18 AM
The currently accepted view by the archaeological community is that microblade technology arose in Northern East Asia, probably in present day Northern China, 30000 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microblade_technology

Pressure flaking and whatnots cannot avoid this ancestry.

you are at it again trying to read chauvinism where there isnt any - which says more about how you think than anything else. Noone is avoiding any ancestry. I think you will find Europeans have no inbuilt bias towards an ancestral origin in Altai, Baikal, north Mongolia or north China nor did they expect their Y DNA ancestry to come from any of those areas. To Europeans those areas are all pretty much remote east Asian areas and I doubt anyone has a bias towards any of them. In fact I think its to most European people's credit that they went with the evidence and embraced the evidence of an ancestry in that general zone as soon as the evidence came up. There are only a few strange characters in denial and still trying to make Gravettian R.

However, the key archaeological point to the origins of the first modern human north Asian cultures in that archaeologists see the very distinct initial upper palaeolithic technology with its transformationary middle to upper palaeolithic technology with mixed both core and blade and levallois elements as clearly coming from the Levant ultimately where it is known the earliest in the Emiran phase. It is then also known in the Bohunician of Europe by c. 47000BC and in Siberia and NW China at Shuidonggou and also Mongolia by 40000BC. Its association with modern humans clearly originates in an area where Levallois was known pre-47000BC and association with modern humans (as it was in the Emiran) and where it was previously known in the middle Paleolithic (west Asia, Europe and Africa). The technique only appears in east Asia at the start of the upper palaeolithic and previously was unknown there until the Shuidonggou c. 40000BC where it has no local ancestor. Ust Ism is one of the earliest north Asians of this culture/phase dating to 43000BC and older than any example east of Altai. So we can be pretty sure that his ancestors came from west Asia. He was probably one of the earliest modern humans in north Asia, probably not long from his ancestral zone in SW Asia. At that stage the ANE signal likely didnt exist as there simply hadnt been enough time to form differences from the generic.

Now once this initial group had arrived in north Asia, archaeologists see a gradual broadly in-situ transformation of flint technology from the early/initial to mid to late upper palaeolithic with incipient aspects of the next phase always visible in the prior phase. So it appears that the entire Siberian and adjacent upper palaeolithic originates in this group who migrated into Siberia/NW China/north Mongolia c. 45-40000BC until after the LGM. We know from Ust Ishm that these were K2 people. a branch which led to MPS and NO so the obvious conclusion is that these all or mostly originated in Ust Ishm type intial upper palaeolithic people arriving in K2 from from the west by the Siberian route. As K2 is dated to around 47000BC by SNP counting and Ust Ishm lived around 43000BC there are not too many options for his origin.

If you then need to explain how some of these groups got to east and south-east Asia then there are downturns in the climate of Siberia in the mid 30000s BC and again of course c. 25000BC with the onset of the LGM. Most of Siberia was abandoned in the LGM by 22000BC other than Altai so they had to go somwhere or die out. As I have pointed out, its very hard to trace movements once they get into the bamboo zone of Pacific and SE Asia and Oceana because it is such a useful material and the flint supply is poor so people just switched to bamboo other than the most basic of flints to cut the bamboo. That is why flint technology is so very basic in those areas and its impossible to infer origins from it.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-25-2015, 08:37 AM
Alan
although K-bearing palaeo-Southeastasians probably arrived to SEA long before the Incipient LGM ? Or do yiutibe they were a second wave after older groups like Y DnA C?

alan
08-25-2015, 08:37 AM
Just realised how off-topic this has become since it was originally about Allentoft et al and zero to do with east Asia in the Palaeolithic

alan
08-25-2015, 08:45 AM
Alan
although K-bearing palaeo-Southeastasians probably arrived to SEA long before the Incipient LGM ? Or do yiutibe they were a second wave after older groups like Y DnA C?

I agree C was probably a first wave via the south coast of Asia. There is no evidence of the north Asian route reaching China and Mongolia until 40000BC so anything older than that is probably by the southern route and IMO likely C.

As for the K2 people, all I think can be inferred is they reached NW China and Mongolia (as well as at least as far as Trans-Baikal in Siberia - but possible further east) around 40000BC. Problem is that coastal east Asia and south-east coastal and island Asia and Oceana are bamboo areas so they just used the crappies flint to cut bamboo tools which makes it so undiagnostic that its impossible to infer origins. It seems possible to me that the northern stream could have reached Pacific Asia after 40000BC but there is no evidence of it - the bamboo could be to blame.

alan
08-25-2015, 08:57 AM
If you look at fig 2 here http://csfa.tamu.edu/cfsa-publications/Graf-SourPalTrans2009-479.pdf you can see that the EUP (basically the culture of Ust Ishm in Siberia) only extends along the southern fringes of central Siberia. What this map doesnt show is that it also extended into NW China and north Mongolia. The map however does only show the EUP remains extending to around Transbaikal and no further east in Siberia. This is either genuine or perhaps the issue is that on entering the bamboo in east Asia they simply abandoned use of flint other than as crude cutters for bamboo tools. http://www.eeob.iastate.edu/research/bamboo/maps/world-total-woody.gif

Gravetto-Danubian
08-25-2015, 09:31 AM
Alan
Yes that Graf paper is great. But it leaves open where the LGM "refuge" actually was- only referencing two Japanese authors whose papers don't actually discussed siberia or East Central Asia. Have you actually seen any papers citing human settlements in the Altai during the LGM ?

lgmayka
08-25-2015, 09:57 AM
We know from Ust Ishm that these were K2 people. a branch which led to MPS and NO so the obvious conclusion is that these all or mostly originated in Ust Ishm type intial upper palaeolithic people arriving in K2 from from the west by the Siberian route. As K2 is dated to around 47000BC by SNP counting and Ust Ishm lived around 43000BC there are not too many options for his origin.
Karafet 2015 (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n3/full/ejhg2014106a.html) claims, based on modern DNA, that the initial expansion of K-M526, i.e.K(xLT) (http://yfull.com/tree/K(xLT)/), "likely occurred in Southeast Asia." Would you say that the authors' hypothesis has no archaeological support?

Gravetto-Danubian
08-25-2015, 10:01 AM
But Karafet 2015 (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n3/full/ejhg2014106a.html) claims, based on modern DNA, that the initial expansion of K-M526, i.e.K(xLT) (http://yfull.com/tree/K(xLT)/), "likely occurred in Southeast Asia." Are you saying that his hypothesis has no archaeological support?

That is my understanding of phylogeny, too

alan
08-25-2015, 12:52 PM
Karafet 2015 (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n3/full/ejhg2014106a.html) claims, based on modern DNA, that the initial expansion of K-M526, i.e.K(xLT) (http://yfull.com/tree/K(xLT)/), "likely occurred in Southeast Asia." Would you say that the authors' hypothesis has no archaeological support?

Yes. It seems to have no support. There is far better evidence that a SW Asia to Siberia to NW China/Mongolia route was used (and also a dead end Bohunician move to Europe in the other direction) c. 47000-40000BC. However, K2 is so old I cant rule out a split into a north Eurasian and south Asian coastal route. The problem with south Asia;s coast and islands is poor flint but plentiful bamboo (even if Hector is right about further north in Korea). Once people utilise bamboo - which is a real gift for tool making - then the trail is invisible. So, there could have been a southern route for K2 in addition to the north Asia route through Siberia but it would not be easy or perhaps not even possible to discern without ancient DNA.

However, if you are asking me do I think K2 expanded into Siberia from SE Asia then definaely not -that runs counter to the dating cline for the initial upper Palaeolithic culture and technology that Ust Ishm was part of. In fact if bamboo was not a factor in places like Korea then that makes it even clearer that the distinctive earliest upper palaeolithic of Siberia, NW China, north Mongolia, Uzbekistan etc could not have come from the east or south-east or a trail would exist.

Regardless, these early/initial upper Palaeolithic groups of north Asia are 100% clearly linked to SW Asian roots. The technology for example mixes new upper palaeolithic core-flake technology with Levallois technique which is the middle paleolithic technique used both by Neanderthals and early modern humans in the SW Asia, Europe and Africa but not known in the far east until much later when the very groups I just mentioned brought it to Siberia, NW China etc. The cline for this technology with modern humans goes roughly from Emiran in Levant from c. 48000BC, (dead end early Bohunician move to Europe c. 47000BC), prob Iran then a quick spread through Uzbekistan to Ust Ishm/evidence in Altai around 43000BC, then Baikal/NW China/north Mongolia c. 40000BC. I have rooted around for the latest dating and this seems to be the cutting edge picture with most studies being within the last 2 or 3 years (a year ago the NW China extension was though to be even younger by many 1000s of years).

This type of cultrure/technology is unknown much east of Trans Baikal in Russia or east or south of NW China and Mongolia. It is unknown in the far east or south-east or even south-central coasts of Asia EVER. Bamboo cannot explain its absence in Pacific Russia or (according to Hector) even as far south as south Korea or parts of China so the absence in east Asia from Korea too the Russian far east is real. In fact it is absent anywhere east of Baikal at that latitude as well so is unknown anywhere near the east Asian coast.

That all said, Bamboo probably is a big factor in the obfuscation of origins and cultural identiry of the users of the southern route along the coasts of south Asia, south India, south-east Asia and the islands between their and Australia. They just had the simplest bits of flint because all they needed it for was to cut bamboo. I also understand that flint sources are very poor in those areas so it was a perfect storm for bamboo use. For that reason I dont believe archaeology can do much other than provide evidence of dates. The non-perishable remains i.e. flint/stone tools are just too simple to work out origins and cultural identity. So in the bamboo belt (most of SE Asia and the south Pacific islands) only ancient DNA will help.

Moderator
08-25-2015, 01:05 PM
[MOD] split from here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-(Allentoft-et-al-2015)/page109).

Lathdrinor
08-27-2015, 01:57 AM
O2a, nearly 20 percent among some Southern Chinese groups(as well as being common among Yangtze river ancient remains) is completely absent so far among 5000 SNP tested Koreans.(I am sure it will turn up at sometime in the future but it is extremely rare)(Some YSTR studies show it(Tanaka etc or was it Nonaka?) but they are more likely to be errors or perhaps very rare examples) Even in studies that had rare L1 or C1a1 or even Q-M25, O2a was still absent.

According to Yan 2011, O2a-M95 and all its subtypes are found in 4.6% of southern Chinese, and only 1-2% of northern and eastern Chinese. O2a and its descendants are rare in East Asia, especially in regions to the north of the Yangtze River. But even ancient Yangtze River coast remains were tested to be O1, not M95 or its parent PK4. Given its present distribution it looks to be an inland haplogroup that spread gradually to the coast over the course of history, with a source closer to south-central and south-western China. Its even tinier presence in Korea is logical given such a geographical center and a late expansion. It doesn't contradict Ebizur's geographical model at all.



By the way C2-M217 is higher among Japanese than southern Chinese. It was that way in the studies done earlier by Western scientists-Hammer Underhill etc. and even Li Jin. But most studies coming out today have very elevated levels of C2-M217 sometimes exceeding the Korean percentage(12-13 percent for South Koreans. The lowest in Jeju island - 7 percent and the highest in PyongAn province at 23 percent).

That'd lead to the obvious conclusion that earlier studies suffered from sample bias/methodological flaws. Large-scale studies today virtually all conclude that C2-M217 is lower in Japanese than other East Asian groups, which is easily understandable given that the center of C2-M217 distribution is towards Mongolia and thus quite distant from Japan. Yet again, the data fits the geography, with C2-M217 being highest in populations around Mongolia, then in Manchuria, Northern China, and Korea, then in Southern China, and finally in Japan.



Curiously Jeju island, long suspected of being influenced by Mongols, and Hamkyong Province suspected of Jurchen influence, show very little evidence of elevated C2 level.

C2 in East Asia doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Jurchen and Mongol influence. It was found in the vicinity long before those historical groups came along. M217 likely spread from a region not too distant from Mongolia but during the late Neolithic and early Bronze Age at the latest.

In fact, for haplogroups that are relatively late in expansion time, practically all of them follow geographic clines from their centers of expansion in East Asia.

It is the early haplogroups that are difficult to trace, and which create problems of interpretation eg the bifurcation of D in Japanese and Tibetan populations.

parasar
08-27-2015, 04:01 AM
Yes. It seems to have no support. There is far better evidence that a SW Asia to Siberia to NW China/Mongolia route was used (and also a dead end Bohunician move to Europe in the other direction) c. 47000-40000BC. However, K2 is so old I cant rule out a split into a north Eurasian and south Asian coastal route. The problem with south Asia;s coast and islands is poor flint but plentiful bamboo (even if Hector is right about further north in Korea). Once people utilise bamboo - which is a real gift for tool making - then the trail is invisible. So, there could have been a southern route for K2 in addition to the north Asia route through Siberia but it would not be easy or perhaps not even possible to discern without ancient DNA.

However, if you are asking me do I think K2 expanded into Siberia from SE Asia then definaely not -that runs counter to the dating cline for the initial upper Palaeolithic culture and technology that Ust Ishm was part of. In fact if bamboo was not a factor in places like Korea then that makes it even clearer that the distinctive earliest upper palaeolithic of Siberia, NW China, north Mongolia, Uzbekistan etc could not have come from the east or south-east or a trail would exist.

Regardless, these early/initial upper Palaeolithic groups of north Asia are 100% clearly linked to SW Asian roots. The technology for example mixes new upper palaeolithic core-flake technology with Levallois technique which is the middle paleolithic technique used both by Neanderthals and early modern humans in the SW Asia, Europe and Africa but not known in the far east until much later when the very groups I just mentioned brought it to Siberia, NW China etc. The cline for this technology with modern humans goes roughly from Emiran in Levant from c. 48000BC, (dead end early Bohunician move to Europe c. 47000BC), prob Iran then a quick spread through Uzbekistan to Ust Ishm/evidence in Altai around 43000BC, then Baikal/NW China/north Mongolia c. 40000BC. I have rooted around for the latest dating and this seems to be the cutting edge picture with most studies being within the last 2 or 3 years (a year ago the NW China extension was though to be even younger by many 1000s of years).

This type of cultrure/technology is unknown much east of Trans Baikal in Russia or east or south of NW China and Mongolia. It is unknown in the far east or south-east or even south-central coasts of Asia EVER. Bamboo cannot explain its absence in Pacific Russia or (according to Hector) even as far south as south Korea or parts of China so the absence in east Asia from Korea too the Russian far east is real. In fact it is absent anywhere east of Baikal at that latitude as well so is unknown anywhere near the east Asian coast.

That all said, Bamboo probably is a big factor in the obfuscation of origins and cultural identiry of the users of the southern route along the coasts of south Asia, south India, south-east Asia and the islands between their and Australia. They just had the simplest bits of flint because all they needed it for was to cut bamboo. I also understand that flint sources are very poor in those areas so it was a perfect storm for bamboo use. For that reason I dont believe archaeology can do much other than provide evidence of dates. The non-perishable remains i.e. flint/stone tools are just too simple to work out origins and cultural identity. So in the bamboo belt (most of SE Asia and the south Pacific islands) only ancient DNA will help.

First, there is little, if any, evidence of this [my highlight].

Second, it has be rapid per the mtDNA phylogeny, especially as we have to get humans to Australia 50000yp, which would have to be instantaneous from 48000bc Levant.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7564/images/nature14558-sf1.jpg

vettor
08-27-2015, 06:42 AM
Karafet 2015 (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n3/full/ejhg2014106a.html) claims, based on modern DNA, that the initial expansion of K-M526, i.e.K(xLT) (http://yfull.com/tree/K(xLT)/), "likely occurred in Southeast Asia." Would you say that the authors' hypothesis has no archaeological support?

Are you in denial for this study by Karafet?, IIRC , the russians had a chart where they even found R-M207 ( basal ) in SEA, logically the scenario would be that R was formed in SEA while R1 and R2 could or was formed elsewhere.

rozenfeld
08-27-2015, 07:16 AM
Question: Are there any published ancient autosomal DNA from East, South or Southeast Asia? The only ones that I know of are samples from Siberia, but that's not exactly what I want. There is also Tianyuan 1, but it's just part of one of the chromosomes. I remember I saw some dissertation about Jomon, but AFAIK genomes were not published.

Kale
08-27-2015, 01:01 PM
Are you in denial for this study by Karafet?, IIRC , the russians had a chart where they even found R-M207 ( basal ) in SEA, logically the scenario would be that R was formed in SEA while R1 and R2 could or was formed elsewhere.

So NO formed in SEA and made two journeys north (one to spawn Ust-Ishim and the later to spawn modern N and O carriers). Then P stuck around in SEA leading to Q and R, which both migrated separately out of SEA at different times, picking up no N or O along the way? Doesn't seem very likely.

I'd say most likely explanation is an assortment of K2* travel along the proposed archaeological route > Levant > Iran > Uzbek > Altai > Baikal > China... likely starting as K* and becoming K2* along the way. Then the whole slew of K2* people heading south into SEA retain their many basal lineages (as it's an expansion) where they are preserved (best in the islands, but still well preserved in the mainland) while Siberia experiences ridiculous climatic episodes > necessitating depopulation from a small number of branches preserved in Central Asia. And China experiences waves of internal replacement > pruning the most basal branches with each replacement.

malleus
08-27-2015, 01:23 PM
According to Yan 2011, O2a-M95 and all its subtypes are found in 4.6% of southern Chinese, and only 1-2% of northern and eastern Chinese.

Hammer and Underhill's data showed indeed nearly 20 percent.
For instance "Paternal Population History of East Asia: Sources, Patterns,and Microevolutionary Processes"
12/40=30 percent.



O2a and its descendants are rare in East Asia, especially in regions to the north of the Yangtze River. But even ancient Yangtze River coast remains were tested to be O1, not M95 or its parent PK4.

That is not science. The sample size is too small, 9. Even including "historical" 15.
Just to the west 2/4 Wucheng men had O2a.




Given its present distribution it looks to be an inland haplogroup that spread gradually to the coast over the course of history,

Actually that scenario does not match the current distribution. It is high in some coastal areas and Viets have a lot of it too and they migrated from the coastal region in historical time.



with a source closer to south-central and south-western China. Its even tinier presence in Korea is logical given such a geographical center and a late expansion.

All your premises are wrong anyway but "tinier" usually means at least a positive quantity.
You seem anxious for certain conclusion that is not warranteed.



That'd lead to the obvious conclusion that earlier studies suffered from sample bias/methodological flaws..

Why? because it was not done by "patriotic Chinese"?



Large-scale studies today virtually all conclude that C2-M217 is lower in Japanese than other East Asian groups, which is easily understandable given that the center of C2-M217 distribution is towards Mongolia and thus quite distant from Japan. Yet again, the data fits the geography, with C2-M217 being highest in populations around Mongolia, then in Manchuria, Northern China, and Korea, then in Southern China, and finally in Japan.

Actually the highest frequency of C2e(so far known) is in Northwest Korea at nearly 20 percent. C2b is high among Northern peoples and when you get into subtypes your thesis does not hold.


...
C2 in East Asia doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Jurchen and Mongol influence. It was found in the vicinity long before those historical groups came along. M217 likely spread from a region not too distant from Mongolia but during the late Neolithic and early Bronze Age at the latest.

In fact, for haplogroups that are relatively late in expansion time, practically all of them follow geographic clines from their centers of expansion in East Asia.

It is the early haplogroups that are difficult to trace, and which create problems of interpretation eg the bifurcation of D in Japanese and Tibetan populations.

OMG. You are soooo out of sinc with recent advances in this field. I am not even going to respond. Those who don't see why you are wrong, how you are wrong and how much you are wrong probably are not interested in this field anyway.

malleus
08-27-2015, 01:33 PM
Question: Are there any published ancient autosomal DNA from East, South or Southeast Asia? The only ones that I know of are samples from Siberia, but that's not exactly what I want. There is also Tianyuan 1, but it's just part of one of the chromosomes. I remember I saw some dissertation about Jomon, but AFAIK genomes were not published.

South and Southeast Asia are too hot and the current technology does not permit sequencing anicient remains in those regions.
East Asia on the other hand is beset by the soil quality which is particularly acidic and does not usually yield remains of good quality.

But the biggest reason is that this field(ancient DNA) is pioneered by Europeans and naturally they concentrate on European remains.

malleus
08-27-2015, 01:53 PM
...I'd say most likely explanation is an assortment of K2* travel along the proposed archaeological route > Levant > Iran > Uzbek > Altai > Baikal > China... likely starting as K*... pruning the most basal branches with each replacement.

It is so ridiculously convoluted that it is more absurd than what you are criticizing.

What vettor was referring to was probably the basal P that was found in SE/Oceanian islands.
Karaphet is indeed Russian even though we usually don't think of her that way since most of her publications are in English. Vettor probably saw her name and thought that the paper was Russian.

I really cannot convince your circle(or trapezoid as you claim) of friends who want to see things your way.
Personally I know that Underhill may have a hard time buying the SE Asian theory. He once told me that the origin and dispersal of M9(M526 was not discovered then) were like pushing a string, meaning that it is difficult to convincingly argue either way. But even he will find your theory a bit too ridiculous.

Scientific intuition is a precious commodity, but every scientist is required to have some of it. That is what mainly distinguishes professionals and amateurs.

malleus
08-27-2015, 04:10 PM
According to Yan 2011, O2a-M95 and all its subtypes are found in 4.6% of southern Chinese, and only 1-2% of northern and eastern Chinese.

O2a is currently defined by PK4 and it is still lacking among Koreans.
For him to subtract O2a-PK4(xM95) from O2a-PK4(Yan 2011) to get O2a-M95 is a borderline fraud.
Why would he stoop so low just to prove that Koreans are hybrids between Han Chinese and Japanese? No one knows.
The correct figure is 9.2 percent for southern Chinese even according to Yan's study.
On the other hand Karaphet 2010 has 6.5+5.5=12 percent for China as a whole(M95). At least a couple percent more for PK4.

vettor
08-27-2015, 06:29 PM
So NO formed in SEA and made two journeys north (one to spawn Ust-Ishim and the later to spawn modern N and O carriers). Then P stuck around in SEA leading to Q and R, which both migrated separately out of SEA at different times, picking up no N or O along the way? Doesn't seem very likely.

I'd say most likely explanation is an assortment of K2* travel along the proposed archaeological route > Levant > Iran > Uzbek > Altai > Baikal > China... likely starting as K* and becoming K2* along the way. Then the whole slew of K2* people heading south into SEA retain their many basal lineages (as it's an expansion) where they are preserved (best in the islands, but still well preserved in the mainland) while Siberia experiences ridiculous climatic episodes > necessitating depopulation from a small number of branches preserved in Central Asia. And China experiences waves of internal replacement > pruning the most basal branches with each replacement.

Why do you bring up NO? ....NO belongs to K2a group , it split off from the main K with the haplogroup X ( now known as K2e ) , from X came N and O.

R belongs to K2b group, which also has P, M, S haplogroups

an older group is K1 group which is L and T
they split away from the main K before reaching SEA

Kale
08-27-2015, 07:31 PM
It is so ridiculously convoluted that it is more absurd than what you are criticizing.

What vettor was referring to was probably the basal P that was found in SE/Oceanian islands.
Karaphet is indeed Russian even though we usually don't think of her that way since most of her publications are in English. Vettor probably saw her name and thought that the paper was Russian.

I really cannot convince your circle(or trapezoid as you claim) of friends who want to see things your way.
Personally I know that Underhill may have a hard time buying the SE Asian theory. He once told me that the origin and dispersal of M9(M526 was not discovered then) were like pushing a string, meaning that it is difficult to convincingly argue either way. But even he will find your theory a bit too ridiculous.

Scientific intuition is a precious commodity, but every scientist is required to have some of it. That is what mainly distinguishes professionals and amateurs.

Ok, so instead of saying 'ermgd u st00pid..im write ur rong'...would you care to actually argue something a little more scientific?
Here were my points.
1) Accept current archaeological model.
2) Propose lineage extinction in Siberia, and heavy lineage replacement or extinction in China.

malleus
08-27-2015, 07:46 PM
Ok, so instead of saying 'ermgd u st00pid..im write ur rong'...would you care to actually argue something a little more scientific?
Here were my points.
1) Accept current archaeological model.
2) Propose lineage extinction in Siberia, and heavy lineage replacement or extinction in China.

Explain Ust Ishim's mtDNA belonging to hap B.
As if his being K2a in the Y-line were not enough.

Megalophias
08-28-2015, 05:13 AM
Explain Ust Ishim's mtDNA belonging to hap B.
As if his being K2a in the Y-line were not enough.
He is haplogroup B? I thought he was just basal R.

malleus
08-28-2015, 05:46 AM
He is haplogroup B? I thought he was just basal R.

They were being conservative much like they assigned only K2 for his Y lineage.
Take a look at the diagram Parasar has posted in
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5242-split-Uniparental-Markers-amp-Paleolithic-Asia&p=104980&viewfull=1#post104980

Gravetto-Danubian
08-28-2015, 05:58 AM
Ok, so instead of saying 'ermgd u st00pid..im write ur rong'...would you care to actually argue something a little more scientific?
Here were my points.
1) Accept current archaeological model.
2) Propose lineage extinction in Siberia, and heavy lineage replacement or extinction in China.

I'm not 100% in the know for asia, but until Palaelithic archaeology improves there, there'll be perpetual debates. Going solely on Y phylogeny won't clarify the situation without hard data ' from the earth'.

Kale
08-28-2015, 01:01 PM
Explain Ust Ishim's mtDNA belonging to hap B.
As if his being K2a in the Y-line were not enough.

What do you mean explain? Autosomally he's an early East Eurasian...why would mtdna B or ydna K2a* be surprising?

malleus
08-28-2015, 01:40 PM
What do you mean explain? Autosomally he's an early East Eurasian...why would mtdna B or ydna K2a* be surprising?

Then K2b2(aka P) which probably was less than 1500 years apart from Ust Ishim should be considered as East Eurasian as well.

P.S. By the way Karaphet's thesis is that the lineage P-RQ went back through South Asia to reach Central Asia so no need to explain not picking up K2a much less NO which might not have come into existence by this time.
But then there seems to have been a lot of K2a(not NO or X line but an extinct line) in the Eastern Europe-Central Asia belt at this time as Oase exemplifies, so there is no need to explain anything to begin with.

Kale
08-28-2015, 03:47 PM
Then K2b2(aka P) which probably was less than 1500 years apart from Ust Ishim should be considered as East Eurasian as well.

P.S. By the way Karaphet's thesis is that the lineage P-RQ went back through South Asia to reach Central Asia so no need to explain not picking up K2a much less NO which might not have come into existence by this time.
But then there seems to have been a lot of K2a(not NO or X line but an extinct line) in the Eastern Europe-Central Asia belt at this time as Oase exemplifies, so there is no need to explain anything to begin with.

If Oase is K2a* that actually hurts your case. He does not appear to be descended from East or West Eurasians...that leads me to think that he and Ust-Ishim K2a* probably split off from the same source before East or West Eurasians existed. Which would be East/North Caspian area, around 50,000 years ago.

The K2a/K2b split appears to be ~50,000 years ago as well. So essentially K2a would be one crown Eurasian branch, K2b another (provided contact after divergence was limited)

malleus
08-28-2015, 04:01 PM
If Oase is K2a* that actually hurts your case. He does not appear to be descended from East or West Eurasians...that leads me to think that he and Ust-Ishim K2a* probably split off from the same source before East or West Eurasians existed.

His Y line is similar to Ust Ishim(identical up to valid calls) and he is closer to East Eurasians autosomally. Read what Davidsky had to say. He probably hates it as much as you do but he had to draw that conclusion.

Kale
08-28-2015, 06:30 PM
Chimp Oase 1 HanB DinkaB -0.0260 -27.100 112207
Chimp Oase 1 HanB MbutiB -0.0390 -40.000 112206
Chimp Oase 1 HanB YorubaB -0.0310 -33.700 112207
Chimp Oase 1 Kostenki14 DinkaB -0.0260 -24.900 105156
Chimp Oase 1 Kostenki14 MbutiB -0.0390 -34.700 105160
Chimp Oase 1 Kostenki14 YorubaB -0.0310 -29.400 105169
Chimp Oase 1 LaBrana DinkaB -0.0260 -24.100 107976
Chimp Oase 1 LaBrana MbutiB -0.0380 -34.500 107976
Chimp Oase 1 LaBrana YorubaB -0.0310 -29.200 107988
Chimp Oase 1 Loschbour DinkaB -0.0250 -25.100 111220
Chimp Oase 1 Loschbour MbutiB -0.0370 -37.000 111207
Chimp Oase 1 Loschbour YorubaB -0.0290 -30.900 111229
Chimp Oase 1 MA1 DinkaB -0.0260 -22.500 81018
Chimp Oase 1 MA1 MbutiB -0.0390 -32.500 81016
Chimp Oase 1 MA1 YorubaB -0.0310 -27.300 81023
Chimp Oase 1 Ust_Ishim DinkaB -0.0240 -24.900 111997
Chimp Oase 1 Ust'-Ishim MbutiB -0.0370 -36.100 111996
Chimp Oase 1 Ust'-Ishim YorubaB -0.0290 -29.500 112009

Shared drift with HanB, Kostenki, MA1, and La Brana are essentially all equal. Loschbour and Ust-Ishim are equally less related than the others.

malleus
08-28-2015, 07:29 PM
Shared drift with HanB, Kostenki, MA1, and La Brana are essentially all equal. Loschbour and Ust-Ishim are equally less related than the others.

HanB is a modern population and would have drifted more all else being equal.
And you assume that Kostenki and MA1 can be used as securely "West Eurasian" and that is very amateur.

I actually knew about this but intentionally omitted mentioning it because I knew your tendency.

everest59
08-28-2015, 10:17 PM
Post Chimp, Oase1, European, African for better comparison with Han. [meaning modern European..I agree with Malleus]

Gravetto-Danubian
08-28-2015, 10:40 PM
His Y line is similar to Ust Ishim(identical up to valid calls) and he is closer to East Eurasians autosomally. Read what Davidsky had to say. He probably hates it as much as you do but he had to draw that conclusion.

All these things are also discussed in the original papers. I thought that UI is not more "East eurasian", hut he's a dead line. Paradoxically, Oase is somewhat closer to asians than europeans.
So clealry we're not looking a simple, neat trees, but complex admixtures in early, low density, highly mobile groups.

alan
08-28-2015, 11:13 PM
First, there is little, if any, evidence of this [my highlight].

Second, it has be rapid per the mtDNA phylogeny, especially as we have to get humans to Australia 50000yp, which would have to be instantaneous from 48000bc Levant.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7564/images/nature14558-sf1.jpg

There is too much uncertainty about exact archaeological date and genetic dates to know if there are a spare couple of thousand years or not. I did say thought that K2 could have split. I am absolutely convinced of the Levant-Iran-Uzbek-Siberia-China-Mongolia route c. 45000-40000BC. It is absolutely farcical from an archaeological point of view to trace Siberians like Ust Ishm and similar Initial upper palaeolithic remains in Siberia and nearby from SE Asia. The flint technology was clearly man at a point in time when the shift from Levallois technique (used by Neanderthals but also modern humans) was transforming to an upper palaeolithic core and flake system. The origin can only be in areas where the Levallois technique was known and that doesnt include east Asia (it includes Europe, Africa, south-west Asia). It also is important that this particular technology originates in an area where modern humans used these techniques and that firmly points to the Emiran of Levant shortly after 50000BC. Its simply impossible that this came from south-east Asia for many many reasons. Its pretty clear that ONE of the trails (of which Ust Ishm was an early member in Siberia) was a Levant-Iran-north Stans-southcentral Siberia-Baikal/NWChina/north Monglia, probably with the trail from one end to the other starting before 45000BC and reaching its end by 40000BC.

That doesnt mean it impossible that some K2 ALSO turned east from SW Asia at some time similar or even earlier and followed a southern coastal route. As I have said several times, the southern route once you get much east of Iran you soon hit the Bamboo belt (certainly by India) where tools would probably have been made of Bamboo and it all becomes invisible except for crude flints used to cut bamboo.

alan
08-28-2015, 11:27 PM
The realisation that bamboo was the main material for tools in south Asian coastal and island zones from India eastwards was a stroke of genius because archaeologists were baffled by the crude flint tools that persisted throughout that area for a huge period. However it is a major headache for archaeologists leaving only really basic flints, hearths and the odd bone or two to interpret origins from. This is the bamboo zone.

http://www.eeob.iastate.edu/research/bamboo/maps/world-total-woody.gif

While it is in theory possible that a very quick move by hunters could have been made along the south coast before retreat and that this is masked by the bamboo invisibility cloak, this would require them to have given up their flint technology, substituted it with bamboo then returned to west Asia and take up making flint tools again and making them identically to those of their ancestors. That seems impossible (there were very specific techniques) unless it happened in one lifetime. I suppose in theory a tribe could have headed east for a decade then a section retreated back west within the next decade (life spans were not long).

malleus
08-28-2015, 11:37 PM
Post Chimp, Oase1, European, African for better comparison with Han. [meaning modern European..I agree with Malleus]

All these things are also discussed in the original papers. I thought that UI is not more "East Eurasian", hut he's a dead line. Paradoxically, Oase is somewhat closer to Asians than Europeans.
So clearly we're not looking a simple, neat trees, but complex admixtures in early, low density, highly mobile groups.

Both Oase and Ust-Ishim are closer to East Eurasians than modern Europeans(thus even more distant from Near Easterners presumably).

In the case of Ust-Ishim however the paper argued that it is due to the Basal Eurasian elements in modern Europeans and Ust-Ishim is not particularly closer to either when those elements are removed.
However there were a number of people who found fault with that interpretation and claimed that when all the corrections are made Ust Ishim still pulled closer to East Eurasians.
Later Ust-Ishim was found to carry both paternal and maternal line whose distant collateral descendants are found among East Asians primarily.

In the case of Oase the paper could not account for him being closer to East Eurasians with a similar argument(as I remember Oase himself had quite a bit of Basal) and declared that he is just a dead end without any or many descendants among Europeans.

In this forum it is taken for granted that WHG and ANE are West Eurasians but the original authors were somewhat ambivalent as to which should be designated as West Eurasians.
If you see WHG and ANE as West Eurasians then "West Eurasian" becomes paraphyletic and the calculation of divergence time between East and West Eurasians becomes dependent on the choice of reference populations.
You can remove "Basal Eurasians" and get a more consistent divergence time but then you are removing perhaps majority components in many North African and Near Eastern populations who are by common usage of the word "West Eurasians".

alan
08-28-2015, 11:50 PM
Both Oase and Ust-Ishim are closer to East Eurasians than modern Europeans(thus even more distant from Near Easterners presumably).

In the case of Ust-Ishim however the paper argued that it is due to the Basal Eurasian elements in modern Europeans and Ust-Ishim is not particularly closer to either when those elements are removed.
However there were a number of people who found fault with that interpretation and claimed that when all the corrections are made Ust Ishim still pulled closer to East Eurasians.
Later Ust-Ishim was found to carry both paternal and maternal line whose distant collateral descendants are found among East Asians primarily.

In the case of Oase the paper could not account for him being closer to East Eurasians with a similar argument(as I remember Oase himself had quite a bit of Basal) and declared that he is just a dead end without any or many descendants among Europeans.

In this forum it is taken for granted that WHG and ANE are West Eurasians but the original authors were somewhat ambivalent as to which should be designated as West Eurasians.
If you see WHG and ANE as West Eurasians then "West Eurasian" becomes paraphyletic and the calculation of divergence time between East and West Eurasians becomes dependent on the choice of reference populations.
You can remove "Basal Eurasians" and get a more consistent divergence time but then you are removing perhaps majority components in many North African and Near Eastern populations who are by common usage of the word "West Eurasians".

I firmly believe that ANE did emerge in the Altai sort of area, spread through an area largely east of Altai (Baikal, NW China, north Mongolia) so in a sense geographical sense it is practically east Asia or on the interface between central and east Asia. I also think it remained in that area for 10s of thousands of years and didnt spread west until after 10000BC. It appears to have been a distinct group and is pretty well IDed in archaeological terms thanks to Mal'ta boy (culture he was in was a developed version of the early Siberian culture and lasted c. 30000-22000BC) before the people retreated into the Altai refuge and took a major part in developing microblades during the LGM. AG2 suggests that the same basic ANE people existed right up to 10000BC in the same area.

parasar
08-29-2015, 12:07 AM
There is too much uncertainty about exact archaeological date and genetic dates to know if there are a spare couple of thousand years or not. I did say thought that K2 could have split. I am absolutely convinced of the Levant-Iran-Uzbek-Siberia-China-Mongolia route c. 45000-40000BC. It is absolutely farcical from an archaeological point of view to trace Siberians like Ust Ishm and similar Initial upper palaeolithic remains in Siberia and nearby from SE Asia. The flint technology was clearly man at a point in time when the shift from Levallois technique (used by Neanderthals but also modern humans) was transforming to an upper palaeolithic core and flake system. The origin can only be in areas where the Levallois technique was known and that doesnt include east Asia (it includes Europe, Africa, south-west Asia). It also is important that this particular technology originates in an area where modern humans used these techniques and that firmly points to the Emiran of Levant shortly after 50000BC. Its simply impossible that this came from south-east Asia for many many reasons. Its pretty clear that ONE of the trails (of which Ust Ishm was an early member in Siberia) was a Levant-Iran-north Stans-southcentral Siberia-Baikal/NWChina/north Monglia, probably with the trail from one end to the other starting before 45000BC and reaching its end by 40000BC.

That doesnt mean it impossible that some K2 ALSO turned east from SW Asia at some time similar or even earlier and followed a southern coastal route. As I have said several times, the southern route once you get much east of Iran you soon hit the Bamboo belt (certainly by India) where tools would probably have been made of Bamboo and it all becomes invisible except for crude flints used to cut bamboo.

So essentially you cannot track the flint going east-southeast. Are you saying bamboo was an advanced innovation?

alan
08-29-2015, 12:18 AM
Its probably important to note that ANE probably didnt develop until some time after the culture we see in Altai-Baikal-NW China-Mongolia arrived c. 45000-40000BC. I actually suspect ANE may have evolved when there was a relatively depressed period in this area and a climate downturn in the 30000sBC and had likely fully developed by the next phase (climate upturn) in what was the called the middle upper Palaeolithic which occurred a little before 30000BC and of which Mal'ta was a late representative. I feel very sure that the distribution of this culture probably represents an autosomal grouping. In Siberian/Russian terms this is pretty well confined between Altai and Baikal. Its unknown if the Russia far east/eastermost Siberia. The area as the LGM got very intense around the time Mal'ta boy lived was largely retreated from, apparently towards Altai. IMO as a result ANE might have been concentrated into one small area around Altai during the LGM and unknown elsewhere.

malleus
08-29-2015, 12:38 AM
...That doesnt mean it impossible that some K2 ALSO turned east from SW Asia at some time similar or even earlier and followed a southern coastal route. As I have said several times, the southern route once you get much east of Iran you soon hit the Bamboo belt (certainly by India) where tools would probably have been made of Bamboo and it all becomes invisible except for crude flints used to cut bamboo.

Initially I just laughed off and said "Not again" but I am truly amazed by this multitude of seemingly educated people who have complete disregard for parsimony when they put out a "scientific" theory.
I have to wonder whether their training was in science(in the broad sense including Archaeology etc.) or they just majored in humanity or some bogus social science and are just hobby-scientists.


The downstream nature of P-RQ implies that for his theory to hold

1. many, perhaps several tens of K2 lineages, made journey to the East while no other lineages present in that area did(or they just so conveniently became extinct as they went East).
2. Either P-RQ was the only line that remained there or all the other K2 lineages became extinct, just so conveniently.

This would have been possible if non-P-RQ K2 guys had had stamps on their foreheads telling them to "Go East" and P-RQ guys, "Stay Here" stamps on their buttocks.(you would have needed a mirror to see that divine instruction though)
K2 guys must have formed a Brotherly Band of Eastern Journey and forbade K2b2a(aka P-RQ See how downstream this is?) guys to join them.

alan
08-29-2015, 12:43 AM
So essentially you cannot track the flint going east-southeast. Are you saying bamboo was an advanced innovation?

I wouldnt say it was advanced per se but it was simply a gift that noone would have refused as it is a brilliant material for making tools. Apparently the bamboo zone is also poor in flint sources. So it was a perfect storm that meant that a move to bamboo made sense with stone tool relegated to basic uses like cutting the bamboo, chopping etc. It explains what was otherwise baffling - the extremely undeveloped crude flintwork in this bamboo zone. Of course this is a logical deduction although hard direct evidence for 40-50000 years old bamboo tools isnt likely to come to light too often. While archaeologists can track humans through bones, hearths etc, the flint tools are the main way of tracking origins and cultural identities in this period so the likely use of bamboo removes the main tool. That basically leaves only ancient DNA.

It does seem very likely that the southern coastal route east was used c. 50000BC or just after and perhaps a subset of K2 was among them but the use of the northern route from SW Asia then west to east through Siberia is very very well attested, its origin in south-west Asia is very clear in its technology and Ust Ishm is one of those people. As I have posted before, the Bohunician in Europe represents another thrust from Levant c. 47000BC, apparently derived from the Emiran whose technology it shares and similar too to the Siberian thrust 2000 years later. So humans were heading out of this Levant Emiran group (whose technology had evolved by c. 50000BC) in both a north-west and a north-east direction. There is no southern coastal trail of this technology BUT whether that is real or due to the use of bamboo is not clear to me. It is theoretically possible that the southern group could have also come from this Emiran Levantine group but it is also possible that the coastal route was used by a different pocket of modern humans elsewhere in SW Asia. Of course both may be true. Damn that bamboo :-(

alan
08-29-2015, 12:55 AM
Initially I just laughed off and said "Not again" but I am truly amazed by this multitude of seemingly educated people who have complete disregard for parsimony when they put out a "scientific" theory.
I have to wonder whether their training was in science(in the broad sense including Archaeology etc.) or they just majored in humanity or some bogus social science and are just hobby-scientists.


The downstream nature of P-RQ implies that for his theory to hold

1. many, perhaps several tens of K2 lineages, made journey to the East while no other lineages present in that area did(or they just so conveniently became extinct as they went East).
2. Either P-RQ was the only line that remained there or all the other K2 lineages became extinct, just so conveniently.

This would have been possible if non-P-RQ K2 guys had had stamps on their foreheads telling them to "Go East" and P-RQ guys, "Stay Here" stamps on their buttocks.(you would have needed a mirror to see that divine instruction though)
K2 guys must have formed a Brotherly Band of Eastern Journey and forbade K2b2a(aka P-RQ See how downstream this is?) guys to join them.

Trying to imply past movements c. 50000 years ago from modern populations is by far the most unscientific approach in ancient human population movement studies. Its been shown time and time again that y DNA can utterly change within 5000 years, never mind 50000. Modern DNA is often proven to be totally misleading. Europe is full of R1b today but probably didnt even enter Europe until less than 12000 years ago and apparently was unknown (except stray Neolithic V88s) in Europe outside the steppes until 5000 years ago. So if you are going to look at pseudo-science then look at the practice of looking at modern DNA as a proxy for 50000 years ago. Its totally discredited. Look for example at Mal'ta R. Basal branches off R is pretty well unknown in this area today. At least archaeology and ancient DNA is hard evidence i.e. hard science. Back projecting modern DNA as a proxy for 50000 years ago is nonsense. Its like horoscopes - entertaining but totally made up.

Ebizur
08-29-2015, 01:18 AM
Both Oase and Ust-Ishim are closer to East Eurasians than modern Europeans(thus even more distant from Near Easterners presumably).

In the case of Ust-Ishim however the paper argued that it is due to the Basal Eurasian elements in modern Europeans and Ust-Ishim is not particularly closer to either when those elements are removed.
However there were a number of people who found fault with that interpretation and claimed that when all the corrections are made Ust Ishim still pulled closer to East Eurasians.
Later Ust-Ishim was found to carry both paternal and maternal line whose distant collateral descendants are found among East Asians primarily.


...

In this forum it is taken for granted that WHG and ANE are West Eurasians but the original authors were somewhat ambivalent as to which should be designated as West Eurasians.
If you see WHG and ANE as West Eurasians then "West Eurasian" becomes paraphyletic and the calculation of divergence time between East and West Eurasians becomes dependent on the choice of reference populations.
You can remove "Basal Eurasians" and get a more consistent divergence time but then you are removing perhaps majority components in many North African and Near Eastern populations who are by common usage of the word "West Eurasians".Viewing the Y-DNA and mtDNA of the Ust'-Ishim specimen as "Eastern Eurasian" introduces its own set of problems, though.

His pre-B and pre-X'NO haplogroups are most closely related to certain haplogroups (mtDNA B, Y-DNA O) that are generally associated with modern Eastern Eurasians. However, both his Y-DNA and his mtDNA are derived from the same roots as those haplogroups that are found frequently among modern Western Eurasians (every derivative of F-M89 except K2-M526 and F2-M427 on the Y-DNA side and every derivative of R except macro-B and macro-F, plus macro-P if one wishes to include Oceanians as Eastern Eurasians, on the mtDNA side). In addition to those haplogroups that are derived from the same roots as haplogroups that are common among Western Eurasians, Eastern Eurasian populations also contain many Y-DNA D and C and mtDNA M and N(xR) lineages that are not closely related to anything found among Western Eurasians. In other words, haploid DNA makes Eastern Eurasians (and not Western Eurasians) appear to be paraphyletic/hybrid, as opposed to the "Basal Eurasian" theory grounded in comparison of autosomal DNA that portrays Western Eurasians as paraphyletic/hybrid.

If you had a Palaeolithic specimen from the same population as Ust'-Ishim that carried Y-DNA C or D and mtDNA (pre-)N9, (pre-)A, or any sort of M, then I think everyone would concede that his population could meaningfully be described as "(proto-)Eastern Eurasian."

malleus
08-29-2015, 01:58 AM
Viewing the Y-DNA and mtDNA of the Ust'-Ishim specimen as "Eastern Eurasian" introduces its own set of problems, though.

I was talking about the phylogeny proposed by Reich et al., which is about the whole genome.
You cannot treat "Basal Eurasians" as insignificant something without going vastly against the common notion of the word "West Eurasians".

Since C1 was abundant among pre historic Europeans who were autosomally West Eurasians, your "problem" applies to Europeans as well.
And then there comes E and West Eurasians are just as paraphyletic even in the Y tree.

Your notion that the intial East Eurasians were mainly of Y lineage C and D and of maternal lineage M is a conjecture that seems to be wrong and "wronger" by day in light of new evidences. It actually had no chance to begin with as it was too simplistic and was so plainly and obviously geared toward satisfying European desire of wanting to see their people as a coherent common descent group.

Ebizur
08-29-2015, 04:57 AM
O2a, nearly 20 percent among some Southern Chinese groups(as well as being common among Yangtze river ancient remains) is completely absent so far among 5000 SNP tested Koreans.(I am sure it will turn up at sometime in the future but it is extremely rare)(Some YSTR studies show it(Tanaka etc or was it Nonaka?) but they are more likely to be errors or perhaps very rare examples) Even in studies that had rare L1 or C1a1 or even Q-M25, O2a was still absent. A massive Chinese influx into the Korean male line seems like a comical fantasy of Japanese. "It is they who are mixed, not us" LOL But statistics is their worst enemies.

[off topic and derogatory text removed by moderator]The frequency of Y-DNA O-M95 varies greatly among different samples of modern Han Chinese. It has been found among Han Chinese mainly in the south of China, especially in Guangxi and Guangdong. This is most likely because O-M95 does not belong to the "ethnic core" of the Han Chinese, and the ancestors of modern Han Chinese males carrying this haplogroup have been assimilated by the ethnic ancestors of Han Chinese when these latter people have expanded and conquered the territory of the direct patrilineal ancestors of those O-M95-bearing males, who may previously have spoken a language akin to, for example, Vietnamese, Zhuang, or Hmong. Since this haplogroup is still extremely rare among Han people in northern China even today, it is not really relevant to determining the plausibility of a migration of Han Chinese from northern China to Korea approximately two thousand years ago.

By the way, it is rather many of the ancestors of modern Koreans who have claimed themselves to be descended from Chinese immigrants. Does your surname happen to be Yi/Lee/Rhee? Is that perhaps why you are so sensitive about this topic? Oh, you have been banned, so I suppose "malleus" will have to answer for you.


They posit that even O2b came from Southern China independently to Korea and Japan separately. I have even seen claims that it had come from Southeast Asia to Okinawa and to Japan and then to Korea. Japanese ancestors must have had such a keen sense of honor that they avoided, at all cost, that one place that their descendents would come to loathe with all their hearts.Sounds like psychological projection, which seems to infect much of your writing.

O2b has been a separate lineage from any other haplogroup for the past 27,600 to 34,000 years since its separation from the O2a lineage. The age of the O2b branch is only 2,400 to 5,000 years less than the age of the entire haplogroup O-M175. I see no reason why O2b should be considered to have come from southern China or Southeast Asia at any time.


By the way C2-M217 is higher among Japanese than southern Chinese. It was that way in the studies done earlier by Western scientists-Hammer Underhill etc. and even Li Jin. But most studies coming out today have very elevated levels of C2-M217 sometimes exceeding the Korean percentage(12-13 percent for South Koreans. The lowest in Jeju island - 7 percent and the highest in PyongAn province at 23 percent).

Curiously Jeju island, long suspected of being influenced by Mongols, and Hamkyong Province suspected of Jurchen influence, show very little evidence of elevated C2 level.What are you going on about here? It is difficult to understand what you want to say. Are you trying to say that recent studies of Han Chinese have found elevated levels of C2-M217, or that recent studies of Japanese have found elevated levels of C2-M217?

The average frequency of C2-M217 Y-DNA among modern Koreans is approximately 14%. The average frequency of C2-M217 Y-DNA is approximately 14% among Han Chinese in North China and approximately 7% among Han Chinese in South China. The average frequency of C2-M217 Y-DNA among modern Japanese is approximately 2% (mainly because of the occurrence of this haplogroup in residents of Kyūshū; it has been completely absent from many samples of Japanese from other regions of the country). It is as frequent among Han Chinese in South China as it is among Japanese in Kyūshū, the only region of Japan in which this haplogroup is reasonably common. Its distribution extends with roughly the same frequency southward into Vietnam, so South China cannot be considered the southern limit of its distribution.

Anyway, it has been known for more than a decade already that East/Southeast Asian C-M217 is not closely related to (most cases of) C-M217 in North Asia. There may have been some significant movement of southerly C-M217 types to some neighboring parts of North Asia (e.g. Buryatia, Altai-Sayan upland), but movement in the opposite direction seems to have been quite limited (at least since the spread of F1396-derived types in North Asia).

Kale
08-29-2015, 01:37 PM
HanB is a modern population and would have drifted more all else being equal.
And you assume that Kostenki and MA1 can be used as securely "West Eurasian" and that is very amateur.

I actually knew about this but intentionally omitted mentioning it because I knew your tendency.

Of course...that also means...
La Brana is Australian - MbutiPygmy Australian La_Brana-1 Ust'-Ishim 0.0065 0.980
The French are Papuan - MbutiPygmy French Papuan Ust'-Ishim 0.0019 0.442
And omg I'm not even going to list all the stats for Hadza, just know they are Papuan, Dai, Native American, WHG, and ANE.

Age does not effect D-stats at any meaningful level.

Undifferentiated East Eurasian, has no preference between West Eurasians, 37kyo, or 7kyo.
Chimp Ust_Ishim Loschbour Kostenki14 -0.0039 -0.497 15605 15485 328923

parasar
08-29-2015, 01:50 PM
Viewing the Y-DNA and mtDNA of the Ust'-Ishim specimen as "Eastern Eurasian" introduces its own set of problems, though.

His pre-B and pre-X'NO haplogroups are most closely related to certain haplogroups (mtDNA B, Y-DNA O) that are generally associated with modern Eastern Eurasians. However, both his Y-DNA and his mtDNA are derived from the same roots as those haplogroups that are found frequently among modern Western Eurasians (every derivative of F-M89 except K2-M526 and F2-M427 on the Y-DNA side and every derivative of R except macro-B and macro-F, plus macro-P if one wishes to include Oceanians as Eastern Eurasians, on the mtDNA side). In addition to those haplogroups that are derived from the same roots as haplogroups that are common among Western Eurasians, Eastern Eurasian populations also contain many Y-DNA D and C and mtDNA M and N(xR) lineages that are not closely related to anything found among Western Eurasians. In other words, haploid DNA makes Eastern Eurasians (and not Western Eurasians) appear to be paraphyletic/hybrid, as opposed to the "Basal Eurasian" theory grounded in comparison of autosomal DNA that portrays Western Eurasians as paraphyletic/hybrid.

If you had a Palaeolithic specimen from the same population as Ust'-Ishim that carried Y-DNA C or D and mtDNA (pre-)N9, (pre-)A, or any sort of M, then I think everyone would concede that his population could meaningfully be described as "(proto-)Eastern Eurasian."

Could you expand on that - are you including South Asia in West Eurasia?
Also we should be looking at phylogeny rather that frequency.

parasar
08-29-2015, 01:54 PM
Of course...that also means...
La Brana is Australian - MbutiPygmy Australian La_Brana-1 Ust'-Ishim 0.0065 0.980
The French are Papuan - MbutiPygmy French Papuan Ust'-Ishim 0.0019 0.442
...

Both of these look correct.

malleus
08-29-2015, 01:59 PM
...In other words, haploid DNA makes Eastern Eurasians (and not Western Eurasians) appear to be paraphyletic/hybrid,

You probably meant "polyphyletic". And even a polyphyletic haploid DNA profile of population does not imply admixture unless you assume that they got each component from a different population by admixture.
"paraphyletic" means even less of it.
If there were pre-existing populations that had Y haplogroup C or D and they mixed with the incoming K2 folk, there should be a signature as it is unrealistic to assume they all admixed uniformly.(much like Basal Eurasians were deduced)

And what is the point of assigning Y haplogroup F to being West Eurasian? when it is being argued whether it is meaningful to argue about the same for K2.

malleus
08-29-2015, 02:48 PM
...

Since you claimed that Koreans reside in a frequency gradient between Japanese and Chinese due to admixture and Japanese had not stabilized to the current form in their DNA profile well into the historical period the Chinese you are referring to must be Han Chinese of fairly late dates and it is natural to assume that they harbored a fair amount of O2a-PK4.

Lathdrinor
09-02-2015, 10:59 PM
Hammer and Underhill's data showed indeed nearly 20 percent.
For instance "Paternal Population History of East Asia: Sources, Patterns,and Microevolutionary Processes"
12/40=30 percent.



That is not science. The sample size is too small, 9. Even including "historical" 15.
Just to the west 2/4 Wucheng men had O2a.

This is highly ironic. A sample of 40 from Underhill is "significant" but 15 is not? While at the same time, Yan et. al's sample size of 361 is completely ignored? Studies from northern and eastern China have overwhelmingly proven that O2a has a tiny distribution in the area. Are you sure you're "up to date" with the research?



Actually that scenario does not match the current distribution. It is high in some coastal areas and Viets have a lot of it too and they migrated from the coastal region in historical time.

There is no evidence that the Vietnamese migrated from the coastal region in China in historical times. As to arguments about other coastal regions, Southeast Asia's coast is further west of the rest of East Asia and is in fact immediately south of the region in China in which O2a is highest. Not exactly difficult to see why it'd be there.



Why? because it was not done by "patriotic Chinese"?


No, because the sample size is small.


Actually the highest frequency of C2e(so far known) is in Northwest Korea at nearly 20 percent.

When your sampling is limited to one individual area of one moderate/small country, obvious selection bias, genetic drift, bottleneck/founder effects, etc. come into play. Even a well-defined cline is capable of having hills and troughs along the way. This is basic population genetics. It doesn't change the fact that C2e is found in around the same % in Koreans as in northern Chinese and both much higher than Japanese, Southeast Asians, etc. The present cline is so obvious as to defy argument and while that does not prove that the expansion was from the center of the cline, it is still the best hypothetical model lacking ancient DNA evidence.


OMG. You are soooo out of sinc with recent advances in this field. I am not even going to respond. Those who don't see why you are wrong, how you are wrong and how much you are wrong probably are not interested in this field anyway.

How recent can you be when you prefer to cite low sample studies from 1990-2010 over those from the last five years?

Lathdrinor
09-02-2015, 11:09 PM
O2a is currently defined by PK4 and it is still lacking among Koreans.
For him to subtract O2a-PK4(xM95) from O2a-PK4(Yan 2011) to get O2a-M95 is a borderline fraud.
Why would he stoop so low just to prove that Koreans are hybrids between Han Chinese and Japanese? No one knows.
The correct figure is 9.2 percent for southern Chinese even according to Yan's study.
On the other hand Karaphet 2010 has 6.5+5.5=12 percent for China as a whole(M95). At least a couple percent more for PK4.

How were we supposed to know which O2a you were talking about, Hector? All of the studies you cited earlier were tested for M95. PK4 was re-classified as O2a only recently. But even accounting for PK4 the total amount is tiny in northern and eastern Chinese. Only southern Chinese have ~10% O2a and this disparity could only be the result of an enduring failure of PK4 and its descendants to expand significantly north and east from its initial locus and indeed, the very low % of it in Taiwanese aborigines on average coupled with complete absence in most Taiwanese aboriginal tribal groups show just that - at the time when Taiwan was first populated by Austronesians, O2a had not yet reached the coast.

Such a geographically limited haplogroup says very little, in fact, about anything with regards to population migrations elsewhere especially when its own expansion history is not known in detail. With no early samples from Southeast Asia and most of southern China and such low levels of PK4 in northern and eastern China, it is ridiculous to consider it a diagnostic marker of population migration in those areas, which is what you did. That is not science, it is wishful thinking, which ironically is what you accuse others of doing when they disagree with your pet theories.

At best, the practical absence of O2a both in its M95 and PK4 variety in Korea show that there was little/no migration of groups from the Guangdong/Guangxi/Jiangxi area to Korea in the last few thousand years as M95 and PK4 must have been established by then. Further north, east, and west, all calls are off.

Lathdrinor
09-03-2015, 12:19 AM
Viewing the Y-DNA and mtDNA of the Ust'-Ishim specimen as "Eastern Eurasian" introduces its own set of problems, though.

His pre-B and pre-X'NO haplogroups are most closely related to certain haplogroups (mtDNA B, Y-DNA O) that are generally associated with modern Eastern Eurasians. However, both his Y-DNA and his mtDNA are derived from the same roots as those haplogroups that are found frequently among modern Western Eurasians (every derivative of F-M89 except K2-M526 and F2-M427 on the Y-DNA side and every derivative of R except macro-B and macro-F, plus macro-P if one wishes to include Oceanians as Eastern Eurasians, on the mtDNA side). In addition to those haplogroups that are derived from the same roots as haplogroups that are common among Western Eurasians, Eastern Eurasian populations also contain many Y-DNA D and C and mtDNA M and N(xR) lineages that are not closely related to anything found among Western Eurasians. In other words, haploid DNA makes Eastern Eurasians (and not Western Eurasians) appear to be paraphyletic/hybrid, as opposed to the "Basal Eurasian" theory grounded in comparison of autosomal DNA that portrays Western Eurasians as paraphyletic/hybrid.

If you had a Palaeolithic specimen from the same population as Ust'-Ishim that carried Y-DNA C or D and mtDNA (pre-)N9, (pre-)A, or any sort of M, then I think everyone would concede that his population could meaningfully be described as "(proto-)Eastern Eurasian."

Modern West Eurasians also have a variety of haplogroups that are not closely related to anything found among East Eurasians such as E and G. Even IJ would fit the bill. Both West and East Eurasians are and will ultimately prove to be paraphyletic though I suppose the "pissing contest" for a few is about degree ie whether the shared link K2* was "East Eurasian" or "West Eurasian." A minor issue at best and certainly not a very scientific problem. And somehow the tiny sample size of 2-3 Paleolithic individuals sequenced never seems to matter here. It's as though Oases and Ust-Ishim were not two highly mobile hunter-gatherers with no known descendants but the representative source of all Eurasians.

malleus
09-03-2015, 02:22 AM
This is highly ironic. A sample of 40 from Underhill is "significant" but 15 is not? While at the same time, Yan et. al's sample size of 361 is completely ignored? ...

Yan's Southern Chinese sample size was 65, not 361. 361 was for the entire Chinese Han.
On the other Karaphet's(2010, just 1 year earlier) sample size was 165.
361 does not guarantee more reliability than 165 especially when it shows the persistent pattern of difference with non-Chinese studies.

Ebizur
09-03-2015, 09:29 AM
Modern West Eurasians also have a variety of haplogroups that are not closely related to anything found among East Eurasians such as E and G. Even IJ would fit the bill. Both West and East Eurasians are and will ultimately prove to be paraphyletic though I suppose the "pissing contest" for a few is about degree ie whether the shared link K2* was "East Eurasian" or "West Eurasian." A minor issue at best and certainly not a very scientific problem. And somehow the tiny sample size of 2-3 Paleolithic individuals sequenced never seems to matter here. It's as though Oases and Ust-Ishim were not two highly mobile hunter-gatherers with no known descendants but the representative source of all Eurasians.By far the majority of diversity within Y-DNA haplogroup E is found in African populations, and the presence of the E1b1b-M215 branch of that clade among modern Western Eurasians apparently reflects some amount of ancient gene flow from an African population into one of the primary ancestral populations of Western Eurasians (probably the Early Neolithic Farmers who have subsequently spread from Southwest Asia). I have not seen any evidence to support a hypothesis that E1b1b-M215 (let alone haplogroup E as a whole) is Western Eurasian in origin; the DE ancestor of haplogroup E might have been Eurasian in origin, but haplogroup E itself seems to be squarely African. In contrast, Y-DNA haplogroup D seems to stand a better chance of having been an integral part of the Eastern Eurasian population since its origin, though it is of course possible that extant representatives of D-M174 in Eastern Eurasians may reflect ancient gene flow from some population that no longer exists in pure form (in which case it would be qualitatively parallel to the presence of E-M215 in Western Eurasians except for the fact that relatively unadmixed Africans still exist; I suppose some people might argue that Andamanese should be considered as relatively unadmixed modern representatives of such a population).

I do not see why you think Y-DNA haplogroup G-M201 should be counted as a counterexample. It is a branch of F-M89, and like all other branches of that haplogroup (except K2-M526(xR-M207) and F2-M427 as I have mentioned in my previous comment), it is found (mostly) among Western Eurasians.

Haplogroup IJ-M429, too, is found almost exclusively among Western Eurasians. If K2-M526 is originally ENA in origin, why does the ENA population not contain any other descendant of F-M89 (besides the poorly researched F2-M427 that has been found with greatest frequency among the Lahu people of Yunnan)? That seems unlikely except in a scenario in which one assumes that Western Eurasians are paraphyletic vis-Ó-vis ENAs (i.e. ENAs, whose original Y-DNA is assumed to be K2-M526, are essentially one branch of Western Eurasians, and all other Y-DNA found among modern ENA populations reflects subsequent gene flow from (now essentially extinct?) exotic populations that are basal to the Western Eurasian clade; modern Western Eurasians as they are commonly known would therefore better be labeled as Western Eurasian(xENA)).

In summary, since Western Eurasian E-M215 seems quite securely to reflect African gene flow/introgression, the Western Eurasian population would be left with only F-M89 for its Y-DNA if not for the recent discovery of C1a2-V20. In that case, the presence of K2-M526 in the ENA population would seem to reflect either (1) gene flow/introgression from Western Eurasians (this would certainly have happened prior to the influx of African E-M215 or its immediate ancestor to Western Eurasia) or (2) an origin of the ENA population in one subset of Western Eurasians.

An alternative hypothesis that ENA and Western Eurasian have not become separate populations until after the origin of haplogroup K-M9, and that K2-M526 is an ENA branch parallel to Western Eurasian K1-L298, while hypothetical ENA branches of IJ-M429, H-L901, and G-M201 are all assumed to have gone extinct, would seem to be a bit lacking of parsimony.

In any case, the origin of K2-M526 is of great antiquity (about 50,000 YBP as per Fu et al. 2014), and not really relevant to questions of the origins of modern ethnic groups, language families, and cultural spheres that are much more interesting IMHO. I think we agree on that point.

P.S. This will be my last post on this site so long as a notorious sockpuppet is given free rein to make irrelevant and inappropriate comments regarding members of other fora who have never posted here.

Lathdrinor
09-04-2015, 01:08 AM
I was not even going to respond but this part typifies his usual way of distortion so well that it has an overall high comical value.

Yan's Southern Chinese sample size was 65, not 361. 361 was for the entire Chinese Han.
On the other Karaphet's(2010, just 1 year earlier) sample size was 165.
361 does not guarantee more reliability than 165 especially when it shows the persistent pattern of difference with non-Chinese studies.

Sigh, you're not very good at this "troll/flame bait" method.

This is what you said:


Hammer and Underhill's data showed indeed nearly 20 percent. For instance "Paternal Population History of East Asia: Sources, Patterns,and Microevolutionary Processes" 12/40=30 percent.

You were quoting Karafet 2001's Southern Han sample, not Karafet 2010's Total Han sample. You say that other people are comical, but the sampling procedure from Karafet 2010 is especially comical when used to stand for "Chinese". Here it is:

5790

Her "Southern Han" samples are from Guangdong, the center of O2a distribution in China, as opposed to being averaged across southern provinces as per Yan 2011. Now, I am fairly sure that her 2001 "Han" samples are identical to her 2010 samples, because both samples consist of ~165 individuals and ~19 O2a*. Sample collection in China isn't Karafet's field and it certainly wasn't her research in 2010, so it's understandable that she reused data from an earlier collaborative paper with Chinese scholars. So let us look at her 2001 sample, where it explicitly states:

"Southern Han (Sha)" 12/40. In the same article, "Northern Han (Nha)" 1/44, "Taiwanese Han (Tha)" 6/82.

So, we find that Northern Han (Nha) has 2% O2a, Taiwanese Han have 7% O2a, while Guangdong Han have up to 30% O2a. This contradicts Yan 2011 according to you and shows reliability and inconsistency issues, even though Yan 2011's data exhibits the same distribution when controlled for the fact that it is not nearly as biased to one individual location eg Guangdong?

The very idea that Karafet, who relies on Chinese scholars to get her samples in the first place, has a firmer grasp on DNA testing in China than people such as Yan et. al is outright wishful thinking. Also, you are trying to use this one Guangdong sample of 40 people from 2001 to "prove" that there were no Chinese migrations to Korea, because for inexplicable cause Guangdong Chinese stands for all Chinese where migration is concerned, and only people in Guangdong ever decide to migrate to other regions. The leap in logic is absurd. To top it all off, Karafet's Northern Han (Nha) sample comes not from a distant northern border of China, but from Henan, at the very center of China, according to this map:

5791

Please, just stop. Such shoddy information analysis/cross-checking makes it very difficult for me to believe you actually care about anything beyond your agenda, whatever it is.

ren
09-13-2015, 09:07 AM
Even before the microlithic phase, NW China and northern Mongolia archaeologically belonged to the same middle upper palaeololithic culture as Mal'ta boy. There are some famous sites in both NW China and Mongolia with exactly the same material culture as Mal'ta Boy and his Siberian material culture. That corner of China and northern Mongolia were clearly more linked to the south-central Siberians from Altai to Transbaikal than they were to the remainder of China and Mongolia. They were almost certainly ANE like Mal'ta boy.

This seems rather a subjective, enthusiastic interpretation of objective facts, an interpretation which you have dangled around for a while now.

These 3 points below are what archaeologists generally agree on.
1. The post-ice age microblade tradition is a break from the pre-ice age traditions. The microblade tradition is associated with the repopulation of Siberia and can be seen gradually disappearing from the tool kits of Neolithic cultures that are clearly associated with East Eurasian peoples. The earliest fossils discovered with these microblades are osteologically “Mongoloid".
2. The Mal'ta Culture itself was an intrusionary culture very much unlike neighboring Siberian cultures and the Siberian cultures before Mal'ta.
3. The Central Asian and Siberian early Upper Paleoithic cultures are seen as independently and locally developing from the local Middle Paleolithic Levallois blade industry of the Neanderthals. They share the same characteristics as the early Upper Paleolithic blade technologies of SW Asia and Europe, yes, but this is because they are all initial UP technologies developed from the Middle Paleolithic Neanderthal technology.
4. And lastly, the migration of early Moderns from SW Asia should not be seen as the migration of "West Eurasian" people. Everyone came out of there on there way to the rest of the world from out of Africa.

The microblade tradition is associated with the repopulation of Siberia after the ice age and the hunt-based microblades slowly disappears into agricultural technologies, such as the Yanghsao Cuture, which is the ancestor of Sino-Tibetans, Chinese. It is a post-ice age technology that is well and densely spread in the temporal regions of eastern Asia and has a well-documented continuous development into the Neolithic cultures.

[hr]

Mal'ta and Kostenki in context (where he also has Basal Eurasian admixture?!!) should be re-mapped as Kostenki being pure West Eurasian (instead of it being WHG and Basal Eurasian, which is a made-up statistical ghost) and Mal'ta being an admixture, which goes well with the arcaheology of Mal'ta culture having intrusive European and South Asian characteristics.

Haak et al. is:

"The hypothesis of Basal Eurasian ancestry in Kostenki14 needs to be further tested, as the negative D(Mbuti, Han; Loschbour, Kostenki14) statistic could also reflect gene flow between Han<->Loschbour a priori plausible, as these populations are much younger than Kostenki14 and may share intra-Eurasian genetic drift that Kostenki14 lacks because of its age. The possibility of later gene flow between Europeans and eastern non-Africans must be further tested with additional ancient samples from Upper Paleolithic Europe and Asia."

What this above is saying is that either Kostenki 14 had Basal Eurasian admixture (that disappeared in later Europeans) or more parsimoniously, later European hunter-gatherers and Mal'ta boy had East Eurasian admixture. The Kostenki 14 genetic findings forces you to choose between two models.
A) West Eurasian and East Eurasians without ANE or Basal Eurasian, but with post-Kostenki Europeans and Mal'ta being admixed.
B) Kostenski is admixed with Basal Eurasian that later disappeared from WHG and then reappeared with farmers; Mal'ta boy and a hypothetical population of ANE are a pure population.

Moderator
09-15-2015, 11:32 AM
[MOD] Thread closed for clean-up.



P.S. This will be my last post on this site so long as a notorious sockpuppet is given free rein to make irrelevant and inappropriate comments regarding members of other fora who have never posted here.


Not a single report was filed by any members regarding this thread, which was randomly picked up just now. The administration cannot respond to situations it does not know are occurring. We expect our members to inform us of any problematic content on this site which violates our Terms of Service.

We ask our members to bear this in mind whenever problematic content arises. Our reliance on member feedback in this regard is irreplaceable. Thank you for your understanding.

Edit- re-opened. Reviewed. Further action will take place.

parasar
09-30-2015, 02:50 PM
I wouldnt say it was advanced per se but it was simply a gift that noone would have refused as it is a brilliant material for making tools. Apparently the bamboo zone is also poor in flint sources. So it was a perfect storm that meant that a move to bamboo made sense with stone tool relegated to basic uses like cutting the bamboo, chopping etc. It explains what was otherwise baffling - the extremely undeveloped crude flintwork in this bamboo zone. Of course this is a logical deduction although hard direct evidence for 40-50000 years old bamboo tools isnt likely to come to light too often. While archaeologists can track humans through bones, hearths etc, the flint tools are the main way of tracking origins and cultural identities in this period so the likely use of bamboo removes the main tool. That basically leaves only ancient DNA.

It does seem very likely that the southern coastal route east was used c. 50000BC or just after and perhaps a subset of K2 was among them but the use of the northern route from SW Asia then west to east through Siberia is very very well attested, its origin in south-west Asia is very clear in its technology and Ust Ishm is one of those people. As I have posted before, the Bohunician in Europe represents another thrust from Levant c. 47000BC, apparently derived from the Emiran whose technology it shares and similar too to the Siberian thrust 2000 years later. So humans were heading out of this Levant Emiran group (whose technology had evolved by c. 50000BC) in both a north-west and a north-east direction. There is no southern coastal trail of this technology BUT whether that is real or due to the use of bamboo is not clear to me. It is theoretically possible that the southern group could have also come from this Emiran Levantine group but it is also possible that the coastal route was used by a different pocket of modern humans elsewhere in SW Asia. Of course both may be true. Damn that bamboo :-(

alan,

Saw this posted at Eurogenes. It's in line with your thinking.
http://www.eshe.eu/static/eshe/files/PESHE/PESHE_4_2015_London.pdf
This presentation examines previously unpublished allele counts obtained from the French-San-Neanderthal-Chimpanzee alignment
of the high quality DNA sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains [1]. This analysis indicates the existence of an
unidentified third archaic ancestor of present-day Europeans, which diverged from its common ancestor with sub-Saharan Africans
and Neanderthals around 900 thousand years ago. It also shows that the relative proportions of derived alleles of Neanderthals versus
sub-Saharan Africans versus the third archaic ancestor, in the 0.0826% the European genome that is not shared with the common
ancestor of humans and chimpanzee, are 13.6%, 32.3% and 54.2%, respectively. In addition, analysis of the also unpublished allele
counts from the alignment of the 45 Kya fossil from Ust’-Ishim in western Siberia [2] and of the alignment of the 36.2 Kya Kostenki
14 (Markina Gora) fossil from Kostenki-Borshchevo in European Russia [3] show similar relative proportions, suggesting that these
individuals were closely related to the ancestor of present-day Europeans. These results differ significantly from previous estimates
of the proportion of Neanderthal ancestry in present-day Europeans which range from 1.3% to 2.7% [1, 4, 5]. This presentation
also identifies a mathematical error in the derivation of the admixture proportion estimators used to generate the previous estimates
which explains this difference. The analysis of the allele counts together with anthropological and archaeological evidence suggests
a new model of human dispersal based on a Eurasian lineage in the Levant, which admixed with Neanderthals between 250-55
Kya as they expanded eastward, and subsequently with members or descendants of the African mtDNA haplogroup L3 after their
emergence from Africa between 84-63 Kya. This was followed by radiation from a basal admixed population in the Levant from
around 55-50 Kya, with no subsequent major contribution to the European genome. Ancestors of the Ust’-Ishim individual, a
member of mtDNA haplogroup R, probably went northeast from the Levant into western Siberia around 47 Kya; and ancestors
of the Kostenki 14 individual, a member of mtDNA haplogroup U2, probably moved northward from the Levant into the Central
European Plain between 40-36 Kya. It is likely that other members of these hybrid populations with a morphology similar to
present-day Homo sapiens, including mtDNA haplogroups N, R, U, U2, U8 and JT, expanded westward into Europe along the
Danube and Mediterranean coast and replaced the already dwindling Neanderthal populations between 45-35 Kya, rather than
newly emerged sub-Saharan Africans as has been assumed. If this new model of human dispersal is correct, it has profound implications
for the interpretation of the anthropological and archaeological evidence, which has largely been framed within the Recent
Out-of-Africa model.
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Nick Patterson and David Reich for assistance in providing the unpublished allele counts
for the French-San-Altai Neanderthal-Chimpanzee alignment; Qiaomei Fu, JanetKelso and David Reich for assistance in providing
the Ust’Ishim-San-Altai Neanderthal-Chimpanzee allele counts; and Martin Sikora, Eske Willerslev and Robert Foley for assistance
in providing the Kostenki-San-Altai Neanderthal-Chimpanzee allele counts."

Hando
09-30-2015, 04:21 PM
alan,

Saw this posted at Eurogenes. It's in line with your thinking.
http://www.eshe.eu/static/eshe/files/PESHE/PESHE_4_2015_London.pdf
This presentation examines previously unpublished allele counts obtained from the French-San-Neanderthal-Chimpanzee alignment
of the high quality DNA sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains [1]. This analysis indicates the existence of an
unidentified third archaic ancestor of present-day Europeans, which diverged from its common ancestor with sub-Saharan Africans
and Neanderthals around 900 thousand years ago. It also shows that the relative proportions of derived alleles of Neanderthals versus
sub-Saharan Africans versus the third archaic ancestor, in the 0.0826% the European genome that is not shared with the common
ancestor of humans and chimpanzee, are 13.6%, 32.3% and 54.2%, respectively. In addition, analysis of the also unpublished allele
counts from the alignment of the 45 Kya fossil from Ust’-Ishim in western Siberia [2] and of the alignment of the 36.2 Kya Kostenki
14 (Markina Gora) fossil from Kostenki-Borshchevo in European Russia [3] show similar relative proportions, suggesting that these
individuals were closely related to the ancestor of present-day Europeans. These results differ significantly from previous estimates
of the proportion of Neanderthal ancestry in present-day Europeans which range from 1.3% to 2.7% [1, 4, 5]. This presentation
also identifies a mathematical error in the derivation of the admixture proportion estimators used to generate the previous estimates
which explains this difference. The analysis of the allele counts together with anthropological and archaeological evidence suggests
a new model of human dispersal based on a Eurasian lineage in the Levant, which admixed with Neanderthals between 250-55
Kya as they expanded eastward, and subsequently with members or descendants of the African mtDNA haplogroup L3 after their
emergence from Africa between 84-63 Kya. This was followed by radiation from a basal admixed population in the Levant from
around 55-50 Kya, with no subsequent major contribution to the European genome. Ancestors of the Ust’-Ishim individual, a
member of mtDNA haplogroup R, probably went northeast from the Levant into western Siberia around 47 Kya; and ancestors
of the Kostenki 14 individual, a member of mtDNA haplogroup U2, probably moved northward from the Levant into the Central
European Plain between 40-36 Kya. It is likely that other members of these hybrid populations with a morphology similar to
present-day Homo sapiens, including mtDNA haplogroups N, R, U, U2, U8 and JT, expanded westward into Europe along the
Danube and Mediterranean coast and replaced the already dwindling Neanderthal populations between 45-35 Kya, rather than
newly emerged sub-Saharan Africans as has been assumed. If this new model of human dispersal is correct, it has profound implications
for the interpretation of the anthropological and archaeological evidence, which has largely been framed within the Recent
Out-of-Africa model.
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Nick Patterson and David Reich for assistance in providing the unpublished allele counts
for the French-San-Altai Neanderthal-Chimpanzee alignment; Qiaomei Fu, JanetKelso and David Reich for assistance in providing
the Ust’Ishim-San-Altai Neanderthal-Chimpanzee allele counts; and Martin Sikora, Eske Willerslev and Robert Foley for assistance
in providing the Kostenki-San-Altai Neanderthal-Chimpanzee allele counts."
This is slightly confusing. Are they claiming that the "unidentified third archaic ancestor of present-day Europeans, which diverged from its common ancestor with sub-Saharan Africans and Neanderthals around 900 thousand years ago, lived in the Levant where they admixed with a basal group and then spread to Siberia and Europe about 50,000 years ago? And that the ones who migrated to Europe via Danube and Med replaced the dwindling Neanderthals rather than a group of sub saharan African migrants?

Kurd
09-30-2015, 05:12 PM
alan,

Saw this posted at Eurogenes. It's in line with your thinking.
http://www.eshe.eu/static/eshe/files/PESHE/PESHE_4_2015_London.pdf
This presentation examines previously unpublished allele counts obtained from the French-San-Neanderthal-Chimpanzee alignment
of the high quality DNA sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains [1]. This analysis indicates the existence of an
unidentified third archaic ancestor of present-day Europeans, which diverged from its common ancestor with sub-Saharan Africans
and Neanderthals around 900 thousand years ago. It also shows that the relative proportions of derived alleles of Neanderthals versus
sub-Saharan Africans versus the third archaic ancestor, in the 0.0826% the European genome that is not shared with the common
ancestor of humans and chimpanzee, are 13.6%, 32.3% and 54.2%, respectively.

I agree with Hando. It is confusing, the authors did not write and convey the information well. Needs to be re-phrased. The common ancestor of Africans and Neanderthal also happens to be the common ancestor of Europeans.

They are also attributing 0.0826% of the European genome to this archaic hominid who split 900kya, but then they say 13.6% of this 0.0826% are derived from Neanderthal?
Not conveying the information properly

Sangarius
09-30-2015, 05:28 PM
I agree with Hando. It is confusing, the authors did not write and convey the information well. Needs to be re-phrased. The common ancestor of Africans and Neanderthal also happens to be the common ancestor of Europeans.

They are also attributing 0.0826% of the European genome to this archaic hominid who split 900kya, but then they say 13.6% of this 0.0826% are derived from Neanderthal?
Not conveying the information properly

No, the author (it's just one guy, an independent researcher who has never published anything else related to the topic before) is saying that 0.0826% of the European genome is not shared with chimpanzees. And of that 0.0826% of the European genome 13,6% are derived from Neanderthals, 32,3% from sub-Sahran Africans, and 54,2% from a mystery hominid.

lgmayka
09-30-2015, 06:16 PM
And of that 0.0826% of the European genome 13,6% are derived from Neanderthals, 32,3% from sub-Sahran Africans, and 54,2% from a mystery hominid.
Here is the entire paper (https://www.academia.edu/15581930/A_New_Model_of_Human_Dispersal_ESHE_2015_Poster_). He is indeed asserting that Europeans descend, in large part, from an unknown Eurasian hominin rather than from Africans.

The author:
1) Compares one Frenchman, one San, one Neanderthal, and one chimpanzee;
2) Sees roughly equal numbers of unique alleles in each of the Frenchman, the San, and the Neanderthal;
3) Concludes that each of these three represent distinct million-year-old populations, with only mild admixture.

The fatal flaw in his logic is to assume that one San individual fairly represents the entire diversity of African DNA, past and present. He does not consider the possibility that his postulated "third hominin" is precisely the Out-Of-Africa clan, and that Africa as a whole has some deep population structure.

Megalophias
09-30-2015, 11:08 PM
Well, this is almost certainly wrong, since every other method of estimating split times fails to recover the age of this split, programs like TreeMix fail to produce this highly distinct and obvious topology, and the sequence divergence information he is talking about is sitting right there in the supplementary information of the Altai Neanderthal paper, yet somehow the authors failed to notice anything remarkable about it.


The fatal flaw in his logic is to assume that one San individual fairly represents the entire diversity of African DNA, past and present. He does not consider the possibility that his postulated "third hominin" is precisely the Out-Of-Africa clan, and that Africa as a whole has some deep population structure.
Actually, while I could be wrong, I think it's even simpler than that.

He seems to be assuming that all the sites where Neanderthal and San have the same allele and French have a different allele must be due to evolution in the branch leading to French (and likewise for when San and French agree against Neanderthal, etc). But there are nearly as many sites where San and Neanderthal agree against French as ones where French and San agree against Neanderthal, so the split between French and San cannot be much younger than the split between modern humans and Neanderthals. (11.4% divergence between San and Neanderthal, 11.2% divergence between French and Neanderthal, 9.5% divergence between French and San.)

However, it's well known that the genetic variation between individuals in a human population is greater than that between populations, so at the majority of sites whether two individuals differ or agree does not reflect the history of their population, but is simply a matter of chance. The majority of the cases where any of the three agree are due to individual variation, not population variation, so in fact the excess of shared alleles between San and French is proportionally much more significant than it seems when the role of individual variation is ignored.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-01-2015, 02:59 AM
Well, this is almost certainly wrong, since every other method of estimating split times fails to recover the age of this split, programs like TreeMix fail to produce this highly distinct and obvious topology, and the sequence divergence information he is talking about is sitting right there in the supplementary information of the Altai Neanderthal paper, yet somehow the authors failed to notice anything remarkable about it.


Actually, while I could be wrong, I think it's even simpler than that.

He seems to be assuming that all the sites where Neanderthal and San have the same allele and French have a different allele must be due to evolution in the branch leading to French (and likewise for when San and French agree against Neanderthal, etc). But there are nearly as many sites where San and Neanderthal agree against French as ones where French and San agree against Neanderthal, so the split between French and San cannot be much younger than the split between modern humans and Neanderthals. (11.4% divergence between San and Neanderthal, 11.2% divergence between French and Neanderthal, 9.5% divergence between French and San.)

However, it's well known that the genetic variation between individuals in a human population is greater than that between populations, so at the majority of sites whether two individuals differ or agree does not reflect the history of their population, but is simply a matter of chance. The majority of the cases where any of the three agree are due to individual variation, not population variation, so in fact the excess of shared alleles between San and French is proportionally much more significant than it seems when the role of individual variation is ignored.

Right. So for a more robust test, you'd need pooled comparisons of several Neanderthal, European and African samples ??