Page 249 of 405 FirstFirst ... 149199239247248249250251259299349 ... LastLast
Results 2,481 to 2,490 of 4044

Thread: Genetic Genealogy & Ancient DNA in the News (DISCUSSION ONLY)

  1. #2481
    Registered Users
    Posts
    513
    Sex
    Location
    NYC
    Ethnicity
    Semi-Synthetic Scandi
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    N-Z1936 (Z1927)
    mtDNA (M)
    H1h
    Y-DNA (M)
    R-Z56 (Y60904)
    mtDNA (P)
    French, I think

    Norway United Kingdom Germany Italy Ethiopia
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaikorth View Post
    I don't think there's been autosomal DNA from Hongshan before. Given the local continuity from Devil's Gate it would be quite logical if it resembles Ulchis and similar populations instead of northern Siberians.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    Niuheliang site (located near the border between Lingyuan and Jianping County, Chaoyang, Liaoning Province, PRC)/Hongshan culture/approx. 6500 YBP ~ 5000 YBP/Neolithic (Cui et al. 2013)
    2/6 N-M231(xN1c2a-M128, N1c1-Tat)
    2/6 N-M231(xN1c1-Tat)
    1/6 C-M216 (subclade undetermined)
    1/6 O3-M122 (subclade undetermined)

    The Niuheliang site, attributed to the Hongshan culture, is located in the westernmost corner of Liaoning Province, near its borders with Hebei Province and Inner Mongolia. I would not assume that Neolithic people in this area, which is rather close to present-day Beijing, would necessarily share ties of culture or kinship with the people whose remains have been excavated from Chertovy Vorota Cave in the Sikhote-Alin Mountains of Primorsky Krai, a region which has been named for its proximity to the Sea of Japan. Of course, I would be open to considering evidence that might indicate a close connection between populations of the two regions, but they appear to me to be ecologically very distinct from each other.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaikorth View Post
    Just throwing this out here but those haplogroups (perhaps N-F2905 and other Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic patrilineages occurring in modern North China) indeed suggest relation to just local peoples instead of a Siberian or "Transeurasian" link (which to my amateur ears sounds like Macro-Altaic under another name). If they keep going on with the latter connection they may have found some autosomal link, and if so the connection is likely to modern Tungusic peoples (excluding Evens and Evenk). Those have continuity from Devil's Gate.


    Sorry for the late reply. Glad it's been reminded the Hongshan samples so far have also turned up O and C, all from Niuheliang (2013), and a good distance in time from the early parent Xinglongwa culture, the origin of China's jade industry. That's the only one offering a realistic connection to Uralic peoples whether or not it be associated with Combed Ware. Hongshan may be substantially admixed relative to Xinglongwa, and in fact these same authors were calling the (Hongshan) population something to the effect of "in transition" autosomally, with modern Evenks nearest to them (among populations compared), five months ago at a silly Transeurasian conference in early January. What I think is often forgotten for some reason is that the Chinese already have a number of N1c-Tat in their possession, except that they come from the Xueshan culture (3600-2900 BCE) which was more or less right in modern Beijing, not distant Liaoning. This may or may not have come directly from Xinglongwa or the Hongshan sphere but it's awfully close. There is Yellow River influence, meaning Yangshao, but from what I understand there's one fully Yangshao site elsewhere N just magically appears dominant in.

    For some reason my fragment of recent East Asian actually prefers Han North China in the G25, some consequence of the fragmentation, when of course full-blooded Finns and related score mostly Nganassan with a maybe a little Han North China. Buryat will eat all or an amount of both. Evenk none for some reason. Regardless, here's an important point: if it wasn't all direct from Xinglongwa or closely related, this theoretical westbound pre-Uralic founding population may already have had Yellow River ancestry, noting Xueshan, and O having traveled as far as Liaoning. One would still expect some ancestry related to Xinglongwa as their jade jewelry was so popular it spread all over classic East Asia. I've just not been able to find at much if anything for certain on where this population may have come from, but I've seen nothing intrusive to the region suggested.
    Scandinavian-love structure

    recent and recently discovered Swedish, Danish and Norwegian (many 4th/5th cousins)
    recent East/North German
    Anglo-Saxon from recent rural English (Derbyshire/Staffordshire) with possible trace Danish
    1/16 Bronze Age Swedish from Finland/Karelia
    medieval Norwegian and Danish via Ireland (possibly surviving structure)
    other English and German (regions unknown)
    other NW to NE European

    closest modern Sweden2
    closest ancient Sigtuna vik84001

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nibelung For This Useful Post:

     Hando (06-01-2019),  palamede (06-01-2019)

  3. #2482
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,198
    Sex
    Location
    France
    Ethnicity
    Franchouillard
    Y-DNA (P)
    G2a2b2a1b1a2a1-S2808
    mtDNA (M)
    H2a2a1

    Normandie Wallonia
    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    Very interesting their dating - "Our analysis suggested that population size of the Jomon people started to decrease c. 50000 years ago. The phylogenetic relationship among F23, modern/ancient Eurasians, and Native Americans showed a deep divergence of F23 in East Eurasia, probably before the split of the ancestor of Native Americans from East Eurasians, but after the split of 40000-year-old Tianyuan, indicating that the Northern Jomon people were genetically isolated from continental East Eurasians for a long period."
    c. 50000 years ago (seems nonsensical) or c. 5000 years ago (if one zero more by mistake) ?

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to palamede For This Useful Post:

     Hando (06-01-2019)

  5. #2483
    Global Moderator
    Posts
    770
    Sex
    Location
    EU
    Ethnicity
    Finnish
    Y-DNA (P)
    Father N1c
    mtDNA (M)
    I5a

    Quote Originally Posted by Nibelung View Post
    Glad it's been reminded the Hongshan samples so far have also turned up O and C, all from Niuheliang (2013), and a good distance in time from the early parent Xinglongwa culture, the origin of China's jade industry. That's the only one offering a realistic connection to Uralic peoples whether or not it be associated with Combed Ware. Hongshan may be substantially admixed relative to Xinglongwa, and in fact these same authors were calling the (Hongshan) population something to the effect of "in transition" autosomally, with modern Evenks nearest to them (among populations compared), five months ago at a silly Transeurasian conference in early January. What I think is often forgotten for some reason is that the Chinese already have a number of N1c-Tat in their possession, except that they come from the Xueshan culture (3600-2900 BCE) which was more or less right in modern Beijing, not distant Liaoning. This may or may not have come directly from Xinglongwa or the Hongshan sphere but it's awfully close. There is Yellow River influence, meaning Yangshao, but from what I understand there's one fully Yangshao site elsewhere N just magically appears dominant in.
    Hongshan N samples are xN1a, N1c which means that they belong to the Chinese Neolithic N branch. According to yfull the Chinese N-F2905 branch formed 18100 ybp. Niuheliang Hongshan samples are dated c. 5000 ypb. Now we have yDNA from Baikal Neolithic and these samples are not xN1a, N1c which means that they are much closer to the western N lines than Chinese Neolithic lines are. Baikal Neolithic N samples are dated 6000-7000 ypb, therefore it does not make much sense to argue that Chinese Neolithic farmer N males, 5000 ybp, generated the Baikal hunter N males, 7000 ybp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    I would not assume that Neolithic people in this area, which is rather close to present-day Beijing, would necessarily share ties of culture or kinship with the people whose remains have been excavated from Chertovy Vorota Cave in the Sikhote-Alin Mountains of Primorsky Krai, a region which has been named for its proximity to the Sea of Japan. Of course, I would be open to considering evidence that might indicate a close connection between populations of the two regions, but they appear to me to be ecologically very distinct from each other.
    Yes, the cultural context is different, but Hongshan mtDNA seems to be local.

    MtDNA is a much better predictor of the autosomal ancestry than yDNA.

    Niuheliang Hongshan (5000 ybp) mtdna:
    10 x N9a, 8 x D (of which one D5), 3 x A, 3 x B
    Halahaigou, Hongshan-Xiaoheyan (4500 ybp)
    3 x N9a, 2 x C, 1 x F, 1 x N*

    Ulchi mtDNA
    N9 + Y (under N9) 44.8% (Y 37.9%, N9 6.9%)
    D 21.8% (D 4.6%, D4/D4o 10.3%, D1a/D4e1 4.6%, D3/D4b1 2.3%)
    G 11.4% (G1 10.3% G2 1.1%)
    C 13.7% (C2 6.9%, C3 5.7%, C1a 1.1%)
    F 1.1%

    Ulchi mtDNA is not so far away from Hongshan mtDNA even if Ulchi N9 is N9b. N9b is the main mtDNA of Jomon. Both N9a and N9b are old in the area of Japan, Korea, Amur and Northeast China.

    Nivkh mtDNA
    Y 66.1%
    D 28.6 (D4m 23.2, D4/D4o 5.4%)
    G1 5.4%

    Devil’s Gate samples are D4m, so there is a clear continuity between Devil’s Gate population and modern Nivkhs who speak a language isolate.

    As a conclusion I would argue that mtDNAs N9 and D are the main components of the autosomal ancestry in the area of Japan, Korea, Amur and Northeast China.
    Last edited by Kristiina; 06-01-2019 at 07:30 AM.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kristiina For This Useful Post:

     Hando (06-01-2019),  palamede (06-01-2019),  Pribislav (06-01-2019)

  7. #2484
    Registered Users
    Posts
    594
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina View Post
    Hongshan N samples are xN1a, N1c which means that they belong to the Chinese Neolithic N branch. According to yfull the Chinese N-F2905 branch formed 18100 ybp. Niuheliang Hongshan samples are dated c. 5000 ypb. Now we have yDNA from Baikal Neolithic and these samples are not xN1a, N1c which means that they are much closer to the western N lines than Chinese Neolithic lines are. Baikal Neolithic N samples are dated 6000-7000 ypb, therefore it does not make much sense to argue that Chinese Neolithic farmer N males, 5000 ybp, generated the Baikal hunter N males, 7000 ybp.
    The Baikal "Neolithic" N appears to be mostly (and possibly nearly all) N-L666 (formed 16,000 [95% CI 14,200 <-> 17,800] ybp, TMRCA 8,700 [95% CI 7,600 <-> 9,900] ybp according to YFull YTree v7.04.00), which means it is more closely related to N-M128 (former N1a), N-P43 (former N1b), or a common ancestor of both N-M128 and N-P43 than it is related to N-Tat (former N1c). N-F1101 (parent clade of N-M128; TMRCA 7,900 [95% CI 6,600 <-> 9,200] ybp according to YFull YTree v7.04.00) seems to exhibit a typical East Asian distribution: it is present with greatest frequency and diversity in the PRC, with clines extending into Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Korea, and Japan. N-P43 (TMRCA 4,700 [95% CI 3,800 <-> 5,600] ybp according to YFull YTree v7.04.00) is found with greatest frequency among easterly (especially Asian/Siberian/trans-Ural) Uralic speakers, but it is also present among Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic peoples toward the east and westerly (Volga and Baltic) Uralic speakers toward the west.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina View Post
    Yes, the cultural context is different, but Hongshan mtDNA seems to be local.

    MtDNA is a much better predictor of the autosomal ancestry than yDNA.
    Rhumb-line distance from Forbidden City to Niuheliang archaeological site:
    approx. 307 km

    Rhumb-line distance from Niuheliang archaeological site to Dalnegorsk, Primorsky Krai, Russia (town near Chertovy Vorota/Devil's Gate Cave):
    approx. 1,356 km

    Niuheliang is approximately 1,000 km closer to Beijing than it is to Devil's Gate Cave. Furthermore, there are no salient climatic differences or topographical barriers between Niuheliang and Beijing, whereas Devil's Gate Cave is located in a forested gorge in a coastal mountain range far to the north (and east). If there really is a significantly closer genetic relationship between the people who have produced the relics of the Hongshan culture at Niuheliang and the people whose remains have been discovered in Devil's Gate Cave than there is between the former and their contemporaries in the area that is now Beijing, then this demands an explanation.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ebizur For This Useful Post:

     Hando (06-02-2019),  Nibelung (06-01-2019),  palamede (06-01-2019)

  9. #2485
    Global Moderator
    Posts
    770
    Sex
    Location
    EU
    Ethnicity
    Finnish
    Y-DNA (P)
    Father N1c
    mtDNA (M)
    I5a

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    The Baikal "Neolithic" N appears to be mostly (and possibly nearly all) N-L666 (formed 16,000 [95% CI 14,200 <-> 17,800] ybp, TMRCA 8,700 [95% CI 7,600 <-> 9,900] ybp according to YFull YTree v7.04.00), which means it is more closely related to N-M128 (former N1a), N-P43 (former N1b), or a common ancestor of both N-M128 and N-P43 than it is related to N-Tat (former N1c). N-F1101 (parent clade of N-M128; TMRCA 7,900 [95% CI 6,600 <-> 9,200] ybp according to YFull YTree v7.04.00) seems to exhibit a typical East Asian distribution: it is present with greatest frequency and diversity in the PRC, with clines extending into Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Korea, and Japan. N-P43 (TMRCA 4,700 [95% CI 3,800 <-> 5,600] ybp according to YFull YTree v7.04.00) is found with greatest frequency among easterly (especially Asian/Siberian/trans-Ural) Uralic speakers, but it is also present among Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic peoples toward the east and westerly (Volga and Baltic) Uralic speakers toward the west.
    Yes, and Hongshan N is not N-L666, N-M128 or N-TAT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    Niuheliang is approximately 1,000 km closer to Beijing than it is to Devil's Gate Cave. Furthermore, there are no salient climatic differences or topographical barriers between Niuheliang and Beijing, whereas Devil's Gate Cave is located in a forested gorge in a coastal mountain range far to the north (and east). If there really is a significantly closer genetic relationship between the people who have produced the relics of the Hongshan culture at Niuheliang and the people whose remains have been discovered in Devil's Gate Cave than there is between the former and their contemporaries in the area that is now Beijing, then this demands an explanation.
    Of course I agree that people in Beijing should be closer to Hongshan samples than Devil's Gate people. This is the admixture analysis from the Devil's Gate paper.

    Devil's Gate.GIF

    Devil's Gate people seem to have Nganasan ancestry but Nganasans do not have Devil's Gate, Korean/Japanese or East Asian ancestry.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Kristiina For This Useful Post:

     Hando (06-02-2019)

  11. #2486
    Registered Users
    Posts
    594
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina View Post
    Yes, and Hongshan N is not N-L666, N-M128 or N-TAT.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur
    Niuheliang site (located near the border between Lingyuan and Jianping County, Chaoyang, Liaoning Province, PRC)/Hongshan culture/approx. 6500 YBP ~ 5000 YBP/Neolithic (Cui et al. 2013)
    2/6 N-M231(xN1c2a-M128, N1c1-Tat)
    2/6 N-M231(xN1c1-Tat)
    1/6 C-M216 (subclade undetermined)
    1/6 O3-M122 (subclade undetermined)
    The Y-DNA haplogroup N specimens from Niuheliang that have been examined by Cui et al. all appear to be outside of N-Tat, but only half of them have been excluded from belonging to N-M128, and none of them has been excluded from belonging to N-L666 as far as I can see. Where have you obtained your information regarding the phylogenetic position of the Y-DNA haplogroup N specimens from Niuheliang?

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Ebizur For This Useful Post:

     Hando (06-02-2019)

  13. #2487
    Global Moderator
    Posts
    770
    Sex
    Location
    EU
    Ethnicity
    Finnish
    Y-DNA (P)
    Father N1c
    mtDNA (M)
    I5a

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    Where have you obtained your information regarding the phylogenetic position of the Y-DNA haplogroup N specimens from Niuheliang?
    https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.co...71-2148-13-216

    Niuheliang 4/6 N1(xN1a, N1c)

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Kristiina For This Useful Post:

     Hando (06-02-2019)

  15. #2488
    Registered Users
    Posts
    594
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina View Post
    Cf. the supplementary data table at https://static-content.springer.com/...OESM1_ESM.xlsx.

    Only two specimens, NHL4 and NHL6, are indicated to be N-M231+/M128-/TAT-.

    NHL2 and NHL5 are indicated to be N-M231+/TAT-, but they have an in the column for M128. According to a note in Row 53, Column 1 of the spreadsheet, " denote that SNP site can not determined because of amplification failure."

    None of the Niuheliang specimens has been indicated to be negative for L666.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Ebizur For This Useful Post:

     Hando (06-02-2019)

  17. #2489
    Global Moderator
    Posts
    770
    Sex
    Location
    EU
    Ethnicity
    Finnish
    Y-DNA (P)
    Father N1c
    mtDNA (M)
    I5a

    This amplification failure does not mean that L666 is more probable than F2905 with which they match in any case.

    To my knowledge, DA245 from Shamanka II, 7123 BP uncal, has been confirmed as N-L666.

    It still does not make sense that Niuheliang farmer N (belonging to Hongshan culture dated to 6500-5000 BP) generated Baikal Neolithic N-L666, 7123 BP uncal.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Kristiina For This Useful Post:

     Hando (06-02-2019)

  19. #2490
    Registered Users
    Posts
    594
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina View Post
    This amplification failure does not mean that L666 is more probable than F2905 with which they match in any case.
    Where have you seen it indicated that any ancient specimen has been assigned to N-F2905? Have you inferred that ancient N(xTAT) or N(xM128, TAT) specimens from Niuheliang and other archaeological sites in the PRC may belong to N-F2905 on the grounds of that clade's distribution among present-day humans?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina View Post
    To my knowledge, DA245 from Shamanka II, 7123 BP uncal, has been confirmed as N-L666.
    At least half of the Baikal "Neolithic" (actually people who subsisted by hunting, fishing, and gathering, but who also possessed ceramic vessels) specimens tested by Damgaard et al. have been assigned to N-L666. Some of the rest also may belong to N-L666, but, according to the data published so far, cannot confidently be assigned to that clade. As I recall, there have been only two ancient specimens from the area around Lake Baikal that do belong to haplogroup N-M231 but certainly do not belong to N-L666: one from Shamanka that probably belongs to N2-Y6503 (the clade whose extant members are mostly South Slavs) and one from Ust-Ida that belongs to N-TAT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina View Post
    It still does not make sense that Niuheliang farmer N (belonging to Hongshan culture dated to 6500-5000 BP) generated Baikal Neolithic N-L666, 7123 BP uncal.
    One would have to consider the archaeological stratification in the two regions. N-L666 may have formed as early as 17,800 years before present according to YFull YTree v7.04.00, so if there is nothing in the archaeological record that would exclude the possibility of a migration from Liaoxi to Baikal between 17,800 and 7,123 ybp, then it would not be an implausible hypothesis. Of course, in the case of such a hypothesis, the source would be some predecessor of Hongshan culture (e.g. Xinglongwa culture) rather than Hongshan culture proper.

    By the way, there is no proof that any of the Hongshan specimens or the Baikal Neolithic specimens has any living patrilineal descendants. Populations around Lake Baikal seem to have been replaced by Palaeo-Siberian-like members of Y-DNA haplogroup Q around the transition to the Bronze Age in the region. The Baikal Neolithic specimens seem to have been more similar to the present-day non-Slavic indigenes of the vicinity of Lake Baikal than the Bronze Age Glazkovo specimens are similar to the present-day non-Slavic indigenes, but that does not necessarily mean that the Baikal Neolithic people have survived and reconquered their lost territory around Lake Baikal in subsequent generations; it is possible that people who just happen to have been genetically more similar to the Baikal Neolithic people than the Glazkovo people are similar to the Baikal Neolithic people have conquered the territory from the descendants of the Glazkovo people sometime between the Bronze Age and the present.

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ebizur For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-03-2019),  Hando (06-02-2019),  Nibelung (06-01-2019),  Ryukendo (07-30-2019)

Page 249 of 405 FirstFirst ... 149199239247248249250251259299349 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Genetic Genealogy & Ancient DNA in the News (TITLES/ABSTRACTS ONLY)
    By History-of-Things in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 3027
    Last Post: Yesterday, 04:43 PM
  2. R2 - Ancient DNA Discussion
    By Tomasso29 in forum R2-M479
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-05-2020, 02:06 PM
  3. Ancient Celtic Y dna discussion
    By Principe in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 10-15-2018, 01:27 PM
  4. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-15-2015, 09:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •