PDA

View Full Version : Haplogroup N Tat in Neolithic China



MikkaK
09-27-2016, 01:48 AM
I apologize if this paper has already been discussed.

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/jhg2016107a.html

Eupedia seems to have taken this to mean that all N1c in Europe has roots in Neolithic North-Eastern China.

Kristiina
09-27-2016, 05:08 AM
Nobody knows the exact place of origin of N-231 or N1c. I myself once suggested that N-231 could have arisen somewhere in the middle of its modern range. The main Chinese Neolithic N line is N-L732 in Isogg (N4 F2930 in Estonian Biocentre and N-F2905 in yfull), formed 18200 ybp, TMRCA 16200 ybp. This line does not exist in the west, so it is impossible that the western N is derived from the main Chinese Neolithic N. However, in Sanguan they also detected N1c which is widely distributed in the west, but the TMRCA of N1c is c. 13 000 years, which means that the common origin of western N1c and Chinese N1c is probably too old to have a real connection with Chinese Neolithic (at least on a time scale of 3000-5000 BC).

Sanguan seems to be the younger site c. 1500 BC while Jiangjialiang is older and dated >3000 BC.

11835

MikkaK
09-27-2016, 01:30 PM
Nobody knows the exact place of origin of N-320 or N1c. I myself once suggested that N-320 could have arisen somewhere in the middle of its modern range. The main Chinese Neolithic N line is N-L732 in Isogg (N4 F2930 in Estonian Biocentre and N-F2905 in yfull), formed 18200 ybp, TMRCA 16200 ybp. This line does not exist in the west, so it is impossible that the western N is derived from the main Chinese Neolithic N. However, in Sanguan they also detected N1c which is widely distributed in the west, but the TMRCA of N1c is c. 13 000 years, which means that the common origin of western N1c and Chinese N1c is probably too old to have a real connection with Chinese Neolithic (at least on a time scale of 3000-5000 BC).

Sanguan seems to be the younger site c. 1500 BC while Jiangjialiang is older and dated >3000 BC.

11835

Thank you Kristiina,

I have found the original forum on Eupedia discussing this, there is a mention of the age problem but is largely ignored. I have never been a fan of Eupedia, especially the N page as it seems to very much push a South East Asian origin. This would be fine except he seems to ignore things that may say otherwise. On the page you will find the Month old paper above, 2013 papers using LLY22g to define N and no mention what so ever of the Balkan branches.

Kristiina
09-27-2016, 06:27 PM
On Eupedia people often make poorly justified comments.

As almost all others, I also believed in the southeastern origin of yDNA N when the Karafet yDNA K paper was published. Then, Ust Ishim came out as NO and was autosomally not East Asian but generic Eurasian and close to ASI. Then, even the Chinese researchers found out that N is older in Siberia/Altai than in China, even without the western N-P189.2.
N-M231 mainly Han and Mongol 9.8 kya, linearly calibrated 15.8 kya
N1-F2130 mainly Han and Mongol 8.4 kya, linearly calibrated 13.5 kya
N2-F2930 Mainly Han 6.7 kya, linearly calibrated 10.8 kya.
(http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.06463)

In this new Estonian paper, the Chinese branch N4 was again younger (16220 ybp) than the non-Chinese branch N1’3 (17621 ybp). N5, Balcanic line, derived from the oldest split, has been detected in one Iron Age burial from Hungary and possibly from Iron Age Altai but to my knowledge it has never been found in China.

I am waiting for ancient yDNA from Volga Ural, Siberia and from Mesolithic Central Asia to get a clearer picture. The areas and cultures that are relevant for the expansion of yDNA N are unsampled.

johen
09-30-2016, 07:07 PM
I have just questions.

Did N1C and N1 speak differently? What language do you think N1C spoke in Manchu?

Xueshan culture (Jiangjialiang site) 5600–4900 BP (s=17)
1. 58.8% N*-M231 (xN1c2a-M128, N1c1-Tat)
2. 41.2% N1c1-Tat

--> I think both of them had same tongue like Urlic in the Liao valley. And N1c moved in Europe.

from Liao valley's comb ware

The oldest ones have been discovered from the remains of Liao civilization - xinglongwa culture (BC 6200 - 5400 BC) -.[1] It appears in 4200 BC in Finland and 4000 BC in the Korean Peninsula, so the Urheimatis assumed to be Liao region and spread afterward to North Europe through Siberia and to Korean peniusla. This is possibly related to Uralic migration and spread of haplogroup N (Y-DNA).[2]

To Karelia

However, calibrated radiocarbon dates for the comb-ware fragments found (e.g., in the Karelian isthmus), give a total interval of 5600 BC – 2300 BC (Geochronometria Vol. 23, pp 93–99, 2004).

--> Russia Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov, Karelia. Maybe this guy might be N or N1c, I assume. Does someone know the Hg of this guy?

parastais
09-30-2016, 07:18 PM
R1a is haplo of that guy :)

johen
09-30-2016, 07:45 PM
R1a is haplo of that guy :)

sorry, R1a was a boy
http://s018.radikal.ru/i506/1502/48/187c9ae5ef0b.png

Kristiina
09-30-2016, 09:10 PM
If N4 and N1c separated c. 20 000 and 13 000 years ago, respectively, do you really think that there could be only one or two languages? N4 in Neolithic China probably spoke a common/ similar language but I would not dare to make any guess of its type as long as we do not know where N4 originated. N1c will probably be quite scattered, and I do not make any presumptions about the original language. At a Neolithic time depth (c. 5000), N1c men may have spoken several different languages depending on the extent of the area they occupied. However, in the west, N1c males probably spoke Proto-Uralic c. 3000 BC.

In general, I am totally against the idea that old and widespread y haplogroups such as N, R or J can be linked with one language family.

Manchu y DNA is the following: C3*(xC3c) 8/35, C3c 1/35, D 1/35, O1 1/36, O2 3/36, O2b 2/36, O3* 3/36, O3/-cd 3/36, O3e 2/36, O3c1 5/36, K* 1/36, N* 2/36, N1 2/36, N2 1/36, so modern Manchu are not relevant for the identification of Neolithic Liao Region people.

I explained above that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the European N1c is derived from the Chinese Neolithic N4. There is 0% of N4 in Europe. Moreover, Sanggan N1c is quite recent, only c. 1500 BC, so we do not know where it was during the Neolithic.

In two samples from Oleni Ostrov, Karelia, there was no yDNA N, but only R1a and J. If the guy you posted is not R1a, he can be J.

I probably spent too much time to answer your question because I am sure that you will stick to the theory you proposed because it pleases you, so this answer is with all probability waste of my time.

Kristiina
09-30-2016, 09:32 PM
You probably understand better if I use R1b as reference.

In the R1b tree, the oldest split is R-V88, formed 17300 ybp with a TMRCA of 10200 years. This line reaches very high frequencies in Chadic speakers, even 95.5% in AA/Chadic speaking Ouldeme from Cameroon. With your logic, we could therefore presume that the oldest branch V88 (17300) spread from Cameroon to Europe.

This thinking is on the same level as to say that the next oldest N branch N4 (20 000 ypb) spread from the West Liao River to Europe.

johen
10-01-2016, 12:01 AM
I probably spent too much time to answer your question because I am sure that you will stick to the theory you proposed because it pleases you, so this answer is with all probability waste of my time.
If you felt that way, I am very sorry.

edit: I forgot to mention why to post it. I did b/c it is related with my thread.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8592-who-were-the-original-chinese-speaker/page2

Gravetto-Danubian
10-01-2016, 12:04 AM
@ Kristiina

It looks to me that N1c cannot have expanded from much further west than the Altai, Eneolithic at earliest.

Kristiina
10-01-2016, 06:36 AM
It looks to me that N1c cannot have expanded from much further west than the Altai, Eneolithic at earliest.

Gravetto-Danubian, how can you be so confident when all the forest area between Altai and Finland is unsampled. The distance from Urumqi to Saint Petersburg is c. 4 150 kilometres. Now we know that N1c probably did not originate in Altai Sayan because we have quite a lot of ancient yDNA from there and there is no ancient N1c there, so your Altai is wrong with the current evidence. However, the yDNA K from Shamanka, Lake Baikal (Eneolithic) was probably a kind of N xN1c, which means that it could have been N1-M128 or this Chinese Neolithic N4.

Johen, sorry that I was rude, but I am tired to repeat the same things all over again. Moreover, your post contained many errors! The science advances and there is new information coming in. You should not be selective and pick up only those bits that fit your preconceptions.

In the end, I also have to correct myself, as I mixed up Sanguan and Sanggan in this new Chinese paper. So, Sanggan Jiangjialiang (>3 000 BC) is N4 and N1c and Sangguan (1 500 BC) is O3.

Kristiina
10-01-2016, 07:18 AM
There is a good academic paper on Pottery/Combed Ware Pottery in Eastern Europe: https://www.scribd.com/document/287101277/39-2-Inovation

Unfortunately, the article is not any more freely available as it was before. Pottery seems to appear first in the Volga River area (Elshan, Jungar) c. 5000 BC. By 4000 BC, the Typical Combed Ware is in the area of modern Latvia and Estonia. I do not know what this Culture has to do with Korea.

The Sanggan River Valley pottery is dated c. 4850 BC, so pottery appears in the Volga River area and in Northeast China at the same time. Clearly older pottery remains seem to have been found in Ust' Karenga in Lake Baikal 12 000-10 000 BC.

Yaroslav Kuzmin, The earliest Neolithic complex in Siberia: The Ust-Karenga 12 site and its significance for the Neolithisation process in Eurasia, 2007.

Helgenes50
10-01-2016, 07:30 AM
There is a good academic paper on Pottery/Combed Ware Pottery in Eastern Europe: https://www.scribd.com/document/287101277/39-2-Inovation

Unfortunately, the article is not any more freely available as it was before. Pottery seems to appear first in the Volga River area (Elshan, Jungar) c. 5000 BC. By 4000 BC, the Typical Combed Ware is in the area of modern Latvia and Estonia. I do not know what this Culture has to do with Korea.

A similar technical evolution is possible at different places. That is probably the same for the mutations

Gravetto-Danubian
10-01-2016, 07:40 AM
Gravetto-Danubian, how can you be so confident when all the forest area between Altai and Finland is unsampled. The distance from Urumqi to Saint Petersburg is c. 4 150 kilometres. Now we know that N1c probably did not originate in Altai Sayan because we have quite a lot of ancient yDNA from there and there is no ancient N1c there, so your Altai is wrong with the current evidence. However, the yDNA K from Shamanka, Lake Baikal (Eneolithic) was probably a kind of N xN1c, which means that it could have been N1-M128 or this Chinese Neolithic N4.



Im not "sure", just hypothesizing. But in the end, I don't think i'm far off when you combine the modern phylogeny of N, the few ancient datapoints which we do know, and the archaeology of the late Upper palaeolithic of northern Eurasia :

First off, if N3a is what we're interested in (the branch found in FU), then N3b is found in Altai, Tuvans, (northern) Han, etc.
N3c in Japan.
N2 in Siberians, Mongols, northern Han again.
N4 Han, Japanese.

Look at the distribution maps in Illumae, and these major branches all split after the LGM.
It means they must have all expanded from (almost) one location after the Ice Age. We all know that the Altai was a refuge for Siberian and proto-Americans groups (although this is often erroneously linked to haplogroup R). Yet all the ancient data points to N, incl N3b, and Q.

Now, looking at the west, it looks like R1 expanded through eastern Europe/ Russia from some Black Sea/ Caucasus/ Aralo-Caspian refuge, or at furtherest east - the central Asian -Stans region.

Then specifically for N3a2, it is dated to have split c. 5 kya, and again, have to account for its presence in Mongols, Chukchis, etc .

Lastly, I have a hunch N1 Tat arrived in the East Baltic very late.

This only leaves a limited zone of possibilities for N as a whole, and also N1c - and that's around Lake Baikal, but this can be expanded to around Botai ;)

Kristiina
10-01-2016, 07:59 AM
You omitted N5 which is found in the Balkans.

The Chinese N4 and N1-M128 separated already during the last glacial maximum, c. 20 000 ypb and 17 000 ypb respectively. For the rest ('Uralic'/'Siberian' branch), I think that there is an Ice Age refuge somewhere between Altai and Volga which may be found out if we have enough ancient yDNA.

parastais
10-01-2016, 08:17 AM
sorry, R1a was a boy
http://s018.radikal.ru/i506/1502/48/187c9ae5ef0b.png
r1a was mistaken for a girl by Soviet anthros.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-01-2016, 08:19 AM
You omitted N5 which is found in the Balkans.
Was this not a "mixed race" man? If so, I'd put it to his southeast asian heritage, not Balkan



The Chinese N4 and N1-M128 separated already during the last glacial maximum, c. 20 000 ypb and 17 000 ypb respectively. For the rest ('Uralic'/'Siberian' branch), I think that there is an Ice Age refuge somewhere between Altai and Volga which may be found out if we have enough ancient yDNA.

Which refuge is there between Volga & Altai specifically ? I've not heard of any you just described
We have to limit hypotheses to refuges which actually existed. This is pure old archaeology, aDNA will never change that, becase you can't sample that which does not exist :)

Shaikorth
10-01-2016, 09:08 AM
Was this not a "mixed race" man? If so, I'd put it to his southeast asian heritage, not Balkan




Which refuge is there between Volga & Altai ? I've not heard of any you just described
Thus we are limited by refuges which actually existed. This is pure old archaeology, aDNA will never change that, becuase you can't sample that which does not exist :)

N5 is P189.2 and found in people who don't differ from the main population in Central Europe and the Balkans. The "mixed" guy in Ilumae paper most likely had very recent Southeast Asian ancestry or was a Roma tested with low K.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-01-2016, 09:20 AM
N5 is P189.2 and found in people who don't differ from the main population in Central Europe and the Balkans. The "mixed" guy in Ilumae paper most likely had very recent Southeast Asian ancestry or was a Roma tested with low K.

Thank you for clarifying
That certainly does impact the phylogenic pattern, and raise interesting new possibilities, but on balance N1 Tat is still nested in the "East".
I shall dig deeper about refuges ..

Kristiina
10-01-2016, 10:41 AM
I shall dig deeper about refuges ..

Please do! I did not expect that during the Ice Age there was nobody living in the vast expanse from Urumqi to Volga.

Kristiina
10-01-2016, 11:24 AM
I found at least this case study on the common shrew (http://www.zbs.bialowieza.pl/g2/pdf/1370.pdf) in which they say that:
“What is also noteworthy from the study of Bilton et al. (1998) is that all S. araneus haplotypes deriving from throughout central and northern Europe and Siberia are grouped together on the same branch of the neighbour-joining tree for the mtDNA sequence, suggesting a single glacial refugium. Chromosomal data suggest multiple refugia (see Searle and Wójcik 1998). The variation observed for the cytochrome b gene may not be high enough to discriminate different glacial refugia for S. araneus. On the other hand, chromosomal data alone may help infer more precisely the postglacial colonization of northern Europe and Asia. For instance, karyotypic races of the common shrew from Finland and western Siberia might have derived from a glacial refugium in the Southern Urals (Halkka et al 1994, Polyakov et al. 1997a, 2001).”

lgmayka
10-01-2016, 11:21 PM
Was this not a "mixed race" man? If so, I'd put it to his southeast asian heritage, not Balkan
N5 turned out to belong to N-Y7310. (GRC13294033 on YFull's tree (https://yfull.com/tree/N-Y7310/) may very well be the guy.) One of my project members ordered both the Big Y and Family Finder. The Big Y placed him in N-Y7310, and Family Finder most certainly did not find any Southeast Asian!

Frankly, I think that the claim of Southeast Asian is simply the authors' mistake. They may have run the comparison without any representation from Balkan populations.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-02-2016, 04:27 AM
N5 turned out to belong to N-Y7310. (GRC13294033 on YFull's tree (https://yfull.com/tree/N-Y7310/) may very well be the guy.) One of my project members ordered both the Big Y and Family Finder. The Big Y placed him in N-Y7310, and Family Finder most certainly did not find any Southeast Asian!

Frankly, I think that the claim of Southeast Asian is simply the authors' mistake. They may have run the comparison without any representation from Balkan populations.

Thanks
For interest, I see the Iron Age Hungary "Cimmerian" got a call for L665. This places him on N2a.(?)

Gravetto-Danubian
10-02-2016, 04:34 AM
Please do! I did not expect that during the Ice Age there was nobody living in the vast expanse from Urumqi to Volga.

It depends who you listen to (read)
American archaeologists (Graf, Goebells) argue almost the entire Siberia was depopulated during the LGM; or the handful or survivors were swamped by later arrivals from Mongolia, after c 18kya , carrying the specially adapted microblade technology
Russian archaeologists argue that south Siberia (from Ob to TransBaikalia) was still populated during the LGM

I'm inclined to agree with the former, as they excluded questionable datings; which would go toward explaining the diverse mosaic of hg N and Q seen in the region subsequently. At the very least, the Altai -Baikal area has a density of sites which is not seen further west; until one arrives to the Black Sea/ middle Dnieper region; indeed leaving a vast "no man's land" .

11949

If HG N5 is indeed "Balkan", the Illumae study dates its split to pre-LGM, which means it is a relictual western survivor , whilst the remaining N(xN5) re-expanded from somehwere around the Altai. This is the best explanation given the current evidence, IMO

Kristiina
10-02-2016, 05:56 AM
What are spots on that map? What period is that map? Is it a map of LGM sites? If yes, is it the American or Russian one?

Gravetto-Danubian
10-02-2016, 06:49 AM
What are spots on that map? What period is that map? Is it a map of LGM sites? If yes, is it the American or Russian one?

They are all C14 dated Palaeolithic sites in Siberia. From CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE SIBERIAN PALEOLITHIC: RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS. Sites not labelled but discussed in text

For a focus on LGM sites, see Kuzmin's "Siberia at the Last Glacial Maximum: Environment and Archaeology"

For contrary views, see: "Modern Human Colonization of the Siberian Mammoth Steppe: A View from South-Central Siberia". Kelly Graf

& "The “Microblade Adaptation” and Recolonization of Siberia during the Late Upper Pleistocene'; Goebbels

Removed from the debate, but good overview is "Climate History and Early Peopling of Siberia"; Jiří Chlachula

All downloadable via Academia or ResearchGate

Kristiina
10-02-2016, 07:38 AM
Thanks, Gravetto-Danubian! That was a very good package!

In the end, there isn’t any real problem. During the LGM the area inhabited by the humans was restricted and may have been just South Siberia. This new paper on Baikal detected K*-M9 (probably NxTAT), R1a and C-M217 in the Eneolithic period and Q in EBA. So, it is just the yDNA that is today widespread in Northern Eurasia.

N3(TAT) arose c. 13 000 ybp, so it did not exist during the LGM and could not have been in Western Siberia at that time. After LGM the inhabitable area was expanding rapidly, so TAT mutation probably took place somewhere where it could easily reach Western Siberia and China. Therefore I agree that TAT may have arisen in South Siberia c. 13 000 ybp. However, I still think that it is possible that N3a-L780 arose in West Siberia, maybe between Volga and Kama, c. 8 000 ybp.

Lathdrinor
10-07-2016, 12:53 AM
I also think current evidence is consistent with, though not necessarily proof of, separate expansions for West and East Eurasian branches of N. The whole of N looks scattered across several separate star clusters that are geographically, linguistically, and ethnically distinct. We also have no evidence that N was present during the Beringia expansion, which argues against its presence in eastern Siberia during the LGM. The best model would be a post-LGM eastward expansion from a western Siberian site. Before this is anyone's guess, however, as the location where N and O split off from each other is still unknown; current evidence argues for a southern region since Siberian O is very lacking both in ancient samples and current samples. But bottle-neck effects during the LGM could make such determination tricky, as O might simply have gone extinct in Siberia before expanding in the south. In that case, N and O could have split off in Siberia, with only N surviving in the north, while O moved to a southern refuge and expanded from there.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-07-2016, 01:15 AM
I also think current evidence is consistent with, though not necessarily proof of, separate expansions for West and East Eurasian branches of N. The whole of N looks scattered across several separate star clusters that are geographically, linguistically, and ethnically distinct. We also have no evidence that N was present during the Beringia expansion, which argues against its presence in eastern Siberia during the LGM. The best model would be a post-LGM eastward expansion from a western Siberian site. Before this is anyone's guess, however, as the location where N and O split off from each other is still unknown; current evidence argues for a southern region since Siberian O is very lacking both in ancient samples and current samples. But bottle-neck effects during the LGM could make such determination tricky, as O might simply have gone extinct in Siberia before expanding in the south. In that case, N and O could have split off in Siberia, with only N surviving in the north, while O moved to a southern refuge and expanded from there.

However the "western" branch (N5) is a dwarf group compare to the eastern branch
It's rather clear all other (x N5) branches came from a common LGM refuge in the east

Lathdrinor
10-07-2016, 01:28 AM
However the "western" branch (N5) is a dwarf group compare to the eastern branch
It's rather clear all other (x N5) branches came from a common LGM refuge in the east

Yes, N5 is probably the first split off during the migration to the east, while x N5 moved further east. But I'd still emphasis that there was no Beringia crossing for this haplogroup, and a younger TMRCA within China, so x N5 still did not move to the Far East, just further east of where N5 was left behind. The final settlement in the Far East happened later as x N5 diversified and expanded during the Neolithic, probably in a northwest to southeast direction. We see x N5 in Inner Mongolia and Manchuria during the middle and late Neolithic, so that's a lower limit for when it reached the Far East, leaving a trail across North Asia in the process.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-07-2016, 02:12 AM
Yes, N5 is probably the first split off during the migration to the east, while x N5 moved further east. But I'd still emphasis that there was no Beringia crossing for this haplogroup, and a younger TMRCA within China, so x N5 still did not move to the Far East, just further east of where N5 was left behind. The final settlement in the Far East happened later as x N5 diversified and expanded during the Neolithic, probably in a northwest to southeast direction. We see x N5 in Inner Mongolia and Manchuria during the middle and late Neolithic, so that's a lower limit for when it reached the Far East, leaving a trail across North Asia in the process.

Oh I agree (who was proposing Beringia ?)
Phylogenetically, south central Sibera makes sense- but it appears archaeological research has mostly focused around the Altai

Megalophias
10-07-2016, 04:19 PM
I also think current evidence is consistent with, though not necessarily proof of, separate expansions for West and East Eurasian branches of N. The whole of N looks scattered across several separate star clusters that are geographically, linguistically, and ethnically distinct. We also have no evidence that N was present during the Beringia expansion, which argues against its presence in eastern Siberia during the LGM. The best model would be a post-LGM eastward expansion from a western Siberian site.

Northeast Asia is a big place, I don't think failing to reach Beringia means much. From northern China the Bering Strait is as far away as Moscow - 5 or 6000 km - and the far northern branches of N seem relatively young.

The most common branch of N in northern Eurasia is N-L1026 (N3a3'6) under N1c1-Tat, which according to Ilumae et al estimates expanded during the 3rd millennium BC, and that reaches from the Atlantic to the Bering Sea. Also common though more patchy in distribution is N-B523/Y3210 (N2a1) under N1c2b-P43, which is about the same age, and reaches from Karelia to Chukotka. There is east-west differentiation in subclades, but this is much later in time than the origin of N and its main branches.

The basal diversity of N in the east is considerable. China has all branches of N1a-F2905 (N4), with TMRCA of ~14-19 ky, very rare and downstream in Europe, and also high basal diversity of the other branch, N1c-L729 (N1'2'3), TMRCA 15-20 ky. Under N1c1-Tat (N3), TMRCA ~11-15 ky, it has 2 levels of N1c1a-M178, F3331+ and F3331-, both upstream of the divergence between Altaian N-B187 (N3b) and N-L708 (N3a) - the latter being the first clade that could arguably be West Eurasian. Under N1c2-L666 (N1'2) it has N1c2a1-M128 (N1), almost non-existent in Europe, and upstream N1c2a-F1154(xM128), as well as the rare (but equally old) sister branch to N-B523, N1c2b2-B520 (N2a2). Last but not least, it has N1c-F1206*(xN1c1-Tat, N1c2-F3163), itself having considerable haplotype diversity (my guess is perhaps a sister branch to N1c2). About the only thing missing is N2-Y6503 (N5).

But I don't mean to strongly advocate an eastern origin here, because there hasn't been enough sampling in North Asia, or even in European Russia or Central Asia, to be sure what's there. There is a fair bit of N(xM128, P43, Tat) which remains to be identified, and scattered reports of N1c1-Tat(xM178) from the Volga to Inner Mongolia (but none confirmed by full sequencing, so I don't completely trust them.)

Anyway, on current evidence, I think we can safely say that haplogroup N had its origins somewhere in northern Eurasia. ;)

Kristiina
10-07-2016, 06:53 PM
On the basis of that new Estonian haplotree, the expansion from the South Siberian Ice Age refuge makes sense, although on the basis of its age, it is possible that N4 was already at that time in a North Chinese Ice Age refuge wherever it was.

From South Siberia, P43 may easily have parted company with one line (B523) heading to West Siberia and the other (N2a2) to China, as well as L708 to the west and B496 to the east.

12036

Megalophias, do you know what is the relation of F3331+ and F3331- with N3c-B496?

However, the east west dichotomy exists:
N5 (oldest split) west
N4 (next oldest split) Southeast Asia, + N-F1206* (Southeast Asia)
N1a (Central Asia v. Southeast Asia)
N-P43 (Eastern Europe/West Siberia v. Southeast Asia)
N-TAT (Eastern Europe v. East Asia)

I also think that Northern Central Eurasia is the most probable centre of expansion as several branches spreading to opposite directions is unlikely to have happened repeatedly only from one end of the area to the other end.

alchemist223
10-17-2020, 11:49 PM
Haplogroup N has also been found at the Houtaomouga site in Jilin, dating back to 7430-7320 BC (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.12.336628v1) (The genomic formation of First American ancestors in East and Northeast Asia) by Ning, et. al

davit
10-18-2020, 12:24 AM
Northeast Asia is a big place, I don't think failing to reach Beringia means much. From northern China the Bering Strait is as far away as Moscow - 5 or 6000 km - and the far northern branches of N seem relatively young.

The most common branch of N in northern Eurasia is N-L1026 (N3a3'6) under N1c1-Tat, which according to Ilumae et al estimates expanded during the 3rd millennium BC, and that reaches from the Atlantic to the Bering Sea. Also common though more patchy in distribution is N-B523/Y3210 (N2a1) under N1c2b-P43, which is about the same age, and reaches from Karelia to Chukotka. There is east-west differentiation in subclades, but this is much later in time than the origin of N and its main branches.

The basal diversity of N in the east is considerable. China has all branches of N1a-F2905 (N4), with TMRCA of ~14-19 ky, very rare and downstream in Europe, and also high basal diversity of the other branch, N1c-L729 (N1'2'3), TMRCA 15-20 ky. Under N1c1-Tat (N3), TMRCA ~11-15 ky, it has 2 levels of N1c1a-M178, F3331+ and F3331-, both upstream of the divergence between Altaian N-B187 (N3b) and N-L708 (N3a) - the latter being the first clade that could arguably be West Eurasian. Under N1c2-L666 (N1'2) it has N1c2a1-M128 (N1), almost non-existent in Europe, and upstream N1c2a-F1154(xM128), as well as the rare (but equally old) sister branch to N-B523, N1c2b2-B520 (N2a2). Last but not least, it has N1c-F1206*(xN1c1-Tat, N1c2-F3163), itself having considerable haplotype diversity (my guess is perhaps a sister branch to N1c2). About the only thing missing is N2-Y6503 (N5).

But I don't mean to strongly advocate an eastern origin here, because there hasn't been enough sampling in North Asia, or even in European Russia or Central Asia, to be sure what's there. There is a fair bit of N(xM128, P43, Tat) which remains to be identified, and scattered reports of N1c1-Tat(xM178) from the Volga to Inner Mongolia (but none confirmed by full sequencing, so I don't completely trust them.)

Anyway, on current evidence, I think we can safely say that haplogroup N had its origins somewhere in northern Eurasia. ;)

Have your opinions changed? I think a Northeast Eurasian origin makes a lot of sense.