PDA

View Full Version : Ice Age European migration hypothesis from Siberia -> America -> Europe



McCown
06-08-2016, 09:38 PM
This is a continuation of a thread from YDNA haplogroup R1b discussion that was shut down because of trolling. However, the topic is too interesting to let trolls kill it. Please avoid insulting one another on this thread. Please challenge the ideas, not the intelligence, credentials or character of the opposing person.

Prior Thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7276-R1-Native-American-dispersion-hypothesis-into-Western-Europe

To summarize most of the above thread; I proposed that the following Siberian haplogroups YDNA( R1, Q1a2 ) and mtDNA( C1, X2 ) may have migrated across Ice Age North America into Europe. The haplogroup ages seem to line up with an Ice Age migration of about 21,000 YBP( +- a few thousand years ). 24K YBP R1 aDNA was found in Mal'ta Siberia. 14K YBP R1b1(L278) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/extref/nature12736-s1.pdf) aDNA was found in Northern Italy.

My Big Picture Migration Map:
9697

Highlights from prior thread:

From a population dispersion point of view, you can see that YDNA R1 appears to split into R1a and R1b along the Rhine or in Doggerland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland).

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Data/Map_haplogroups.jpg

Global dispersion of R1:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Haplogroup_R_(Y-DNA).PNG

One of the major arguments in opposition to an Eastward migration of R1 is that R1 people are related to Yamnaya people so they must have come from the East. I counter argue, that Yamnaya people descend from Western Europeans, not the other way around. Let’s take the bellow tree which helps illustrate a possible stemming out of Europe. The Yamnaya people appear to have migrated from Europe to the Steppes.

9698

The oldest R1a branches (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?ll=50.209986%2C5.141773&spn=17.298477%2C31.15757&ptab=2&hl=en&oe=UTF8&msa=0&source=embed&ie=UTF8&mid=1xoby146BKX50zmwv052UFNkqYHg) also appear to stem out of Europe which indicates they didn't originate further east.
http://r1a.org/
http://r1a.org/2010.jpg

R1's brother, Q1a2 has a well known Native American branch. Q1a2 also shows up in Europe.

Q1a2 (L56, M346): found in Kazakhstan, Russia, Armenia and Hungary (possibly Hunnic)
Q1a2a (L53): found among the Mongols
Q1a2a1 (L54)
Q1a2a1a (CTS11969)
Q1a2a1a1 (M3): the main subclade of Native Americans
Q1a2a1a2 (L804): found in Germany, Scandinavia and Britain (possibly Hunnic)
Q1a2a1a2a (L807): observed in Britain
Q1a2a1b (Z780): found among Native Americans, notably in Mexico
Q1a2a1c (L330): the main subclade of the Mongols, also found among the Kazakhs and Uzbeks, as well as in Ukraine, Turkey and Greece (probably Mongolian and Turkic)
Q1a2b (L940): found in Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, Russia, Georgia, Hungary, Poland and Germany
Q1a2b1 (L527): found almost exclusively in Scandinavia and places settled by the Vikings
Q1a2b2 (L938): observed in Anatolia, Lithuania, Britain and Portugal
Q1a2b2a (L939): observed in Britain

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_Q_Y-DNA.shtml

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-Q.gif

X2 mtDNA has two branches in North America( X2a, X2g ) and the rest appear to branch outward from NW Europe:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_X_mtDNA.shtml

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29.PNG

This mtDNA C1 north pole perspective map has a less distorted view of the distance traveled vs my flattened out big picture migration map above. As you can see the distances from Bering to Europe are about the same distance as migrating across North Asia.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/02/new-subclade-of-mtdna-haplogroup-c1.html

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-V8maTmo5av4/U527P9wlR3I/AAAAAAAAAow/p79o_vIGDXQ/w350-h264-no/C1_subclades_Fig_1_2014_small.png



Here is how mammoths and humans survived in the Ice Age Arctic:

Woolly mammoth diet mystery solved by DNA analysis
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/woolly-mammoth-diet-mystery-solved-by-dna-analysis-1.2524015

Grisly find suggests humans inhabited Arctic 45,000 years ago
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/grisly-find-suggests-humans-inhabited-arctic-45000-years-ago



Here are DNA studies that tie Native American autosomal DNA to Europeans:

DNA links Native Americans with Europeans:
http://sciencenordic.com/dna-links-native-americans-europeans

Americas’ natives have European roots
http://www.nature.com/news/americas-natives-have-european-roots-1.14213

Montana Boy: Bones Show Ancestral Links to Europe
http://www.spiegel.de/international/dna-analysis-shows-native-americans-had-european-roots-a-954675.html

Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Ameri cas#Haplogroup_R1

Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4105016/

Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12736.html

Selection in Europeans, But It Still Sweeps! "...the weirdest aspect of the Scandinavian samples is that they carry the East Asian/Native American variant of EDAR at appreciable frequencies!"
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/selection-in-europeans-but-it-still-sweeps/

This may be circumstantial evidence, but it’s worth noting that Algonquin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algonquian_languages) and Gaelic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goidelic_languages) have some similarities.

9696

Native American Clovis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture) technology is similar to European
Solutrean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean) technology.

Note: Both cultures became mound builders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_Builders) thousands of years later( perhaps before but the landscape melted ).

Xuipa
06-09-2016, 02:35 AM
Q and X overlap really well!

R.Rocca
06-09-2016, 02:16 PM
Why is this topic under ancient DNA? It seems to be predicated almost entirely on a hypothesis based on modern samples tested to very low levels.

McCown
06-09-2016, 02:49 PM
Why is this topic under ancient DNA? It seems to be predicated almost entirely on a hypothesis based on modern samples tested to very low levels.

It's based partially on the aDNA evidence of Mal'ta Boy R1, the R1b1 aDNA found in Northern Italy, Anzick-1 autosomal aDNA, C1f mtDNA and Scandinavian hunter gather(EDAR) aDNA. Since this hypothesis contains multiple haplogroups, I needed to repost it in a more encompassing forum. Not to mention it's about the Ice Age( which qualifies as ancient ) even though much of the DNA presented is modern samples.

Athiudisc
06-09-2016, 04:13 PM
Interesting theory, but modern distribution doesn't seem to be a great tool for making conclusions about thousands and thousands of years ago.

Kale
06-09-2016, 04:26 PM
It's based partially on the aDNA evidence of Mal'ta Boy R1, the R1b1 aDNA found in Northern Italy, Anzick-1 autosomal aDNA, C1f mtDNA and Scandinavian hunter gather(EDAR) aDNA. Since this hypothesis contains multiple haplogroups, I needed to repost it in a more encompassing forum. Not to mention it's about the Ice Age( which qualifies as ancient ) even though much of the DNA presented is modern samples.

- MA1 was not R1. Was R* with a few thousand years of drift on its own branch.
- The first ANE mix into Europe happened over 19,000 years ago (it was present in El_Miron), do we even have archaeological evidence of Native Americans on the East Coast at 19,000 years ago?
- This first ANE migration was not accompanied by any East Asian. How do you propose East Asian mixture is almost completely even across the entirely of both the North American and South American continents if was not present in the initial founding Native American population?
- East Asian mixture does come into Europe sometime between 14,000 and 8,500 years ago, but with a stronger presence in the East.

Anabasis
06-09-2016, 07:33 PM
Interesting hypothesis, but it has very weak points. Expansion of R1b M269 over Europe took place in bronze age. And There were not any ice connection between north america and europe at that time. On the other hand TMRCA of western sub clades of M269 is younger then Eastern m269 subclades. That shows that M269 spread over europe from East to west. Your assumption only may be valid for V-88.

ADW_1981
06-09-2016, 07:58 PM
The 24,000 year old reference sample was still a good deal west of the Chukchi peninsula, and a good deal older as well. The logical explanation is that East Asian admixture was picked up thousands of years later, when related people continued eastwards. An equally plausible scenario is that similar people to MA1 existed simultaneously closer to Chukchi peninsula, but who had already accumulated East Asian admixture, and then continued across the frozen bridge to Alaska thousands of years later.

Trolling may not be justified, but the argument to Europe is now weaker than ever since ancient genomes have been sequenced in North America with little to no relationship to northern Europeans.

There is a very weak relationship between a 24,000 year old Siberian man, and modern north Europeans. So what? Who says this exact population was the one who crossed into Alaska?

ArmandoR1b
06-10-2016, 01:43 AM
This is a continuation of a thread from YDNA haplogroup R1b discussion that was shut down because of trolling. However, the topic is too interesting to let trolls kill it. Please avoid insulting one another on this thread. Please challenge the ideas, not the intelligence, credentials or character of the opposing person.

Prior Thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7276-R1-Native-American-dispersion-hypothesis-into-Western-Europe


Global dispersion of R1:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Haplogroup_R_(Y-DNA).PNG

Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Ameri cas#Haplogroup_R1

That data is extremely limited and it takes a leap of faith to believe Native American R1 haplogroups aren't from Europe. If we had Next Generation Sequencing of the R1 in the Native Americans in the map it would show to be post-Colombian introgression because the R1 would show to be a subclade that is too young to have traveled between the two continents and be proof of any zany idea of R1 originating in North America. I bet it is mostly R1b-U106 and R1b-P312.

The Chipewayan data is based off of haplotypes only and is from Bortolini et al. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180678/table/TB4/) and according to Nevgen (http://www.nevgen.org/) the haplotype is most likely R1b but since they didn't test for the relatively young U106 and P312 SNPs so we have no idea if they are positive for them and probably never will.

The TM Chippewa, W Chippewa, and Chey/Arap are from Bolnick et al., 2006 (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/11/2161.full) and also just uses haplotypes which they note as R-M173, but they didn't test for U106 and P312 which are the most likely subclades. The haplotypes they used are in this supplementary file (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/suppl/2006/08/17/msl088.DC1/mbe-06-0372-File012_msl088.pdf).

Reading back on the post by Megalophias (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7276-R1-Native-American-dispersion-hypothesis-into-Western-Europe&p=159184&viewfull=1#post159184) he stated "Hammer et al (2005), "Population structure of Y chromosome SNP haplogroups in the United States", sampled a pool of 398 Navajo, Apache, Cheyenne, Sioux, Pima, and unidentifed Native Americans from South Dakota and Vermont. Two-thirds had Native haplogroups (Q and C), the remainder being a diverse mixture dominated by R1b-M269 (22%), accompanied by I, E, R1a, J, G2a, N1c1. There was a single R1b*-P25." If Hammer had tested them for U106 and P312 I bet they would have shown to be mostly positive for those two SNPs.

McCown
06-10-2016, 12:42 PM
- MA1 was not R1. Was R* with a few thousand years of drift on its own branch.

This is correct, I'm not sure why I thought it was R1*. My hypothesis still remains for R1 migration though.


- The first ANE mix into Europe happened over 19,000 years ago (it was present in El_Miron), do we even have archaeological evidence of Native Americans on the East Coast at 19,000 years ago?

19,000 years ago, NE Americas would have melted/washed away. The archaeological evidence would be sparse. The archaeological/hypothetical age for entry into North America ranges from 35,000 YBP to 15,000 YBP. There is evidence of Humans in the Arctic 40,000 years ago.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/07/21/genome-analysis-pins-down-arrival-and-spread-of-first-americans/

http://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/migration750.jpg


- This first ANE migration was not accompanied by any East Asian. How do you propose East Asian mixture is almost completely even across the entirely of both the North American and South American continents if was not present in the initial founding Native American population?

I think those tribes eventually pushed into one another just like the rest of the world's populations merged together. A lot can happen over a span of thousands of years.



- East Asian mixture does come into Europe sometime between 14,000 and 8,500 years ago, but with a stronger presence in the East.

Stronger presence in East Asia or stronger presence in West Asia/Steppes?

McCown
06-10-2016, 12:52 PM
Interesting hypothesis, but it has very weak points. Expansion of R1b M269 over Europe took place in bronze age. And There were not any ice connection between north america and europe at that time. On the other hand TMRCA of western sub clades of M269 is younger then Eastern m269 subclades. That shows that M269 spread over europe from East to west. Your assumption only may be valid for V-88.

14K YBP aDNA sample of R1b1 was found in Northern Italy. That's the stone age, ice-age melt, well before the Bronze age. If you look R1 phylo tree in post #1, you'll see I make a case where R1 migrated outward from western Europe. V88 is also found in Europe.

9725

McCown
06-10-2016, 12:59 PM
That data is extremely limited and it takes a leap of faith to believe Native American R1 haplogroups aren't from Europe. If we had Next Generation Sequencing of the R1 in the Native Americans in the map it would show to be post-Colombian introgression because the R1 would show to be a subclade that is too young to have traveled between the two continents and be proof of any zany idea of R1 originating in North America. I bet it is mostly R1b-U106 and R1b-P312.

The Chipewayan data is based off of haplotypes only and is from Bortolini et al. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180678/table/TB4/) and according to Nevgen (http://www.nevgen.org/) the haplotype is most likely R1b but since they didn't test for the relatively young U106 and P312 SNPs so we have no idea if they are positive for them and probably never will.

The TM Chippewa, W Chippewa, and Chey/Arap are from Bolnick et al., 2006 (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/11/2161.full) and also just uses haplotypes which they note as R-M173, but they didn't test for U106 and P312 which are the most likely subclades. The haplotypes they used are in this supplementary file (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/suppl/2006/08/17/msl088.DC1/mbe-06-0372-File012_msl088.pdf).

Reading back on the post by Megalophias (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7276-R1-Native-American-dispersion-hypothesis-into-Western-Europe&p=159184&viewfull=1#post159184) he stated "Hammer et al (2005), "Population structure of Y chromosome SNP haplogroups in the United States", sampled a pool of 398 Navajo, Apache, Cheyenne, Sioux, Pima, and unidentifed Native Americans from South Dakota and Vermont. Two-thirds had Native haplogroups (Q and C), the remainder being a diverse mixture dominated by R1b-M269 (22%), accompanied by I, E, R1a, J, G2a, N1c1. There was a single R1b*-P25." If Hammer had tested them for U106 and P312 I bet they would have shown to be mostly positive for those two SNPs.

I don't discount the idea that R1b and R1a may have branched off into America before reaching Europe. The only way to resolve this is to NGS test R1 Amerindians and see how they branch from Europeans. I've been wanting to see a study on this for a long time. I've had this hypothesis for many years now, but it wasn't until the 14K YBP R1b1 showed up in Europe that I could finally challenge the Beaker expansion theory of R1b which everyone explained as a replacement population caused by Celtic warfare.

Gravetto-Danubian
06-10-2016, 12:59 PM
This is correct, I'm not sure why I thought it was R1*.

Wishful thinking ?



19,000 years ago, NE Americas would have melted/washed away. The archaeological evidence would be sparse.

That's convenient. I guess that makes your hypothesis non-falsifiable ?
Why isn't evidenced "washed away" in other Ice Age areas ?


The archaeological/hypothetical age for entry into North America ranges from 35,000 YBP to 15,000 YBP.

But humans reached the northeast tip of America & Greenland ~ 5, 000 years ago, which is 10, 000 years after R1b appears in Europe.

9726


There is evidence of Humans in the Arctic 40,000 years ago.
In the Arctic ? Which evidence ?





A lot can happen over a span of thousands of years.

Quite true.

McCown
06-10-2016, 01:08 PM
The 24,000 year old reference sample was still a good deal west of the Chukchi peninsula, and a good deal older as well. The logical explanation is that East Asian admixture was picked up thousands of years later, when related people continued eastwards. An equally plausible scenario is that similar people to MA1 existed simultaneously closer to Chukchi peninsula, but who had already accumulated East Asian admixture, and then continued across the frozen bridge to Alaska thousands of years later.

Trolling may not be justified, but the argument to Europe is now weaker than ever since ancient genomes have been sequenced in North America with little to no relationship to northern Europeans.

There is a very weak relationship between a 24,000 year old Siberian man, and modern north Europeans. So what? Who says this exact population was the one who crossed into Alaska?

I see less evidence for a migration the other way. R and Q were brothers and it seems reasonable they followed a similar migration route.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Atc-yykaT1c/Uo0Tyu_EB_I/AAAAAAAAJZ4/kZHJkoNpey0/s1600/treemix.png

McCown
06-10-2016, 01:14 PM
That's convenient. I guess that makes your hypothesis non-falsifiable ?
Why isn't evidenced "washed away" in other Ice Age areas ?

It is falsifiable by NGS testing Native Americans and looking at the full branching of their tree.




But humans reached the northeast tip of America & Greenland ~ 5, 000 years ago, which is 10, 000 years after R1b appears in Europe.

Says who?


In the Arctic ? Which evidence ?

See post #1 where i provide a link to how mammoth's and humans survived.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/grisly-find-suggests-humans-inhabited-arctic-45000-years-ago

Gravetto-Danubian
06-10-2016, 01:31 PM
It is falsifiable by NGS testing Native Americans and looking at the full branching of their tree.


Well im sure we'd all welcome that !





Says who?

? Archaeologist ? Scientist



See post #1 where i provide a link to how mammoth's and humans survived.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/grisly-find-suggests-humans-inhabited-arctic-45000-years-ago

True. Temporary hunting forays to the far north are not the same as permanent settlement. Pleistocene humans could move 100s of Km for hunting
But this does not equate to Alaska or Greenland. Hey, we all like surprises & doctrinal shifts, but you're going to have to bring forth evidence. Saying it got 'washed away' will not convince anyone.

McCown
06-10-2016, 01:38 PM
True. Temporary hunting forays to the far north are not the same as permanent settlement. Pleistocene humans could move 100s of Km for hunting
But this does not equate to Alaska or Greenland. Hey, we all like surprises & doctrinal shifts, but you're going to have to bring forth evidence. Saying it got 'washed away' will not convince anyone.

I'm sure there's lots of evidence at the bottom of the Atlantic. Discoveries are made all the time. Fishermen keep catching archeological finds in Doggerland.

I'm basically suggesting that these nomads never really settled in Arctic America, they kept moving East until they got to Europe. The branches that went south, eventually settled. The northern nomads may have kept moving. I personally think they could have crossed North America in a generation or 2, but they had hundreds if not thousands of years to do it.

ArmandoR1b
06-10-2016, 02:16 PM
I don't discount the idea that R1b and R1a may have branched off into America before reaching Europe. The only way to resolve this is to NGS test R1 Amerindians and see how they branch from Europeans. I've been wanting to see a study on this for a long time. I've had this hypothesis for many years now, but it wasn't until the 14K YBP R1b1 showed up in Europe that I could finally challenge the Beaker expansion theory of R1b which everyone explained as a replacement population caused by Celtic warfare.
Ok, you have a difficulty connecting the dots so I'll do some more of it for you. Hammer already did test down to R1b-M269 in "a pool of 398 Navajo, Apache, Cheyenne, Sioux, Pima, and unidentifed Native Americans from South Dakota and Vermont. Two-thirds had Native haplogroups (Q and C), the remainder being a diverse mixture dominated by R1b-M269 (22%)" and which goes to show that they are at least positive for R1b-M269, including the Cheyenne, Sioux, and unidentifed Native Americans from South Dakota and Vermont, and the R1b-M269 group of SNPs is only between 6400 ybp for the youngest SNP and 13600 ybp for the oldest and odds are it is somewhere in the middle at about 10,000 years old. The 14K YBP European R1b1 specimen had relatives that are the ancestors of R1b-M269. So they were already in Eurasia at the time. There is no scenario that fits with with R1b-M269 being in America and Europe 10,000 years ago at the same time and that blows away your ability to use the Native American R1, which is actually R1b-M269, as a main piece of evidence for your pet theory of an Ice Age migration of about 21,000 YBP( +- a few thousand years ).

I also want the Native Americans to be NGS tested so you guys can be proven wrong with even more detailed data and you will stop posting theories that have no basis in logic.

McCown
06-10-2016, 02:28 PM
Ok, you have a difficulty connecting the dots so I'll do some more of it for you. Hammer already did test down to R1b-M269 in "a pool of 398 Navajo, Apache, Cheyenne, Sioux, Pima, and unidentifed Native Americans from South Dakota and Vermont. Two-thirds had Native haplogroups (Q and C), the remainder being a diverse mixture dominated by R1b-M269 (22%)" and which goes to show that they are at least positive for R1b-M269, including the Cheyenne, Sioux, and unidentifed Native Americans from South Dakota and Vermont, and the R1b-M269 group of SNPs is only between 6400 ybp for the youngest SNP and 13600 ybp for the oldest and odds are it is somewhere in the middle at about 10,000 years old. The 14K YBP European R1b1 specimen had relatives that are the ancestors of R1b-M269. So they were already in Eurasia at the time. There is no scenario that fits with with R1b-M269 being in America and Europe 10,000 years ago at the same time and that blows away your ability to use the Native American R1, which is actually R1b-M269, as a main piece of evidence for your pet theory of an Ice Age migration of about 21,000 YBP( +- a few thousand years ).

I also want the Native Americans to be NGS tested so you guys can be proven wrong with even more detailed data and you will stop posting theories that have no basis in logic.

This was addressed somewhat in the original thread...


Originally Posted by FrankN
Re: Amerindian R1b

I am not aware of any recent studies on Amerindian R1b. However, in the following study of pacific NW Amerindians, two inland populations (Splatsin and Stswecem'c, both part of Salishan-speaking Shuswap people) cluster close to, or among Europeans. This is interpreted as reflecting recent admixture. However, ADMIXTURE runs place them in a separate, orange-coloured cluster at K=10, while in other Amerindian populations, including MXL, the European signals (light and full blue) are maintained and not replaced by that orange component (Fig. 8).
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetic...gen.1004530#s5

Another recent study on the coastal Tsimshian finds no evidence of European admix in Tsimshian aDNA, but, however, an respective signal in Anzick-1 (Fig. 1a). Current European admix in Tsimshian is estimated at some 33%. "The best-fitting model suggests that a bottleneck occurred approximately 175 years BP (bootstrap 95% confidence interval: 125-225, Table 1) in the ancestors of the modern Tsimshian with an accompanying reduction in effective population size
of 57%. The timing of the bottleneck coincides with the documented smallpox epidemics of the 19th Century and historical reports of large scale population declines. A majority of the European admixture in the population likely occurred after the epidemics."
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...51078.full.pdf

This gives us some baseline on the European admix that may be expected in smaller, isolated communities with relatively late European contact. Another baseline, for a large population with early European contact, is provided by the Maya, with some 10% European admixture. In relation to both, R1(b) percentages above 50%, as reported for Chippewa (Ojibwe), Seminole, Sioux and Cherokee look extraordinarily high. Note here also that IIRC both the Raghavan and Skoglund/Reich 2015 papers on the Peopling of the Americas failed to identify Athabascans that weren't signficantly "European admixed".

There are two scenarios that might explain such high R1(b) scenarios from post-columbian contact:

1. Early admix (fur trade), with founder effects that were enhanced by better resistance to European diseases (smallpox etc.): This scenario has been refuted for the Tsimshian (see above). It also doesn't apply to the Ojibwe, where Bolnick e.a. failed to identify any star-like structure of R1(b) lineages, but instead more than 60 different R1 haplotypes among 80 R1 individuals:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten.../2161.full.pdf

2. Late (19-20th century) admix from various sources: In that case we would expect:

(i) A distribution of "European" yDNA among Amerindians that more or less mirrors the genetic profile of European settlers, i.e. includes substantial I, R1a, etc. However, Hammer e.a. (Fig. 1) provide the following ratios for the USA (Native American share, European Ancestry share, quotient), which disprove that expectation (...)

(ii) Amerindian R1(b) haplotypes that are identical to European ones. However, Bolnick e.a. (Fig. 6, see above) reported 20 out of ~60 Amerindian haplotypes not shared with Europeans, five of which were 4-8 mustations removed from European ones. [Goiello: You said you checked Amerindian subclades some years ago - did that include the ones from Bolnick e.a.?]

In short: I have little doubt that a good part, maybe 2/3, of Amerindian R1b relates to recent European admixture. But there is quite some indication of an older admixture layer that appears to have received little attention in research so far.

(...)

Here is some background on Afontonova Gora, for anybody interested:

http://www.donsmaps.com/afontovagora.html

Riverside location (upper Yenisei). Spear straighteners made from deear antlers. Carefully rounded stones that may have served as bolas, or net sinkers.
Let me put it like this: I wouldn't focus too much on mammooths, the subsistence base appears to rather have been ungulates (deer) and fish. Rather than "the Steppe", watercourses seem to have been the main communication channels. Several other UP East European sites, e.g. Kostenki on the Don, have a similar location as AG, namely uphill overseeing a major river.

The Yenisei location is intriguing. The mammooth maps linked by epoch further above show evidence of pines on the lower Yenisei and along the Siberian Polar Sea coast 15-20 kya. The Polar Sea seems to have been relatively ice free during interstadials, and might have served as communication channel into Karelia, as well as North East America, where R1b(1) is the predominant Amerindian yDNA...



Here is an admixture migration out of Siberia -> America then somehow into Europe.

http://i46.tinypic.com/slppbt.jpg

ArmandoR1b
06-10-2016, 03:32 PM
No one will see that as a counter argument in any form or fashion, and neither do I, because it has nothing to do with R1b-M269 being almost 100% of the R1 in the Native Americans in the Hammer et al study.

Kale
06-10-2016, 05:00 PM
I've seen the haplogroup distribution of some of these Native American tribes high in R1b...if you subtract the obviously native Q and C lineages, the remaining haplogroups (R1b, R1a, I, G, J) match exactly English proportions, the only caveat being higher percentage of E, likely due to Africans.

McCown
06-10-2016, 05:17 PM
I've seen the haplogroup distribution of some of these Native American tribes high in R1b...if you subtract the obviously native Q and C lineages, the remaining haplogroups (R1b, R1a, I, G, J) match exactly English proportions, the only caveat being higher percentage of E, likely due to Africans.

I'm sure there is colonial European dispersion into Amerindian lineages, however, FrankN's comments as seen in post #19 try to convey there is also an older lineage hiding beneath the noise. Extensive Amerindian YDNA testing may prove this out someday. aDNA admix is also telling us that Europeans and Amerindians share ancestry. Some say this is a result of a split prior to Bering, I say otherwise. I don't see any evidence for this migration going the other way. I do see some for it going this way. Had they gone West from Siberia into Europe, you'd see more settlements with older branches east of Europe. We don't see that. We do see some evidence of branching into America with X2, Q1a2, C1... and possibly R1. Only more NGS testing and aDNA will prove this right or wrong. My hope is to provoke a study with this hypothesis.

A.D.
06-10-2016, 06:46 PM
The Irish Amerindian language connection doesn't work. At the times you are talking about the ancestors of the Irish (R1b types) weren't even speaking anything that could be classed as pre-Indo-European. Mallory states that Irish is probably the worst IE language to make connections with because they started making changes to their language. I think this is probably to do with contact with peoples from the Eastern Mediterranean, Megalith builders and early farmers who spoke now extinct Agglutinating language(s).G2a is a favorite Y- haplogroup for those guys. I think just about everything points to L21 the largest Irish Y- haplogroup coming from the Alpine region in the Copper/Bronze age.

McCown
06-10-2016, 07:02 PM
The Irish Amerindian language connection doesn't work. At the times you are talking about the ancestors of the Irish (R1b types) weren't even speaking anything that could be classed as pre-Indo-European. Mallory states that Irish is probably the worst IE language to make connections with because they started making changes to their language. I think this is probably to do with contact with peoples from the Eastern Mediterranean, Megalith builders and early farmers who spoke now extinct Agglutinating language(s).G2a is a favorite Y- haplogroup for those guys. I think just about everything points to L21 the largest Irish Y- haplogroup coming from the Alpine region in the Copper/Bronze age.

We have no idea what the inhabitants of Ireland spoke 21,000 years ago, they didn't write anything down back then. Celtic may be the last vestige of a very archaic language.

Not to turn this into an R-L21 discussion but I think that L21 was born in the isles based on the NGS tree( of this I have no doubt ). Every R-L21 branch stems into the Isles where it was likely born. I also think R-P312 was born in the Isles. Every major subclade of P312 has Isles representation.

http://ytree.net/

Regardless, L21 is around 4,000 years old, I'm talking about 21,000 years ago. I think it's more likely that the Celts/Megalith builders migrated out of the Isles into the Alpine region based on the R1b NGS tree. In other words, I think most people have Celtic expansion backwards.

Kale
06-10-2016, 07:11 PM
I'm sure there is colonial European dispersion into Amerindian lineages, however, FrankN's comments as seen in post #19 try to convey there is also an older lineage hiding beneath the noise. Extensive Amerindian YDNA testing may prove this out someday. aDNA admix is also telling us that Europeans and Amerindians share ancestry. Some say this is a result of a split prior to Bering, I say otherwise. I don't see any evidence for this migration going the other way. I do see some for it going this way. Had they gone West from Siberia into Europe, you'd see more settlements with older branches east of Europe. We don't see that. We do see some evidence of branching into America with X2, Q1a2, C1... and possibly R1. Only more NGS testing and aDNA will prove this right or wrong. My hope is to provoke a study with this hypothesis.

Nobody named FrankN has posted on this thread?

I wouldn't be surprised at all if some 15,000 year old Native American remains were tested and we find some R*, or even R1*...but nonetheless it would be a minority lineage that even if your migration hypothesis were true, would not explode into Europe or anywhere else for that matter, from such a source.

The ancient DNA we do have poses a potential problem for your theory, that I'd like to hear your way of reconciling...that being the relationship of Europeans with MA1 and AG3. D-stats suggested, and Qpadm lends further credence toward the idea, that MA1 is mixed with a paleoeuropean population (something like 70% AG3, 24% paleoeuropean, 6% ENA). All paleoeuropeans are closer to MA1 than they are to AG3. However, once this ANE influx comes into Europe, the relationship to the two is leveled, and even reversed in some populations. Thus, the ANE in Mesolithic Europeans must be far more similar to that of AG3. It should also be noted that AG3 and KO1 share mtdna R1b...I'm not sure the age of this haplogroup though.

McCown
06-10-2016, 07:15 PM
Nobody named FrankN has posted on this thread?


Read post #19 again. I cut and pasted FrankN's text.

I have to hit the road so I'll look into the rest of what you've mentioned later.

Gravetto-Danubian
06-10-2016, 09:57 PM
Read post #19 again. I cut and pasted FrankN's text.

I have to hit the road so I'll look into the rest of what you've mentioned later.

I can tell you that FrankN wouldnt agree with your theory, so please don't misattribute what he's saying


We have no idea what the inhabitants of Ireland spoke 21,000 years ago, they didn't write anything down back then. Celtic may be the last vestige of a very archaic language.

I know what people on Ireland spoke 21kya - nothing ! It was uninhabited. And Celtic isn't an ice age language

Its good to theorize, but the problem is you somewhat arrogantly & fanatically clinging to it despite people taking the time to point out to you how it's wrong at all levels

McCown
06-11-2016, 03:18 PM
Nobody named FrankN has posted on this thread?

I wouldn't be surprised at all if some 15,000 year old Native American remains were tested and we find some R*, or even R1*...but nonetheless it would be a minority lineage that even if your migration hypothesis were true, would not explode into Europe or anywhere else for that matter, from such a source.

The ancient DNA we do have poses a potential problem for your theory, that I'd like to hear your way of reconciling...that being the relationship of Europeans with MA1 and AG3. D-stats suggested, and Qpadm lends further credence toward the idea, that MA1 is mixed with a paleoeuropean population (something like 70% AG3, 24% paleoeuropean, 6% ENA). All paleoeuropeans are closer to MA1 than they are to AG3. However, once this ANE influx comes into Europe, the relationship to the two is leveled, and even reversed in some populations. Thus, the ANE in Mesolithic Europeans must be far more similar to that of AG3. It should also be noted that AG3 and KO1 share mtdna R1b...I'm not sure the age of this haplogroup though.

Can you link the studies you're referencing?

While trying to google for the above information, I found this pretty interesting that American Mammoths displace European ones. It's hard to determine which route they took though.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aXMOqM8W2to/VzQhRfVKUgI/AAAAAAAAEc0/WLJO_Di3DH8EESFzeAp7ocP9TzPci2OoACLcB/s879/woolly_mammoth_migration.png

McCown
06-11-2016, 03:29 PM
I can tell you that FrankN wouldnt agree with your theory, so please don't misattribute what he's saying



I know what people on Ireland spoke 21kya - nothing ! It was uninhabited. And Celtic isn't an ice age language

Its good to theorize, but the problem is you somewhat arrogantly & fanatically clinging to it despite people taking the time to point out to you how it's wrong at all levels

Please see my opening to this thread where I ask " Please avoid insulting one another on this thread. Please challenge the ideas, not the intelligence, credentials or character of the opposing person." Calling me an arrogant fanatic is not constructive. Furthermore you havn't demonstrated that I'm incorrect on any level.

The Isles have been inhabited by humans since well before the ice age, however there is no evidence of them occupying it during the Ice Age. This could be caused by one of two reasons; either they left because it was uninhabitable or glacier melts destroy everything. There is evidence of humans there after the LGM receded.

How do you know that Celtic/Algonquin wasn't an Ice Age language.

Note, I'm not going to reply to anymore messages that violate my tolling policy on this thread.

Megalophias
06-11-2016, 04:00 PM
What kind of feedback are you looking for on this thread? Information on (prehistoric) genetic connections between America and Europe, I guess?

McCown
06-11-2016, 04:17 PM
What kind of feedback are you looking for on this thread? Information on (prehistoric) genetic connections between America and Europe, I guess?

Anything that helps proves or disproves this hypothesis is welcome. Counter hypotheses are also welcome. Just no trolling.

Megalophias
06-11-2016, 04:21 PM
What would you consider valid counter-evidence to your hypothesis?

Kale
06-11-2016, 04:25 PM
Can you link the studies you're referencing?

While trying to google for the above information, I found this pretty interesting that American Mammoths displace European ones. It's hard to determine which route they took though.

I'm not referencing any studies, I'm referencing analysis. What is your way of reconciling these results?

That image you posted only hurts your claim...It clearly shows the American mammoth spreading West right in the time gap we have when Europeans gained their initial ANE affinities.

McCown
06-11-2016, 04:45 PM
I'm not referencing any studies, I'm referencing analysis. What is your way of reconciling these results?

That image you posted only hurts your claim...It clearly shows the American mammoth spreading West right in the time gap we have when Europeans gained their initial ANE affinities.

I wouldn't say mammoth migration route is clear. There is one green dot that makes it look that way but it's far from conclusive. We know that at least 3/4ths of the human haplgroups mentioned in this thread made it into America and to Europe.

Without seeing the data, it's hard for me to reconcile what you're conveying. I'm not familiar enough with it to answer your question. Perhaps someone else can chime in.

McCown
06-11-2016, 04:56 PM
What would you consider valid counter-evidence to your hypothesis?

Valid evidence might include, but not limited to:

Evidence that shows an older migration of these haplogroups from the other direction.
Evidence that demonstrates that humans couldn't have migrated east around the Arctic circle.
An NGS study of Native Americans that shows a tree that doesn't line up with ice age European haplogroups.

Kale
06-11-2016, 07:44 PM
I wouldn't say mammoth migration route is clear. There is one green dot that makes it look that way but it's far from conclusive. We know that at least 3/4ths of the human haplgroups mentioned in this thread made it into America and to Europe.

That image does not include all samples in that study...look at the data, there is more there.

Gravetto-Danubian
06-16-2016, 02:48 AM
Anyway, here is some credible science.


http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/15/058966.full.pdf+html


Whole-genome studies have documented that most Native American ancestry stems from a
single population that diversified within the continent more than twelve thousand years
ago. However, this shared ancestry hides a more complex history whereby at least four
distinct streams of Eurasian migration have contributed to present-day and prehistoric
Native American populations. Whole genome studies enhanced by technological
breakthroughs in ancient DNA now provide evidence of a sequence of events involving
initial migration from a structured Northeast Asian source population, followed by a
divergence into northern and southern Native American lineages. During the Holocene,
new migrations from Asia introduced the Saqqaq/Dorset Paleoeskimo population to the
North American Arctic ~4,500 years ago, ancestry that is potentially connected with
ancestry found in Athabaskan-speakers today. This was then followed by a major new
population turnover in the high Arctic involving Thule-related peoples who are the
ancestors of present-day Inuit. We highlight several open questions that could be addressed
through future genomic research.

and


The first unambiguous evidence of modern humans in the Americas dates to between 14,000 and 15,000 years ago [5-8], and was likely the consequence of migration from Beringia.

and


It is now clear that so many founder events and fluctuations in population size have occurred
before, during, and after the peopling of the Americas that the evidence from one position in the
genome—mitochondrial DNA, the Y chromosome, or any other location—is too subject to
random changes in frequency (genetic drift) to be meaningful by itself. Only by taking the
independent testimony of many locations in the genome simultaneously can we obtain a highresolution
picture of the deep past.

McCown
06-16-2016, 08:19 PM
True. Temporary hunting forays to the far north are not the same as permanent settlement. Pleistocene humans could move 100s of Km for hunting
But this does not equate to Alaska or Greenland. Hey, we all like surprises & doctrinal shifts, but you're going to have to bring forth evidence. Saying it got 'washed away' will not convince anyone.


The first unambiguous evidence of modern humans in the Americas dates to between 14,000 and 15,000 years ago [5-8], and was likely the consequence of migration from Beringia.


Correction: 50,000 years ago in Eastern America( Savannah River ) according to this article from 2004.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm

Gravetto-Danubian
06-16-2016, 09:45 PM
Correction: 50,000 years ago in Eastern America( Savannah River ) according to this article from 2004.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm

Well that was back in 2005, so if that Date was true, the paradigm would have shifted. But it hasn't which means that the date was not born out by further analysis or Peer review.

You should probably try to base your overviews on peer-reviews journal articles rather than a speculative piece of journalism (& not mistake the latter as "Fact ")

Amanda
06-16-2016, 10:40 PM
https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2012_Nature_NativeAmericans.pdf


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.00111

McCown
06-16-2016, 11:25 PM
Well that was back in 2005, so if that Date was true, the paradigm would have shifted. But it hasn't which means that the date was not born out by further analysis or Peer review.

You should probably try to base your overviews on peer-reviews journal articles rather than a speculative piece of journalism (& not mistake the latter as "Fact ")

20-23K YBP
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/aab3884

50,000 YBP:
https://www.academia.edu/21847929/Geoarchaeological_investigations_at_the_Topper_and _Big_Pine_Tree_sites_Allendale_County_South_Caroli na

http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/3466/

http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2376&context=utk_gradthes

Update on Research at the Topper Site
http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=sciaa_staffpub

Article: http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/scientists-have-unearthed-ancient-artifacts-that-are-upending-the-history-of-mankind/Content?oid=4092912

McCown
06-28-2016, 09:18 PM
The Irish Amerindian language connection doesn't work. At the times you are talking about the ancestors of the Irish (R1b types) weren't even speaking anything that could be classed as pre-Indo-European. Mallory states that Irish is probably the worst IE language to make connections with because they started making changes to their language. I think this is probably to do with contact with peoples from the Eastern Mediterranean, Megalith builders and early farmers who spoke now extinct Agglutinating language(s).G2a is a favorite Y- haplogroup for those guys. I think just about everything points to L21 the largest Irish Y- haplogroup coming from the Alpine region in the Copper/Bronze age.

Discovery of ancient bones could rewrite Irish history
https://www.sott.net/article/314727-Discovery-of-ancient-bones-could-rewrite-Irish-history


What is unclear is whether the term "Celtic" is an appropriate name for that group of languages.

To be sure, some think that Celtic languages originated with the Celts on continental Europe and subsequently spread to Ireland, Wales and Scotland. This is the traditional view, and it dovetails with the idea that the Celts moved into Ireland during the Iron Age.

But over the last decade, a growing number of scholars have argued that the first Celtic languages were spoken not by the Celts in the middle of Europe but by ancient people on Europe's westernmost extremities, possibly in Portugal, Spain, Ireland or the other locales on the western edges of the British Isles.

Koch, the linguist at the University of Wales, for example, proposed in 2008 that "Celtic" languages were not imports to the region but instead were developed somewhere in the British Isles or the Iberian Peninsula — and then spread eastward into continental Europe.

His doubts about the traditional view arose as he was studying inscriptions on artifacts from southern Portugal. The inscriptions on those artifacts strongly resembled the languages known as Celtic, yet they dated as far back as 700 B.C. This placed Celtic languages far from the Celt homelands in the middle of Europe at a very, very early date.

"What it shows is that the language that became Irish was already out there — before 700 B.C. and before the Iron Age," Koch said. "It just didn't fit with the traditional theory of Celtic spreading west to Britain and Iberia."

Bas
06-28-2016, 10:23 PM
I think the problem with the Celtic language from the west is that it doesn't fit with the rest of the Indo-European language family, splitting quite early from what I have read (compared to Germanic, Balto Slavic). It may well have gone first to Iberia and then come back into Central Western Europe before getting to the British Isles,(I'd put my money on being linked to Bell Beaker in that case) but I'd bet it's ultimate origin and that of Indo-European is further to the east and that it didn't develop 'in-situ' from the first Neolithic farming languages of Western Europe.

I think the conventional theory about Celts first expanding from La Tene is outdated. La Tene may have been the 'height' of Celtic cultural influence, but I think they were in Western and Central Europe long before La Tene. If La Tene produced any migration, it may well have been only P-Celtic, whereas I think Q-Celtic might have been dominant certainly at least in Western Europe before that. ;)

Saetro
06-28-2016, 11:31 PM
If the discussion is about Celtic words among native American tribes is not the Welsh Prince Madoc part of the discussion?
Or is this entirely a legend constructed after the fact?
Something merely fabricated as a counterclaim to the Spanish to support English claims to land in the New World.
Madoc and his men would have carried R1b.

McCown
07-14-2016, 04:23 PM
New evidence that humans were in America earlier than thought.

Humans may have reached Chile by 18,500 years ago
If the theory is proven right, this discovery would shake the world of archaeology and the history in terms of the settlement of America.

https://www.thisischile.cl/humans-may-have-reached-chile-by-18500-years-ago/?lang=en

McCown
01-16-2017, 08:23 PM
The first humans arrived in North America a lot earlier than believed.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-01/uom-tfh011317.php

"The earliest settlement date of North America, until now estimated at 14,000 years Before Present (BP) according to the earliest dated archaeological sites, is now estimated at 24,000 BP, at the height of the last ice age or Last Glacial Maximum."

kevingnet
03-03-2017, 08:28 AM
Interesting theory, but modern distribution doesn't seem to be a great tool for making conclusions about thousands and thousands of years ago.

I'm not sure about modern distribution. I thought they were using very old samples for these comparisons.

kevingnet
03-03-2017, 08:31 AM
Interesting hypothesis, but it has very weak points. Expansion of R1b M269 over Europe took place in bronze age. And There were not any ice connection between north america and europe at that time. On the other hand TMRCA of western sub clades of M269 is younger then Eastern m269 subclades. That shows that M269 spread over europe from East to west. Your assumption only may be valid for V-88.

I thought they were talking about autosomal percentages and not lineages. Where did you get this bit about M269 being present in these ancient samples?

[edit]
Nevermind, I saw it in the map, the M269. At first I sort of blocked it out because it didn't make any sense. I understood it to mean that these were samples that had more autosomal percentage as opposed to Y lineage. I think the OP just used the wrong map for illustration because it does confuse things. Also, the R1b samples in current (modern) samples of NA people, would not be as reliable because of the likelihood of admixture with the late arrival of European populations.

kevingnet
03-03-2017, 08:40 AM
The 24,000 year old reference sample was still a good deal west of the Chukchi peninsula, and a good deal older as well. The logical explanation is that East Asian admixture was picked up thousands of years later, when related people continued eastwards. An equally plausible scenario is that similar people to MA1 existed simultaneously closer to Chukchi peninsula, but who had already accumulated East Asian admixture, and then continued across the frozen bridge to Alaska thousands of years later.

Trolling may not be justified, but the argument to Europe is now weaker than ever since ancient genomes have been sequenced in North America with little to no relationship to northern Europeans.

There is a very weak relationship between a 24,000 year old Siberian man, and modern north Europeans. So what? Who says this exact population was the one who crossed into Alaska?

"is now weaker than ever since ancient genomes have been sequenced in North America with little to no relationship to northern Europeans." Well, this may be due to founders bias, imo. I'm really not an expert as to how the comparisons are made. I'd imagine something like, well, we have these people in America and they are native and this is the genome content and therefore it must be what's characteristic and unique to them. When, perhaps some of the genome may have come from Euro genes. It's like believing that Indo-European is European without accounting for other groups and later finding out about these other groups and at first thinking that these are mixed samples. Until they find out that they are a lot more commonly distributed than initially thought.

"There is a very weak relationship between a 24,000 year old Siberian man, and modern north Europeans. So what? Who says this exact population was the one who crossed into Alaska?" Here, you may have a point, if in fact it's later found that the sample is not related to those groups that crossed over to America. However, from the links I thought they were saying that the sample's group did in fact cross. Therefore, if this is true at some point in the future, I would expect a correction in the interpretation of the samples to reflect the groups admixture. I'm not saying I'm holding my breath, just a possibility. I'm happy either way.

kevingnet
03-03-2017, 08:49 AM
This was addressed somewhat in the original thread...



Here is an admixture migration out of Siberia -> America then somehow into Europe.

http://i46.tinypic.com/slppbt.jpg

The samples cannot be relied upon because they are too new. They *must* be done from samples prior to the 1500's. And also separate the samples in at least two groups. Those from the X haplo and the rest.

kevingnet
03-03-2017, 08:53 AM
The Irish Amerindian language connection doesn't work. At the times you are talking about the ancestors of the Irish (R1b types) weren't even speaking anything that could be classed as pre-Indo-European. Mallory states that Irish is probably the worst IE language to make connections with because they started making changes to their language. I think this is probably to do with contact with peoples from the Eastern Mediterranean, Megalith builders and early farmers who spoke now extinct Agglutinating language(s).G2a is a favorite Y- haplogroup for those guys. I think just about everything points to L21 the largest Irish Y- haplogroup coming from the Alpine region in the Copper/Bronze age.

"The Irish Amerindian language connection doesn't work" Why not? In what way doesn't it?

I think the connection is interesting, although I wouldn't establish a genetic correlation from it. I'd be interested in learning more about this.

kevingnet
03-03-2017, 08:58 AM
We have no idea what the inhabitants of Ireland spoke 21,000 years ago, they didn't write anything down back then. Celtic may be the last vestige of a very archaic language.

Not to turn this into an R-L21 discussion but I think that L21 was born in the isles based on the NGS tree( of this I have no doubt ). Every R-L21 branch stems into the Isles where it was likely born. I also think R-P312 was born in the Isles. Every major subclade of P312 has Isles representation.

http://ytree.net/

Regardless, L21 is around 4,000 years old, I'm talking about 21,000 years ago. I think it's more likely that the Celts/Megalith builders migrated out of the Isles into the Alpine region based on the R1b NGS tree. In other words, I think most people have Celtic expansion backwards.

"I think it's more likely that the Celts/Megalith builders migrated out of the Isles into the Alpine region based on the R1b NGS tree" There's a lot of confusion about this because, people had originally thought of Celts as a race or ethnic group. When in recent studies it has been determined that they were in fact separate ethnic groups with a cohesive 'culture.' This might dispel the confusion, in the sense that what has been found was that the Celtic culture did in fact originate in Central Eurasia and later expanded through out Europe, while allowing for the fact that the actual ethnic groups in the various regions including Ireland were somewhat differentiated from one another.

Athiudisc
03-21-2017, 11:53 AM
I'm not sure about modern distribution. I thought they were using very old samples for these comparisons.

I don't believe very old samples suggest that, from a population dispersion point of view, you can see that R1 appears to have split into R1a and R1b along the Rhine or in Doggerland.

kevinduffy
03-21-2017, 01:59 PM
I don't believe very old samples suggest that, from a population dispersion point of view, you can see that R1 appears to have split into R1a and R1b along the Rhine or in Doggerland.

Wouldn't Doggerland be a little to far to the west for R1a?

Jessie
03-22-2017, 04:59 AM
I don't believe very old samples suggest that, from a population dispersion point of view, you can see that R1 appears to have split into R1a and R1b along the Rhine or in Doggerland.

I think R1b split along the river systems of the Rhine. R1b/R1a split would have been much earlier and possibly somewhere in Central Asia/Siberia.

kevingnet
03-24-2017, 03:46 AM
I also thought the split happened before that and more to the west not in central Europe but west Asia (why do they call it west Asia? people there don't look all that Asian.)

If that were the case, wouldn't we see more Celtic influence in the Baltic cultures? Otoh, I don't know that R1 was Indo-European in origin.

Jessie
03-24-2017, 06:34 AM
I also thought the split happened before that and more to the west not in central Europe but west Asia (why do they call it west Asia? people there don't look all that Asian.)

If that were the case, wouldn't we see more Celtic influence in the Baltic cultures? Otoh, I don't know that R1 was Indo-European in origin.

R1b split into the major European subclades U152, DF27 and L21 around the Rhine River from P312 and P312 / U106 split a bit earlier. The R1b/R1a split would have occurred thousands of years earlier and further east. R1b was found in Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers in Latvia. M269 further upsteam was what was found in Yamnaya in the Caspian/Pontic Steppes. Not sure what Celtic has to do with it because it is only P312 that might possibly have some connection to earlier people that eventually became Celtic speaking.

There are people that know about all this information in minute detail. I'm just someone that has learned some of the basics from reading on this forum. The threads on R1b and R1a have a lot of information and detail and people with an amazing knowledge on the topic.

McCown
04-27-2017, 04:09 PM
The first humans arrived in North America a lot earlier than believed.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-01/uom-tfh011317.php

"The earliest settlement date of North America, until now estimated at 14,000 years Before Present (BP) according to the earliest dated archaeological sites, is now estimated at 24,000 BP, at the height of the last ice age or Last Glacial Maximum."

They keep rolling back the clock on humans in the Americas.

A 130,000-year-old archaeological site in southern California, USA
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7651/full/nature22065.html

R.Rocca
04-27-2017, 04:41 PM
I just posted this in the ancient DNA news section. Not surprisingly, ancient Y-chromosomes (the only thing that matters) from NW North America belonged to haplogroups C and Q, with no R in sight....

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News&p=229350&viewfull=1#post229350

Diictodon
11-20-2017, 03:18 PM
The ancestral north Eurasian component found in the genome of Yamnaya remains should be a good evidence for a Siberian origin hypothesis. However, the Caucasus Hunter gatherer admixture kinda put a wretch into that hypothesis. There is one major thing that always puzzles me about ANE; Why is it present in such large amounts in Amerindian populations but absent in North East Asians? Do the Thule population of Alaska and Northern Canada have ANE?

Kale
11-20-2017, 06:35 PM
The ancestral north Eurasian component found in the genome of Yamnaya remains should be a good evidence for a Siberian origin hypothesis. However, the Caucasus Hunter gatherer admixture kinda put a wretch into that hypothesis. There is one major thing that always puzzles me about ANE; Why is it present in such large amounts in Amerindian populations but absent in North East Asians? Do the Thule population of Alaska and Northern Canada have ANE?

Not "absent" at all, just lesser. Later migrations from farther south diluted it.

Diictodon
11-21-2017, 05:01 PM
Not "absent" at all, just lesser. Later migrations from farther south diluted it.

What population in the south could have diluted the ANE admixture? More Eastern Non Africa/Ogne like ancestry?

Kale
11-22-2017, 07:33 PM
Sounds about right. Modern NE Asians are closer to populations like Han/Dai/Ami, etc. than Native Americans are.

McCown
01-21-2020, 05:30 PM
I also posted this in the R1b in Native Americans thread.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/130989v3.full

These results strongly suggest that El Miron-related people were among the direct ancestors of Anzick-1. Given the location of El Miron and the associated Magdalenian culture (immediately preceded by the Solutrean), the results here are most compatible with the Solutrean model.

...

Our results suggest that South West Europeans of ∼15000-20000 years ago such as El Miron had a special genetic connection with the Clovis people Anzick-1 in North America, more so than East Europeans and Siberians of that age.

Naturally, I think this is just as easily( if not more ) true for Anzick-1 to be the ancestor DNA of El Miron in a "Reverse Solutrean" migration.

Megalophias
01-21-2020, 06:04 PM
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/130989v3.full
That's from Shi Huang, who according to himself has revolutionized evolutionary biology with his new theory of genetic diversity; the rest of the world is completely ignoring this revolution, presumably because they think it's nonsense. Note that if you were to accept his results you'd have to throw out all other genetic data you are using, since according to Shi Huang it's all fundamentally wrong.

parasar
01-27-2020, 02:24 AM
I also posted this in the R1b in Native Americans thread.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/130989v3.full

These results strongly suggest that El Miron-related people were among the direct ancestors of Anzick-1. Given the location of El Miron and the associated Magdalenian culture (immediately preceded by the Solutrean), the results here are most compatible with the Solutrean model.

...

Our results suggest that South West Europeans of ∼15000-20000 years ago such as El Miron had a special genetic connection with the Clovis people Anzick-1 in North America, more so than East Europeans and Siberians of that age.

Naturally, I think this is just as easily( if not more ) true for Anzick-1 to be the ancestor DNA of El Miron in a "Reverse Solutrean" migration.

Likely impossible based on the mtDNA evidence from both Europe and the Americas.
On the other hand I would not disagree that there was some remote connection as seen between Tianyuan and the Aurignacian Goyet Q116-1 and later Magdalenian.

Chad Rohlfsen
01-27-2020, 02:37 AM
That relationship is mediated by the first Europeans. Oase1 is just a Tianyuan admixed version of Ust Ishim. Goyet, Magdalenians, and Yana have this. Nothing to do with Americans. R1b was in Europe just as people entered the Americas... Goodness

Chad Rohlfsen
01-27-2020, 02:38 AM
There's no solid evidence people were even in America before ElMiron. Forget about Solutreans.

McCown
01-27-2020, 04:11 PM
There's no solid evidence people were even in America before ElMiron. Forget about Solutreans.

See post #41 and ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...iiR_story.html

Smithsonian research associate Darrin Lowery found blades, anvils and other tools found stuck in soil at least 20,000 years old.
...

Further, the Eastern Shore blades strongly resemble those found at dozens of Solutrean sites from the Stone Age in Spain and France, Stanford says. “We can match each one of 18 styles up to the sites in Europe.”
...

Lowery dated the soil layer holding the anvil and other stone tools with two methods, radiocarbon dating and a newer technique, optical stimulated luminescence. Both returned an age of at least 21,000 years.

R.Rocca
01-27-2020, 04:46 PM
You started this thread several years ago with the following:


This is a continuation of a thread from YDNA haplogroup R1b discussion that was shut down because of trolling. However, the topic is too interesting to let trolls kill it.

Since this thread is in the ancient DNA section and you are failing to provide any ancient DNA (and disregarding ancient DNA that show the opposite), it seems like you yourself are guilty of trolling your own thread. I'm sure th moderators will jump in here and kill this thread as well. It looks like you are also walking a fine line since your other thread titled "R1b in Native Americans" was just closed.

J Man
01-27-2020, 05:06 PM
You started this thread several years ago with the following:



Since this thread is in the ancient DNA section and you are failing to provide any ancient DNA (and disregarding ancient DNA that show the opposite), it seems like you yourself are guilty of trolling your own thread. I'm sure th moderators will jump in here and kill this thread as well. It looks like you are also walking a fine line since your other thread titled "R1b in Native Americans" was just closed.

Shut em' down boys....Shut em' down. :lol:

McCown
01-27-2020, 06:01 PM
You started this thread several years ago with the following:



Since this thread is in the ancient DNA section and you are failing to provide any ancient DNA (and disregarding ancient DNA that show the opposite), it seems like you yourself are guilty of trolling your own thread. I'm sure th moderators will jump in here and kill this thread as well. It looks like you are also walking a fine line since your other thread titled "R1b in Native Americans" was just closed.

See post #1.

I proposed that the following Siberian haplogroups YDNA( R1, Q1a2 ) and mtDNA( C1, X2 ) may have migrated across Ice Age North America into Europe. The haplogroup ages seem to line up with an Ice Age migration of about 21,000 YBP( +- a few thousand years ). 24K YBP R1 aDNA was found in Mal'ta Siberia. 14K YBP R1b1(L278) aDNA was found in Northern Italy.

Also, I did not start the R1b Native American thread. I contributed the conversation with data and analysis.

Shutting down on-topic threads because you don't agree with the hypothesis and ideas is censorship and against the scientific principles, open dialog, and discussions that are supposed to take place on this forum.

spruithean
01-27-2020, 06:18 PM
For the last time, MA1 was R* NOT R1*. Villabruna-1 was R-L754*(xL389,V88). The branch of R1b that has come to populate the vast majority of European lineages arose somewhere else (hint: the evidence right now points to the Steppes).

Now please provide your evidence to support your hypothesis, and by all means, please refute the current ancient autosomal DNA and ancient Y-DNA evidence we have right now.

spruithean
01-27-2020, 06:43 PM
That is literally the same support you provided in your previous threads and it’s been refuted by members on this forum and by academic papers which aren’t from the individual claiming to be revolutionizing human history (this person was mentioned in your now locked thread).

ADW_1981
01-27-2020, 10:07 PM
I could say YDNA R1b came from Mars, and people would argue me to death, impossible to prove me wrong, yet I could keep responding. This would be freedom of speech but it would get to the point that it becomes 'trolling'. A literal waste of space on the web and a terrible use of bandwidth.