May 16, 2014

mtDNA D1 from 12-13 thousand year old Paleoamerican

This is interesting both because it's a >12,000 year old skeleton from the bottom of the sea (!) and because it establishes that an individual with clear Paleoamerican morphology belonged to a common modern Amerindian mtDNA haplogroup. Together with the recent publication of the Anzick genome, it seems that everything points towards continuity of Native Americans since the earliest settlement, rather than a more recent arrival of the ancestors of Native Americans that replaced an earlier "Paleoamerican" gene pool.

Science 16 May 2014: Vol. 344 no. 6185 pp. 750-754 DOI: 10.1126/science.1252619

Late Pleistocene Human Skeleton and mtDNA Link Paleoamericans and Modern Native Americans

James C. Chatters

Because of differences in craniofacial morphology and dentition between the earliest American skeletons and modern Native Americans, separate origins have been postulated for them, despite genetic evidence to the contrary. We describe a near-complete human skeleton with an intact cranium and preserved DNA found with extinct fauna in a submerged cave on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. This skeleton dates to between 13,000 and 12,000 calendar years ago and has Paleoamerican craniofacial characteristics and a Beringian-derived mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup (D1). Thus, the differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans probably resulted from in situ evolution rather than separate ancestry.

Link

66 comments:

About Time said...

I wonder if some of those Paleoanerican cranial features were from recessive deleterious alleles that piled up during the Beringians exodus. With a little mixture (maybe even between separately inbred groups) balanced out those genes, resulting in the modern Native Amer morphology.

Same thing might have happened to Neanderthal. They suffered from superficial strange features (inbreeding depression) that became far more attenuated in their more mixed offspring.

German Dziebel said...

If there's genetic continuity between Paleoamericans with more Australo-Melanesian morphology and modern Amerindians with more "Mongoloid" morphology, then it strengthens the idea that the so-called "Mongoloid" phenotype in Asia (facial flatness, EDAR+, shovel-shaped incisors) is product of a back migration from America in the Late Pleistocene-early Holocene.

terryt said...

Haplogroup D1? Well, a subgroup of D4. It will be interesting to see how German squirms out of that one.

"Thus, the differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans probably resulted from in situ evolution rather than separate ancestry".

Extreme 'in situ evolution' by German's belief. So much so that EDAR370A first arose there then mysteriously managed to exit America and then spread south through East Asia, leaving a very surprising concentration of the gene in Northern China. I admit he has as yet made not the slightest attempt to explain how that could happen.

"Because of differences in craniofacial morphology and dentition between the earliest American skeletons and modern Native Americans, separate origins have been postulated for them, despite genetic evidence to the contrary".

I wouldn't go so far as to say all the genetic evidence points to the contrary. Some haplogroups that tend to be concentrated in northern regions could well be more recent entries from Northeast Siberia. That is the simplest explanation for the more Mongoloid appearance of northern, and some more southerly, groups.

Annie Mouse said...

Nice paper. But they are over-egging the pudding a little with:

"Thus, the differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans probably resulted from in situ evolution rather than separate ancestry"

There is NO evidence for this.

From the same paper:
"The ancestry of the earliest Americans is still debated, however, because the oldest skeletal remains from the Americas (>9 ka, the Paleoamericans) consistently fail to group morphometrically with modern Native Americans, Siberians, and other northeast Asians (6). Paleoamericans exhibit longer, narrower crania and smaller, shorter, more projecting faces than later Native Americans (7). In nearly all cases, they are morphologically most similar to modern peoples of Africa, Australia, and the southern Pacific Rim (7–9). Polymorphic dental traits currently found in East Asia also distinguish later Native Americans (10), who tend to exhibit such specialized (Sinodont) traits as winged, shovel-shaped upper incisors, three-rooted lower first molars, and small or absent third molars; from Paleoamericans, who exhibit a less specialized (Sundadont) morphology (7). These differences suggest that America was colonized by separate migration events from different parts of Eurasia (11) or by multiple colonization events from Beringia (12), or that evolutionary changes occurred in the Americas after colonization (13)."

Hard to see how just internal selection/evolution for more gracile features in America could introduce new things like sinodonty. It seems more like to me that the earliest skeletons retain more of the original phenotype, and that the modern phenotype is probably a consequence of additional flows from asia and perhaps some selection/evolution/neoteny also, as would be expected for 12,000 years.

Also Yucatan is not that far from North America and these dates are recent enough to be still Clovis era compatible (Clovis is 12-13 kya according to Wikipedia). Not that I am a Clovis-first supporter, I am not, quite the contrary.

This paper shows a modern Amerindian haplogroup (D1) in a phenotypic paleoindian. But we do not know if D1 is pre-Clovis or post-Clovis. D is 30-50ky old, it could be either. Both would have come through Beringia.

D1 could be a pre-Clovis haplogroup that persisted into modern times becoming more phenotypically asian with time. A Clovis asian-type man marrying a paleoindian woman. Two generations could be enough for a complete phenotype change.

Or if D1 is a Clovis era haplogroup, then it could just shows interbreeding between recent (12kya) Clovis-typen incomers (with a few women) and the paleoindian population. The first few generations would look paleoindian (with D1) but this phenotype would be washed away with later asian flows.

In situ evolution from paleoindian to modern Amerindian is going much, much to far. Continuity for 12-13,000 years, plus evidence that the paleoindians were probably genetically integrated, is cool enough on its own.

Kristiina said...

Am I right that Anzick represents Clovis complex, dating from 13,000 to 12,600 calendar years BP, while this new genome, from the same period 13,000 to 12,000 calendar years, represents older cultures and the so called Paleoamerican physical type. It may be significant that Anzick’s mtDNA is different from the mtDNA of this individual, although both fall in haplogroup D. Here we see a Paleoamerican individual carrying haplogrup D1 which results from an earlier split from hg D than D4h3a which is Anzick’s haplotype. The deepest split in hg D is between D4 + D1 and D5 + D6. D1 is only found in the Americas while D4h3a has parallel branches in Siberia: D4h1 in Barghuts and Japanese, D4h4 in Barghuts and Buryats and D4h2 in Ulchi. As Anzick carried yDNA Q1a2a1-L54*(xM3) (L54 lines are also found in Barghuts and Buryats), it is possible to explain physical differences between Paleoamericans and other Americans arguing that the Paleoamerican wave included yDNA Q-M3 and D1 while a later wave brought people with more typical West Coast Native American looks, including yDNA Q1a2a1-L54*(xM3) and D4h3a, but, of course, it is possible that all these lines were present in America from the beginning, and differences are only a result of in situ evolution.

However, it is interesting that Saqqaq (4,044 ± 31 ) carried again the same haplogroups, yDNA Q and mtDNA D, but different haplotypes, as his yDNA was Q1a* and mtDNA D2a1 (D4e1). D2/D4e1 is a parallel branch of D4h and D1, and typical of Aleutians, Siberian Eskimos and Eskimos. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7282/fig_tab/nature08835_F3.html

bicicleur said...

this is interesting ; does it mean that skeletons and craniums can evolve through natural selection, without blending with other skelet types ?

aniasi said...

Instead of these ridiculous theories of admixture, or bizarre racial 'oid' classifications, the evidence suggests a fairly simple line of reasoning: populations can change relatively quickly in terms physiologically, due to changing environments.

Surely this is the simplest line of reasoning? Populations don't stay static morphologically unless their environments remain stable, which is rather rare. These absurd Victorian 'oid' racial types seem like something from the encyclopaedia Britannica 1901 than a 21st century anthropology blog.

pconroy said...

As I posted on Razib's blog, my latest theory is that Paleoamericans - representing the earliest colonization of the Americas - were from a Central Asian/Siberian population, who travelled by boat to the Americas, bypassing Beringia.

Later as Beringia sank, the Beringians - with an East Asian phenotype - scrambled to NE Asia and the Americas. That would explain the chronology nicely, and also why South Amerindians (Karaitana/Surui) are more similar to Mal'ta Boy (MA-1) than North Amerindians.

Feedback?

German Dziebel said...

@Annie Mouse

"Hard to see how just internal selection/evolution for more gracile features in America could introduce new things like sinodonty."

Sinodonty had to evolve somewhere, right? It has higher frequencies in America than in Asia and it's geographically restricted in the Old World in areas that are close to the New World. Only in the New World do we see genetic continuity between samples with distinct phenotypes. So, by logic, Sinodonty evolved in America and migrated to East Asia where they mixed with an earlier "Australo-Melanesian"-kind population, which shared a deeper affinity with Paleo-Americans.

"There is NO evidence for this."

There's ample evidence contradicting the idea that America was colonized through multiple waves. It's a well-established conclusion originally derived from the distribution of modern mtDNA lineages. Ancient DNA fully confirms this. On the other hand, in Asia, a two-wave model is supported by a whole host of studies. One missing piece has been that the secondary "Mongoloid" wave into Asia has recent Amerindian roots.

Unknown said...

all physical attributes, from skin color to cranial shape can be and are actively selected for by sexual selection, which is not the same as natural selection.

sexual selection is faster than natural selection and independant of fitness. prime example is the irish elk--giant antler size was sexually selected and continued to be so after the forestation of the british isles, leading to the elk's extinction by not being able to move freely in forests due to the size of its antlers.

cranial features should be taken with a grain of salt. nothing drives osteologists more insane than the lack of understanding or appreciation of the maellability of the human skull due to the fact that all humans are born premature in relation to other mammals in order to accomodate giant heads passing through tiny birth canals.

head shape is greatly influenced by birthing technique and post birth manipulation of the skull, which is often based on current fads (compare the post birth manipulation by obstetricians in 1950s us to present day us. 1950s preferred round, present prefers long).

failure/lack of cross discplinary dialog is a blight resulting in duplicative reasearch and ignorant assertions that could be avoided by cross displinary research.

those who specialize in amerindian osteology would take exception to the gross and inaccurate generalizations of both paleo and modern amerindian cranial morphologies asserted both in this paper and in these comments.

the americas are a very large place, lumping the cherokee in with the yanomami is as racist as it is ludicrous.

terryt said...

"It seems more like to me that the earliest skeletons retain more of the original phenotype, and that the modern phenotype is probably a consequence of additional flows from asia and perhaps some selection/evolution/neoteny also, as would be expected for 12,000 years".

I agree completely.

"In situ evolution from paleoindian to modern Amerindian is going much, much to far".

Again I totally agree. It is interesting that we have mt-DNA D of course. To me it has always seemed as through C and D were the earliest mt-DNAs into America. They are very common in South America while A and B are far less common, perhaps indicating a later arrival or at least expansion. That doesn't mean two or more completely separate entries from Eurasia. A prolonged entry over say 500 to 1000 years would suffice.

"D1 is only found in the Americas while D4h3a has parallel branches in Siberia: D4h1 in Barghuts and Japanese, D4h4 in Barghuts and Buryats and D4h2 in Ulchi".

Interesting observation. In which case the Anzick population (Clovis?) would have brought in more East Asian phenotype, as you suggest:

"it is possible to explain physical differences between Paleoamericans and other Americans arguing that the Paleoamerican wave included yDNA Q-M3 and D1 while a later wave brought people with more typical West Coast Native American looks, including yDNA Q1a2a1-L54*(xM3) and D4h3a"

Interesting thought.

"The deepest split in hg D is between D4 + D1 and D5 + D6".

I agree with regards to D5/6, but Phylotree has D1 as just one of 18 different subgroups within D4, the others called D4a,b,c etc. I agree it is extremely unlikely to be as simple as that but do you have any reference for D1 having branched off before the other D4's diversified?

"this is interesting ; does it mean that skeletons and craniums can evolve through natural selection, without blending with other skelet types ?"

That is certainly possible but most of us here (apart from German) seem to agree it is not the explanation in this case. Any morphological change needs inbreeding and selection in order to operate. Simple genetic change needs to become established. Such is very unlikely to occur in a population expanding rapidly in numbers as it moves into a newly available habitat.

German Dziebel said...

In fact the paper contains a very interesting piece about the dentition of the specimen:

"The palate is long and parabolic, with moderately shoveled upper central incisors (a Sinodont trait), a lack of double shoveling, no deflecting wrinkle on the lower first molar, third molars approximately equal in size to the second molars (Sundadont traits), and a strongly developed Carabelli’s cusp on the upper first molar."

This dental pattern is a mix of Sinodonty (common in modern Amerindians and East Asians), Sundadonty (a misnomer category but basically an Australo-Melanesian/Southeast Asian dentition) and European traits. Carabelli is most frequent among modern European populations. Asians and Amerindians have shoveling, Europeans have the Carabelli trait - that's been the typical way of differentiating between the types of dentition. The fact that this Amerindian specimen has both shoveling and a strong form of the Carabelli cusp is most interesting, as it means that ancient Amerindians were not simply "Australo-Melanesian" but instead had a neutral dental morphology containing traits that achieved high frequencies in several different modern populations. It also jibes well with the recent evidence for Amerindian admixture in ancient and modern West Eurasian populations.

terryt said...

"One missing piece has been that the secondary "Mongoloid" wave into Asia has recent Amerindian roots".

There is a very good reason why evidence for that is lacking.

"There's ample evidence contradicting the idea that America was colonized through multiple waves. It's a well-established conclusion originally derived from the distribution of modern mtDNA lineages. Ancient DNA fully confirms this".

Not so at all. Why have you ignored the discussion here concerning American haplogroups? That discussion clearly provides quite some level of evidence for several colonisation waves.

"ancient Amerindians were not simply 'Australo-Melanesian' but instead had a neutral dental morphology containing traits that achieved high frequencies in several different modern populations."

Indicating admixture right from the get-go.

"It also jibes well with the recent evidence for Amerindian admixture in ancient and modern West Eurasian populations".

What 'recent evidence'?

"all physical attributes, from skin color to cranial shape can be and are actively selected for by sexual selection, which is not the same as natural selection".

It is extremely unlikely any human characters have developed through sexual selection in spite of what many wish to believe. Sexual selection gives rise to sexual dimorphism. If anything modern humans are less sexually dimorphic than are most pre-modern humans. The one obviously sexually selected character is the male beard.

"prime example is the irish elk--giant antler size was sexually selected"

Yes, a good example of sexual selection. Female elk did not have antlers.

"leading to the elk's extinction by not being able to move freely in forests due to the size of its antlers".

I very much doubt that was the cause of their extinction.

"Later as Beringia sank, the Beringians - with an East Asian phenotype - scrambled to NE Asia and the Americas. That would explain the chronology nicely, and also why South Amerindians (Karaitana/Surui) are more similar to Mal'ta Boy (MA-1) than North Amerindians... Feedback?"

I think it might be the other way round. The MA-1 type was first into America, via Beringia, while a later migration, probably involving mt-DNA B, bypassed Beringia and arrived by boat (from Japan?). That explains the absence of B in northeast Siberia. Meanwhile continued movement from Northeast Siberia led to a progressively increasing level of the Mongoloid phenotype.

"Populations don't stay static morphologically unless their environments remain stable, which is rather rare".

Populations do remain static unless selection acts. Take note of crocodiles. Even many great apes have probably not changed very much for several million years.

Ebizur said...

terryt wrote,

"I agree with regards to D5/6, but Phylotree has D1 as just one of 18 different subgroups within D4, the others called D4a,b,c etc. I agree it is extremely unlikely to be as simple as that but do you have any reference for D1 having branched off before the other D4's diversified?"

D1 is geographically limited to the Americas and has a TMRCA of approx. 25,000 YBP. According to Lippold et al. (2014), it coalesces almost simultaneously with a parallel branch, macro-D4g, in NE Asia (North China-Manchuria-Japan area) at about 25,000 YBP. Whatever migration has introduced D1 (or its immediate ancestor) into proto-(Paleo-)Americans must also have influenced the ancestors of modern populations in the vicinity of northern China and Japan.

The macro-D4g+D1 cluster coalesces with its nearest outgroup, D4j'm'o, at about 28,500 YBP. Members of the D4j'm'o cluster are also concentrated in China, Japan, and areas to the north of those countries as well as to the west (D4j is one of the subclades of D that is relatively commonly found as outliers in Central and Western Eurasia).

The D4j'm'o+D4g'1 cluster coalesces with the other half of haplogroup D4, D4a'b'c'h (a mainly NE Asian haplogroup that also has a limited presence in the Americas), at about 34,500 YBP.

In other words, the most recent common ancestor of all American D1 is about the same age as the most recent common ancestor of all American D1 plus NE Asian macro-D4g (approx. 25,000 YBP), and this clade is about 10,000 years younger than the TMRCA of D4 as a whole. The other subclades of D4 are all centered in NE Asia, with a particular concentration in Japan, where this is overwhelmingly the most frequent mtDNA haplogroup. However, both "halves" of D4 have representatives in both NE Asia and the Americas, so it may be parsimonious to consider that the split between D4a'b'c'h and D4j'm'o+D4g'1 has occurred prior to the initial populating of the American continent.

eurologist said...

Annie,

I agree with much of what you said.

As I have mentioned numerous times previously, in addition to the much later Na-Dene (more Mongoloid) and Inuit (fully Mongoloid), it seems pretty clear that the very first wave of Beringians was a mixture of two populations: inland large-game hunters and coastal fishers/ see mammal hunters. The former were likely the Central Asian (upper Indus Valley) derived Siberian people who took coastal peoples' wives (early SE Asian derived, with some early form Mongoloid admixture from E/ NE Asia).

That also explains the mixed dental pattern nicely.

Annie Mouse said...

@German

Indeed, Sinodonty has to evolve somewhere. The earliest Sinodonty in Homo sapiens that I am aware of is 18kya from Zhoukoudian Cave near Beijing, when all the American skeletons that I were still Sundadont. Also Peking man (Homo erectus) which I think was from the same cave is also supposed to to be a Sinodont. Although this skull has gone suspiciously missing, only copies are available, so I take that with a pinch of salt. If Erectus was truly a sinodont, and the source of the trait, then we run into the problem that no Erectus has ever been found in the Americas so far as I am aware, and they have looked really, hard.

In fact I am not sure ANY pre- Human hominids have ever been found in the Americas. Which I imagine is a major barrier to the idea that Sapiens originated in America.

Annie Mouse said...

"This dental pattern is a mix of Sinodonty (common in modern Amerindians and East Asians), Sundadonty"

Sounds exactly like admixture to me. I doubt the Carabelli relates too Europeans though, this seems to early and Carabelli reasonably common elsewhere (>30%).

Fanty said...

Havent morphologies changed all the time in quiet short periods of time without admixture?

Isnt there this effect that in the ancient time, people had been filigran and tall and became robust and small in the middle ages? Including change of skulls from more nordid or mediteranid types to Borreby or Alpinid types, Europe wide, without known massmigration (of "Bronce Age kind of peopl") into Europe during the middle ages.

And since a handfull of Generation there is a backward effect. Europeans become more filigrane (and tall)again and again, there is no signal of massmigration of tall and filigrane, mediteranid type (or "Iron age type" humans that heavly mix with the locals in the past 200 years?

It had been coming and going in waves and SOMETIMES it can be explained by admixture. The more recent ones not.

Neanderthal: small, super robust

Paleolithic modern human: Super tall, super robust

Mesolithic: tall, robust

Neolithic: small, filigrane

Bronce Age: small, robust

Iron age + early middle age: tall, filigrane

High to Late Middle Age + early modern: small, robust

late Modern age: tall, filigrane


terryt said...

@ Ebizur:

Thanks for all that really interesting information.

"Whatever migration has introduced D1 (or its immediate ancestor) into proto-(Paleo-)Americans must also have influenced the ancestors of modern populations in the vicinity of northern China and Japan".

I would expect that to be so.

"The macro-D4g+D1 cluster coalesces with its nearest outgroup, D4j'm'o, at about 28,500 YBP."

That is starting to bring some sense to the starlike D expansion we are limited to at present.

"The D4j'm'o+D4g'1 cluster coalesces with the other half of haplogroup D4, D4a'b'c'h (a mainly NE Asian haplogroup that also has a limited presence in the Americas), at about 34,500 YBP."

I have in my notes that D4b1b, D4b2b and D4g2 have been found in Laos. Of course that almost certainly indicates they are the result of later movement south. Presumably part of the Chinese Neolithic.

"it may be parsimonious to consider that the split between D4a'b'c'h and D4j'm'o+D4g'1 has occurred prior to the initial populating of the American continent".

I would expect so. But that doesn't quite cover D. I see Phylotree has D4o sharing a branch with D4k and D4p.
Do you have information on D4d, D4f, D4i, D4l, D4q, D4s and D4t? I realise that is a bit much to expect, but perhaps you can give it a go. I have in my notes that D4e NE Asian, Aleut and Eskimo and D4n is present in China and in the Ainu.

terryt said...

"Havent morphologies changed all the time in quiet short periods of time without admixture?"

Yes, they have. But the changes you mention are mainly the result of nutrition, or lack of it. To have genetic change you need to have the genes become fixed in a population. That can only happen through inbreeding and selection. Or admixture, and then selection.

"The former were likely the Central Asian (upper Indus Valley) derived Siberian people who took coastal peoples' wives (early SE Asian derived, with some early form Mongoloid admixture from E/ NE Asia)".

Difficult to place any Amerindian haplogroups into any realistic SE Asian origin. At a deeper level perhaps, especially B although that haplogroup has been found in a very early North Chinese situation. I agree that C and D probably also are of very ancient SE Asian origin but as Ebizur's information on D makes clear D was long-established well to the north of SE Asia long before it entered America.

"In fact I am not sure ANY pre- Human hominids have ever been found in the Americas. Which I imagine is a major barrier to the idea that Sapiens originated in America".

I agree, although it doesn't seem to be in German's eyes.

Unknown said...

terry

sexual dimorphism is not dependant on sexual selection. it is a function of competition for mates and inter species dominance relationships, like canine size.

most primates show little to no dimorphism, and human dimorphism is exactly what you would expect given our small and nonsexually dimorphic canines. we are inline with most primates.

sexual dimorphism has been very minimal in all homonids. your feeling about this being otherwise is irrelevant to what is the case.

what you feel about what caused the extinction of the irish elk is also irrelevant to what is the case.

you seem to misuderstand sexual selection. lack of antlers in female elk is not the sexual selected trait--that is a gender inherent trait of that species. the size of the male antlers vis a vis other male antlers was what was being selected. like the peacock's tail.

sexual selection is as active in humans as in any other species. we have been sexually selecting towards ever greater neoteny for 10s of thousands of years.desirable physical traits have also been selected for in every culture, though this has changed in modern cultures due to the mores regarding every adult being partnered in life long monogamous relationships.

since we have yet to find either proto pan or proto gorilla, it is pure speculation that they have remained stable. both exhibit features unique to themselves among primates, such as knuckle walking. this suggests instability among apes, not stability. however, hominids do appear to have been relatively stable.

annie,

neither of the american contentants is conducive to fossilization. the soil is very acidic throughout much of both, south america is almost completely inaccessible, and no one is looking here. even most platyrrhines remain largely unstudied. american paleoanthroplogy and primatology are embarassingly neglected areas of study. and very difficult to get funding for...

fanty

humans having been getting progressively more gracile for the entirety of our existance. but height is different than build. it fluctuates based on cultural and environmental factors. height is a function of nutrition, how egalitarian a society is, latitude, altitude, and whether a culture is cow milk consuming.

to my point about taking cranial morphology with a grain of salt, and the inaccurate assumption regarding static and uniform cranial morphology among amerindians, here's an article just discussing the incredible diversity of south american amerindians:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16044464

About Time said...

@Fanty. Urban middle classes move around. Short/stockyish people are pretty common in the United States. Maybe a large segment of the Central/West European middle class moved into Europe in the Middle Ages (via Italian urban centers etc) then moved to the USA more recently from France/England/Germany etc.

The mistake is assuming countries=populations for genetic (marriage, childbirth) purposes. People move into and out of countries all the time. Assimilate, then move to better places when times change.

German Dziebel said...

@Annie Mouse

"Sounds exactly like admixture to me."

Sundadonty is Turner's construct, which in reality is not as much a taxon comparable to Sinodonty but the kind of dentition occurring in admixed Sinodonty-Australo/Melanesian populations in Southeast Asia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15558609. So it's admixture but in Asia! In recent genetic studies the postulated admixture in America is composed of a more recent West Eurasian and an earlier East Asian components, whereas dentally the possible components are later East Asian and earlier Australo-Melanesian. So there's no good correspondence here. But if we look at the situation from an out-of-America angle, things are much more understandable. From a neutral ancestral population specialized regional populations emerged.

"The earliest Sinodonty in Homo sapiens that I am aware of is 18kya from Zhoukoudian Cave near Beijing, when all the American skeletons that I were still Sundadont. "

Zhoukoudian is more like 12,000 years old (Kamminga 1992). Craniometrically it's closest to Lagoa Santa and similar Paleoindian skulls and not to later "Mongoloid" skulls in Asia. Some Sinodonty traits are plesiomorphic (Neandertals have shoveling!) and we don't have enough ancient samples to see when exactly Sinodonty, as a unique complex, emerged, but judging by modern distributions and some indirect affinities between associated skulls America is a more likely source for Sinodonty.

"In fact I am not sure ANY pre- Human hominids have ever been found in the Americas. Which I imagine is a major barrier to the idea that Sapiens originated in America."

Why do you need pre-Human hominids to be found in the region in which MODERN humans originated. They need to be found in a region ADJACENT to the speciation event, which in the case of the New World is Asia and we have plenty of hominins there. (Comp. wooly mammoths http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18771918). Isolation is key to most forms of speciation and America fits the bill much better than Africa. Africa is a better place for large scale archaic admixture to have occurred but not for speciation into modern humans.

" I doubt the Carabelli relates too Europeans though, this seems to early and Carabelli reasonably common elsewhere (>30%)."

No. See Table 10. 4 in Scott's and Irish's "Anthropological Perspectives on Tooth Morphology: Genetics, Evolution, Variation": Carabelli cusp reaches highest frequencies in Europe (30% tops) and SSAfrica and lowest in America, Asia and the Pacific. So out of all the regions with most instances of the Carabelli trait in modern populations Europe is the closest to America geographically. But of course we need more samples!

Dr. Clyde Winters said...

The researchers note that the craniofacial remains resemble the negroid type of Austraia, Melenesia and Africa. These early Americans probably came from Africa, rather than Pacific, because it is much closer to Mexico, and easily acessible by sea currents.

We also find some African Americans who carry D1 just like the Mexican girl.This suggest that the difference between Paleoamericans and Native Americans, result from the replacement of the original Americans by mongoloid groups from Beringa.

terryt said...

"We also find some African Americans who carry D1 just like the Mexican girl".

Once more I was unaware of that. Is D1 common in Africa or is it more likely to be the product of later contact through a slave trader's wife for example?

"sexual dimorphism is not dependant on sexual selection. it is a function of competition for mates and inter species dominance relationships, like canine size".

Sexual dimorphism is totally a product of sexual selection. Isn't 'competition for mates and inter species dominance relationships' exactly what drives sexual selection?

"sexual dimorphism has been very minimal in all homonids. your feeling about this being otherwise is irrelevant to what is the case".

Where did I suggest sexual dimorphism was other than minimal in humans? In fact I was pointing out that sexual selection was minimal.

"you seem to misuderstand sexual selection. lack of antlers in female elk is not the sexual selected trait--that is a gender inherent trait of that species".

And gender inherent traits are driven by sexual selection. How else do you propose they develop?

"the size of the male antlers vis a vis other male antlers was what was being selected. like the peacock's tail".

Yes. Through 'competition for mates and inter species dominance relationships' in both cases. In other words: sexual selection.

"we have been sexually selecting towards ever greater neoteny for 10s of thousands of years".

Not as a result of sexual selection. Both sexes have moved simultaneously towards it. How is sexual selection involved in that?

"Some Sinodonty traits are plesiomorphic (Neandertals have shoveling!) and we don't have enough ancient samples to see when exactly Sinodonty, as a unique complex, emerged"

To me it is most parsimonious to assume Sinodonty evolved once. It could well be inherited in modern humans from Neanderthals. That becomes even morelikley considering East Asians have an elevated level of Neanderthal element as compared to West Eurasians.

"Why do you need pre-Human hominids to be found in the region in which MODERN humans originated".

Because at present we have loads of pre-Human hominids in regions in which, according to you, modern humans didn't originate. It would help your cause immensely if just the tiniest amount of evidence for pre-Human hominids were to be found in America. Otherwise you have no option but to accept they arrived in America by UFO.

"They need to be found in a region ADJACENT to the speciation event"

They can't evolve suddenly anywhere but in a region where their immediate ancestors lived.

"Isolation is key to most forms of speciation"

I agree. But that isolation usually does not involve UFOs.

terryt said...

"We also find some African Americans who carry D1 just like the Mexican girl"

Sorry. I read it as 'Africans', not 'African Americans'. That makes it almost certain the D1 in African-Americans is from indigenous Americans, not from Africa. Therefore the claim it has anything to do with replacement.

Annie Mouse said...

"Carabelli cusp reaches highest frequencies in Europe (30% tops) and SSAfrica and lowest in America, Asia and the Pacific. "

Hmmm, I got the >30% from Wikipedia, but with a little research I see that is wrong. Nigerians are 17% for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cusp_of_Carabelli

I tried to find that reference you mentioned, but the only free source I have found online was riddled with viruses. Are you able to post it up somewhere so I can see it?


I did find this population chart for Carabelli but it also seems wrong (Table 28) as the European Carabelli looks low and the (Australian) aborigines looks high (European contamination?), so I am inclined to mark it as dodgy.

http://www.um.u-tokyo.ac.jp/publish_db/Bulletin/no11/no11009.html


Also (Hunter et al, 2010), which suggests Neolithic European Carabelli cusp might have been lower (or higher) that modern levels:
"As anthropological studies have used dental morphological traits, including the Carabelli trait, in assessing trends in human populations, interesting geographic and temporal patterns have emerged. Brabant [29] reported an increase in Carabelli trait expression from Neolithic to modern times in Europe, whereas Hsu et al. [32] documented a decrease in Carabelli expression with overall dental reduction from aboriginal to modern Chinese populations. Still others have argued that the trait has decreased in frequency and level of expression over longer evolutionary time scales [31], [33]."


All very confusing.

If Carabelli is reasonably common in pre-European aborigines I would expect "Naia" to have acquired it from the paleoindian first people. But otherwise very early European colonization of the Americas has to be a real possibility (IMO).

Ebizur said...

terryt,

The following are data regarding the distribution of macro-D4g (D4g proper plus a Daur "pre-D4g" line that has split from D4g proper more recently than macro-D4g as a whole has split from American D1):

Daur (Lippold 2014) 1/7 = 0.143 pre-D4g
Okinawa (Umetsu 2005) 12/326 = 0.037 D4g(xD4g1), 4/326 = 0.012 D4g1, 16/326 = 0.049 D4g total
Japanese/Tohoku (Umetsu 2005) 11/336 = 0.033 D4g(xD4g1), 2/336 = 0.006 D4g1, 13/336 = 0.039 D4g total
Japanese (HGDP) 1/31 = 0.032 D4g1
Japanese/Northern Kyushu (Umetsu 2005) 8/256 = 0.031 D4g(xD4g1)
Chinese/Shenyang, Liaoning (Umetsu 2005) 5/160 = 0.031 D4g(xD4g1)
Korean/South Korea (Umetsu 2005) 6/203 = 0.030 D4g(xD4g1)
Han (HGDP) 1/43 = 0.023 D4g2b1
Chinese/Taipei, Taiwan (Umetsu 2005) 1/91 = 0.011 D4g(xD4g1)
Japanese/Hokkaido (Asari 2007) 2/217 = 0.009 D4g
Chinese/Taiwan (Chen 2013) 1/111 = 0.009 D4g2
Japanese/Tokai (Umetsu 2005) 2/282 = 0.007 D4g(xD4g1)

The TMRCA of the Japanese D4g1 and Han D4g2b1 individuals from the HGDP samples is approximately 16,000 YBP according to Lippold (2014), which would place the genealogical split between these two matrilineages around the time of the transition from the Japanese Palaeolithic to the Incipient Joumon. I do not know what was going on in China around that time according to archaeology. D4g proper coalesces with the Daur pre-D4g lineage at approximately 18,000 YBP.

Hector said...

"The former were likely the Central Asian (upper Indus Valley) derived Siberian people who took coastal peoples' wives"

I find it hilarious. There is almost robotic, zombie like tendency to see a pairing of Caucasoid(or as close to it as possible) males and East Asian females.

Do you also want to say that the "Central Asians" were the result of Papuan men taking Caucasoid wives? hmmm?
Australoid features can be explained somewhere along that line?

terryt said...

@ Unknown:

Further to your comments regarding sexual selection, have a read of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

Quote:

"Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection in which some individuals out-reproduce others of a population because they are better at securing mates.[1][2] In 1858,[3] Darwin described sexual selection ... His sexual selection examples include ornate peacock feathers, birds of Paradise, the antlers of stag (male deer), and the manes of lions".

That completely contradicts your statement, 'lack of antlers in female elk is not the sexual selected trait--that is a gender inherent trait of that species. the size of the male antlers vis a vis other male antlers was what was being selected. like the peacock's tail'. It seems to be you who misunderstands sexual selection.

About Time said...

@terryt, Interesting thought that maybe Sinodonty came from Nesnderthals. Remember the latest Neanderthal paper shows later Neanderthal admixture in Asians and Amazonians than in Europe.

Inference is that this might have involved late eastern Neanderthals that were being pushed outward (to remote and harsh habitats in Asia) by EMH. Those eastern N would probably be undergoing loss of genetic diversity and accruing genetic idiosyncrasies (like Sinodonty?) in the process.

Also maybe some cold adaptation (like crumbly earwax, more epocanthic fold to protect from high altitude sun and wind?).

Hector said...

"But otherwise very early European colonization of the Americas has to be a real possibility"

Don't you think it is absurd to draw that conclusion from something so unstable?

As Carl Sagan said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Much like UFO I am sure this has a far more down-to-earth explanation than "Early European colonization of Americas".

It looks rather too politically motivated.

andrew said...

@terryt

""Havent morphologies changed all the time in quiet short periods of time without admixture?"

Yes, they have. But the changes you mention are mainly the result of nutrition, or lack of it. To have genetic change you need to have the genes become fixed in a population. That can only happen through inbreeding and selection. Or admixture, and then selection."

I think nutrition is quite a plausible argument for the Paleoindian to early Native American phenotype shift. The subarctic may very well have lacked some key nutrient that gave rise to the Paloeindian phenotype that was widely available to children in the temperate and tropical Americas and promptly caused that Paleoindian phenotype to disappear.

German Dziebel said...

@Annie Mouse

Try this link: http://books.google.com/books?id=MBVhp7K-17sC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=%20Table%2010.4&f=false

Table 10.4.

German Dziebel said...

@TerryT

"To me it is most parsimonious to assume Sinodonty evolved once. It could well be inherited in modern humans from Neanderthals. That becomes even morelikley considering East Asians have an elevated level of Neanderthal element as compared to West Eurasians."

And Amerindians (may) have an elevated level of Neandertal element compared to East Asians and West Eurasians (see my exchange with Hamar Fox at https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7785493&postID=1307042239201945369&isPopup=true). Correspondingly, they have elevated levels of Sinodonty compared to East Asians (and West Eurasians). There's definitely something to it, which out-of-America explains nicely. The Neandertal element in human morphology and genetics was brought back to the Old World by Amerindians, who had inherited it from an archaic Eurasian population, after Neandertals had gone extinct in Europe. That's why there's a paucity of Nenaderal genes in Europe. They weren't absorbed from Neandertals by Europeans. They are a by-product of an Amerindian migration to the Old World. A caveat: Sinodonty is a complex pattern, it's unique to humans and only shoveling has affinities to Neandertals and Homo erectus. So, at the end of the Holocene the second migration out of the Americas replenished the Neandertal element in East Asia to the exclusion of West Eurasians and brought a more fully formed Sinodonty pattern to Asia.

Annie Mouse said...

""But otherwise very early European colonization of the Americas has to be a real possibility"

Don't you think it is absurd to draw that conclusion from something so unstable?"

Yes I do, I am not drawing conclusions, just possibilities. The other evidence suggests to me a much more recent pre-Columbian influx from Europe affecting mostly the north east.

terryt said...

"The TMRCA of the Japanese D4g1 and Han D4g2b1 individuals from the HGDP samples is approximately 16,000 YBP according to Lippold (2014), which would place the genealogical split between these two matrilineages around the time of the transition from the Japanese Palaeolithic to the Incipient Joumon".

Thanks. I've been investigating mt-DNA D and found this 2004 paper:

https://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Tanaka_2004.pdf

Perhaps the most interesting aspect is the sheer number of D branches that made it to Japan. Obviously not all originated there but the Japanese numbers must indicate 'something'. Perhaps a coastal movement north dropping off subgroups as the population moved north, only for members of those newly developed branches to follow on behind?

Another interesting comment from the paper is:

"Even
if the one dispersion option is chosen, more than one geographical
route to eastern Asia is possible. In fact, a northern Continental
route through the Near East and western-central Asia and a
southern coastal route through the Arabian and Indian peninsulas
have been proposed (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Kivisild et al.
1999). The geographical distribution of these two macrohaplogroups,
with lack of ancientMrepresentatives and the presence
of deep N lineages in western Asia, and the abundance of basal M
lineages in India and southwestern Asia and concomitant lack of
equivalent-age N clades, gave rise to the hypothesis that N represents
the main footprint of the northern Continental expansion,
whereas M is the equivalent footprint for the southern
coastal expansion".

The authors present a couple of possible explanations but suggest this is the most likely:

"Therefore, at present, mtDNA data are
compatible with the supposition that the northern route, harboring
mainly N precursors, met climatic difficulties and when
they finally reached Southeast Asia, the M representatives,
brought by the southern route, had already colonized the area".

This is the situation I have long claimed to be most likely. However I must concede this paper is earlier than my own conclusion can be dated to. A further quote:

"Australian N lineages directly
sprout from the basal trunk (data not shown). They most probably
differentiated in that continent, supporting the idea that
ancestral N lineages reached Australia but not PNG, although the
undemonstrable possibility of lineage extinctions and subsequent
recolonization events in PNG can be an argument".

I agree that mt-DNA N looks not to have reached New Guinea and complete lineage extinction is unlikely.

terryt said...

"The Neandertal element in human morphology and genetics was brought back to the Old World by Amerindians"

You are still carefully avoiding any explanation for how the Neanderthal element might have entered America in the first place.

Kristiina said...


Terry, you quote: "Therefore, at present, mtDNA data are
compatible with the supposition that the northern route, harboring
mainly N precursors, met climatic difficulties and when
they finally reached Southeast Asia, the M representatives,
brought by the southern route, had already colonized the area".

The problem with that idea is that in China, the oldest coalescence ages are given to R9, B, F1 and N9 (over 60kya ± 20kya). In the next group we have G2, CZ, B4, M8, M7 and D5 (50-60 kya ± c. 18kya). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384943/

So, the oldest haplogroups in China are R and N haplogroups and the percentage of R haplogroups is clearly higher in South China than in North China.

The origin of the Siberian element (including mtDNA C and D) is a highly exciting issue! Anyway, as I have already said, M haplogroups peak in Northeast and West China and they seem to concentrate in the proximity of India.

German Dziebel said...

@TerryT

"You are still carefully avoiding any explanation for how the Neanderthal element might have entered America in the first place."

I don't avoid it, I trumpet it. It's out-of-America II. Read about it at www.anthropogenesis.com. An origin from a Eurasian hominin related to Neandertals, speciation in America as modern humans with a subsequent backflow to the Old World.

terryt said...

@ German:

"I don't avoid it, I trumpet it. It's out-of-America II".

And that explains how Neanderthals reached America? How? You are still avoiding any realistic explanation.

"An origin from a Eurasian hominin related to Neandertals"

Really? Can you offer any evidence as to when and how? I though you claimed to be intelligent but obviously a PhD in Dancing with Indians has nothing to do with intelligence.

@ Kristiina:

"The origin of the Siberian element (including mtDNA C and D) is a highly exciting issue!"

I agree, although I wouldn't especially concentrate on just C and D. I find the origin of all haplogroups fascinating.

"So, the oldest haplogroups in China are R and N haplogroups and the percentage of R haplogroups is clearly higher in South China than in North China".

I think you're forgetting that R is just a single haplogroup within N, and probably spread independently (and later) to at least some extent. I have long proposed that R coalesced somewhere near Wallacea. Don't forget that 4 separate basal N haplogroups are confined to Australia (N13, N14, S and O) along with a basal R haplogroup(P). And another 4 basal R haplogroups are confined to nearby SE Asia (R12'21, R14, R22 and R23). That indicates some level of dispersal from that region. In contrast N9 is obviously a northern haplogroup. The gap between N9 and the Australian set is filled in order from the north by: N10, N8, N11, N21 and N22.

"as I have already said, M haplogroups peak in Northeast and West China and they seem to concentrate in the proximity of India".

I disagree completely with that statement if you're prepared to consider M as a whole, except for the inclusion of India. There is a real concentration of M haplogroups in the hill country around NE India, SW China and Burma. Even basal members of C and D are present near that region. M's phylogeny as we at present understand it shows its diversification was star-like and therefore rapid. To me the interesting aspect concerning C and D is the route they followed to northern China and beyond. To me the data indicates C took a more inland route than did D. Concerning D: as I wrote yesterday:

"Perhaps the most interesting aspect is the sheer number of D branches that made it to Japan".

They must have been accompanied by at least one Y-DNA line. As far as I can see there is only one possibility: Y-DNA D. That haplogroup is very common, and presumably ancient, in Japan. Y-DNA D4 has recently been recognised in the Philippines, exactly where the basal D haplogroup M80 has been identified.

German Dziebel said...

@TerryT

"And that explains how Neanderthals reached America? How? You are still avoiding any realistic explanation."

Neandertals are known to have traversed the Arctic Circle (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6031/841.short). They and Denisovans are known to have resided and likely interbred in South Siberia. South Siberia is a region from which many people believe a proto-Amerindian population started migrating toward America around 15,000 years. Neandertals and Denisovans had legs just like 15,000 year old Asians. So they could walk too. Is it realistic enough for you?

"Really? Can you offer any evidence as to when and how? I though you claimed to be intelligent but obviously a PhD in Dancing with Indians has nothing to do with intelligence."

Hosts of archaeologists, geneticists and paleobiologists haven't been able to point when and how modern humans speciated in Africa. I wonder what a useless New Zealand-based creationist named Terry Toohill thinks of their intelligence. Yes, I have two doctorates and published two peer reviewed books and yes I consider anthropology superior to biology because it deals with more complexly organized beings including scientists themselves. Even you Terry is more complexly organized than an ape, although you make me want to hand you off to biologists sometimes.

Kristiina said...

Terry, to me it seems that you confirm and agree with what I said. R haplogroups arrived first in Southeast Asia (also in Australia P haplogroups seem to be the oldest and not M or N) and M haplogroups came later on and spread rapidly. Here you see a map of the distribution of M and N haplogroups in China http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n6/fig_tab/5201998f5.html
However, I do not quite understand your idea when you say that ”I disagree completely with that statement if you're prepared to consider M as a whole, except for the inclusion of India.”
What you say about yDNA D is very interesting, and I have been considering this possiblity as well. yDNA D is not found in India apart from that area near Burma and Tibet and, instead, it is sporadically found in the north among Altaic people and is very frequent, for example, in Tu in the Qinghai and Gansu provinces (if I remember correctly!). Haplogroup M is so widespread in India that it is difficult to explain its origin with only yDNA D which is for the most part inexistant in the area, but mtDNA D is a quite good match with yDNA D.

Ebizur said...

Details of the diversification of shared Asian and American haplogroups (A, B, C, D) according to data derived from analysis of the HGDP samples by Lippold et al. (2014) and Ian Logan:

A vs. N9'Y: approx. 57,500 YBP
A5 ({Tujia + {Miao + Han}}) vs. A(xA5): approx. 34,000 YBP
A11 (Naxi) vs. A(xA5, A11): approx. 29,500 YBP
A2'15 vs. pre-A1'13'17: approx. 26,000 YBP
A5b1 vs. A5b(xA5b1): approx. 24,000 YBP
A1'13'17 vs. pre-A1'13'17: approx. 21,000 YBP
A2 vs. A15 (Naxi): approx. 20,000 YBP
A1 vs. A13 vs. A17: approx. 17,500 YBP
pre-A1'13'17 (Mongol) vs. pre-A1'13'17 (Mongol): approx. 16,500 YBP
A5b1b (Miao) vs. A5b1b (Han): approx. 15,000 YBP
A13 (Naxi) vs. A13 (Lahu): approx. 6,000 YBP

B (incl. R11) vs. R0'HV vs. P: approx. 55,000 YBP
B4 vs. B5'R11: approx. 50,000 YBP
B5 vs. R11: approx. 45,000 YBP
B4b'B2 vs. B4(xB4b): approx. 43,000 YBP
B4a vs. B4c'h: approx. 38,500 YBP
B5a vs. B5b: approx. 37,500 YBP
B4c vs. B4h'k: approx. 34,000 YBP
B4c1 vs. B4c2: approx. 32,000 YBP
B4b(xB2) ({Han + {Yakut + She}}) vs. B2: approx. 30,000 YBP
B4a1 vs. B4a(xB4a1): approx. 25,000 YBP
B4b1a vs. B4b1c: approx. 24,000 YBP
B4a2 vs. pre-B4a4: approx. 23,000 YBP
B5a1 vs. B5a(xB5a1): approx. 23,000 YBP
B4h vs. B4k: approx. 21,500 YBP
R11a vs. R11b: approx. 20,000 YBP
B4a4 vs. pre-B4a4: approx. 20,000 YBP
B4a1 vs. pre-B4a1a: approx. 20,000 YBP
B5a1c vs. B5a1(xB5a1c): approx. 17,500 YBP
B4a1a vs. pre-B4a1a: approx. 16,500 YBP
B4b1a3a vs. B4b1a3(xB4b1a3a): approx. 16,000 YBP
B5a1a vs. B5a1*: approx. 15,500 YBP
B5b2a1 vs. B5b2a*: approx. 15,000 YBP

C'Z vs. M(xCZ): approx. 55,000 YBP
C vs. Z: approx. 42,500 YBP
C1 vs. C(xC1): approx. 28,000 YBP
C4'5 vs. C7: approx. 25,000 YBP
C4 vs. C5: approx. 23,500 YBP
C1a'd vs. C1b'c: approx. 22,500 YBP
C1b vs. C1c: approx. 20,000 YBP
C4a vs. pre-C4b: approx. 18,000 YBP
C5a vs. C5d
: approx. 17,500 YBP
C7a vs. C7b: approx. 16,500 YBP
C4b vs. pre-C4b: approx. 16,000 YBP
C1a (Daur) vs. C1d: approx. 15,500 YBP
C4a1'5 vs. C4a2: approx. 14,000 YBP
C1c1 vs. C1c5: approx. 13,000 YBP
C7a1 vs. C7a2: approx. 13,000 YBP
C4b1 vs. pre-C4b3: approx. 12,500 YBP
C5a1 vs. C5a2: approx. 10,000 YBP
C4a1 vs. C4a1'5: approx. 10,000 YBP
C4b3 vs. pre-C4b3: approx. 10,000 YBP

D vs. M2: approx. 53,000 YBP
D4 vs. D5: approx. 47,000 YBP
D4a'b'c'h vs. D4g'j'm'o'1: approx. 34,500 YBP
D5a vs. D5b: approx. 34,000 YBP
D4a'c'h vs. D4b: approx. 30,500 YBP
D4b1 vs. D4b2: approx. 29,000 YBP
D4j'm'o vs. D4g'1: approx. 28,500 YBP
D4a vs. pre-D4c'h: approx. 28,000 YBP
D4c'h vs. pre-D4c'h: approx. 27,000 YBP
D4c vs. D4h: approx. 25,000 YBP
D1 vs. pre-D4g ({Daur + {Han + Japanese}}): approx. 25,000 YBP
D5b-Han vs. D5b-Yakut: approx. 24,000 YBP
D1a (Surui) vs. D1e'f (Karitiana): approx. 23,500 YBP
pre-D4j vs. D4m'o: approx. 22,500 YBP
pre-D1e vs. D1f: approx. 22,000 YBP
D5a1 vs. D5a2: approx. 21,000 YBP
D4j vs. pre-D4j: approx. 20,500 YBP
D4b1b vs. D3 (D4b1c): approx. 20,000 YBP
D1e vs. pre-D1e: approx. 20,000 YBP
D4o1 vs. D4o2: approx. 19,000 YBP
D4m vs. pre-D4m: approx. 18,000 YBP
D4g vs. pre-D4g: approx. 18,000 YBP

B4b'B2 vs. B4(xB4b): approx. 43,000 YBP
B4b(xB2) ({Han + {Yakut + She}}) vs. B2: approx. 30,000 YBP
D4j'm'o vs. D4g'1: approx. 28,500 YBP
C1 vs. C(xC1): approx. 28,000 YBP
A2'15 vs. pre-A1'13'17: approx. 26,000 YBP
D1 vs. pre-D4g ({Daur + {Han + Japanese}}): approx. 25,000 YBP
A2 vs. A15 (Naxi): approx. 20,000 YBP
C1a (Daur) vs. C1d: approx. 15,500 YBP

Annie Mouse said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Annie Mouse said...

Thanks German. That was a useful link.

Western Europe 4.4-30.1
Sub-Saharan Africa 12.3-20
Sino-Americas 1.9-18
Sunda Pacific 15.9-17.2
Sahul-Pacific 3.2-18.4
World Range 3-85.8

Hmm 1 in 5 in the Sunda pacific were Carabelli. Looks like a Paleoindian source is reasonably possible and in the circumstances more probable than a European source.


"D1a (Surui) vs. D1e'f (Karitiana): approx. 23,500 YBP"

Wow, nice. That is certainly pre Clovis and as both these tribes are found near to each other deep in South America it is very consistent with D1 being Paleoindian. Travelling separately down the length of the Americas from some east asian source to end up adjacent to each other seems less likely than a local split (IMO).

terryt said...

@ Ebizur:

Thanks for all that information. I've printed it off and will digest it at my leisure.

@ Kristiina:

"R haplogroups arrived first in Southeast Asia (also in Australia P haplogroups seem to be the oldest and not M or N)"

I don't think R haplogroups arrived in SE Asia fully formed. They expanded and diverged from there. P cannot really be older than N if it actually derives from it, as seems to be the case from the phylogenies.

"M haplogroups came later on and spread rapidly".

One of the problems I see is deciding whether M arrived in Sunda before N passed through. From the recent Dienekes post about Oceanian mt-DNA it seems that the New Guinea/Melanesia haplogroups had already diversified before they reached that region. But whether that diversity occurred near the South China/Northeast India border region or in Sunda is still a mystery to me:

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.nz/2014/04/mtdna-history-of-oceania-duggan-et-al.html

"However, I do not quite understand your idea when you say that 'I disagree completely with that statement if you're prepared to consider M as a whole, except for the inclusion of India.'"

I saw that paper when it first came out. In fact I printed off the maps. Have you not noticed they did not include all the Chinese M or N haplogroups? But even the M haplogroups they consider shows a concentration near the S China/NE India border region. A more comprehensive collection of haplogroups would emphasise that region even more. Likewise the N haplogroups are mainly R-derived and the authors don't include N haplgroups with a minor presence. And certainly not SE Asian ones.

" Haplogroup M is so widespread in India that it is difficult to explain its origin with only yDNA D"

I certainly don't expect that Y-DNA D accompanied mt-DNA M all the way from Africa. But what the haplogroups distribution does suggest is that Y-DNA D hitched up with several mt-DNA haplogroups near the SC/NEI border region and spread with them. Although D and M reached the Andaman Islands D did not reached beyond Wallace's Line. Y- and mt-DNA lines are remarkable independent. Except when a previously uninhabited region is first colonised of course.

@ German:

Unfortunately I couldn't access your link, but I found this which probably deals with the same discovery:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110513112527.htm

There is actually no evidence the tools were made by Neanderthals. In fact:

"The distinguishing feature of Mousterian culture, which developed during the Middle Palaeolithic (-300,000 to -33,000 years), is the use of a very wide range of flint tools, mainly by Neanderthal Man in Eurasia, but also by Homo sapiens in the Near East".

Actually by H. sapiens in the Far East as well. The article even asks the question:

"Or could these last bearers of Mousterian culture in fact have been Homo sapiens?"

Besides which the tools are nowhere near America and so their presence hardly helps your belief.

"They and Denisovans are known to have resided and likely interbred in South Siberia".

True. Long before there is any evidence for any human (of any sort) presence in America.

"South Siberia is a region from which many people believe a proto-Amerindian population started migrating toward America around 15,000 years. Neandertals and Denisovans had legs just like 15,000 year old Asians. So they could walk too. Is it realistic enough for you?"

But I'm asking for 'evidence' that they did so. Using your logic one could just as effectively claim humans originated in Antarctica.

"Yes, I have two doctorates and published two peer reviewed books"

None of which are relevant too either evolutionary biology of genetics.

Kristiina said...

Ebizur, great information! I definitely have to comment. Are there any estimations for the divergence of different B2 clades in America? B2 might be the oldest among all Native American haplogroups. Could it be that it colonized Northeast Asia (and China) well before Ice Age (NB Tiayuan!) and spread to America before 20,000 years BP. Am I right that also D1 must have been in America already 23,500 BP, as this is the divergence time between Surui and Karitiana D1? Hg C1a and C1d diverged only 15,000 BP. However, American C1a’d’ and C1b’c diverged already 22,500 BP. This should mean that C1a backmigrated to Asia. In any case, on the basis of above, all these haplogroups seem to have arrived in America before 20,000 BP.

D4c diverged from D4h 25,000 BP, but that must have occurred in Asia. As D4h is also found in Asia, D4h (Anzick’s haplogroup) seems to have arrived later in America than the haplogroups above.

Haplogroup A is also exciting, although I have difficulties in understanding the divisions, as their names have changed. The division between A2’15 and pre-A1’13’17 occurred 26,000 BP in Asia. As A2 diverged from A15 (found in Naxi) 20,000 BP, A2 reached America only some time after 20,000 BP and spread only to the Northern areas. A1’13’17 diverged from pre-A1’13’17 21,000 BP in Asia. As A1 diverged from A13 and A17 17,500 BP, is it possible that A13 and A17 backmigrated to Asia at that time? Or does it mean that A1 reached America only after 17,000 BP?

Terry, the age estimations of different M clades in Oceania (M27, M28, M29) are clearly very old, also in Burma the oldest haplogroups belong to M (M90, M91). In that Laos paper they do not give any coalescence ages, but there are several M haplogroups that could be old such as M7. By contrast, in China hg B, F and N9 are the oldest. It seems that the Sundaland population was high in mtDNA M while mainland China harboured different stock of people carrying N and R haplogroups.

terryt said...

@ German:

How on earth can you reconcile Ebizur's data with your out of America belief?

@ Kristiina and Annie:

We all agree that Ebizur's information is wonderful. What a great effort.

"Are there any estimations for the divergence of different B2 clades in America?"

Well yes. As Annie quoted:

"D1a (Surui) vs. D1e'f (Karitiana): approx. 23,500 YBP"

That diversification almost has to have happened within America. And, again as Annie said, ' That is certainly pre Clovis' It is possible that a number of separate D1 haplogroups entered, having already diversified in Beringia though. Such seems to be the case with M27, M28 and M29'Q in New Guinea/Melanesia for example. Although I am very much inclined to agree with, 'Travelling separately down the length of the Americas from some east asian source to end up adjacent to each other seems less likely than a local split'.

"B2 might be the oldest among all Native American haplogroups".

That is what the raw data shows, And perhaps as long ago as 30,000 years (B4b(xB2) ({Han + {Yakut + She}}) vs. B2: approx. 30,000 YBP
). Followed by D at 25,000, A at 20,000 and C at 15,500. Of course the situation may not be as simple as that.

"Haplogroup A is also exciting, although I have difficulties in understanding the divisions, as their names have changed".

I agree. I haven't yet bothered trying to correlate the old and new nomenclatures. But I thought that A's diversification has always been thought to date only to some 12,000 years ago. Ebizur's dates make more sense.

"Terry, the age estimations of different M clades in Oceania (M27, M28, M29) are clearly very old"

In Ebizur's data the M haplogroups diverge at 53-55,000 years. That is fairly consistent with other dates offered. The N/A split is 57,500 years and B/P/R0 is soon after at 55,000. That consistently shows both N and R's diversification is earlier than that of M.

" By contrast, in China hg B, F and N9 are the oldest".

Yes. And note in figure 5 a) in the link you provided M is virtually absent in southern China. That is most likely because R had already occupied that region. The map shows a 91.43% presence of M in the Burma/China/India border region. That is where to me the evidence indicates the major M diversification began. The authors describe both N* (presumably N9) and A as 'NDH' (northern haplogroups). They describe M* and M7(x only M7c) as 'southern. That leaves only D, G, M9 and M8/CZ as northern M haplogroups. Their deeper origin is almost certainly in the Burma/China/India border region.

"It seems that the Sundaland population was high in mtDNA M"

Yes. But the big question is: was M already there when N passed through on its way to Australia?

terryt said...

@ Ebizur:

A few questions. You have B4 vs. B5'R11 but Phylotree still has R11 as part of B6. Is your comparison independent of the conflicting correlations? You have also compared D to M2 specifically. I remember a recent paper claimed such a connection but Phylotree hasn't adopted the connection. M2 is most definitely a South Asian haplogroup and so if the connection holds it would place D's deeper origin firmly into South Asia.

A final point. You have B4b'B2 vs. B4(xB4b): approx. 43,000 YBP. That fits neatly with the Tianyuan age of 42-39,000 years. As far as I've been able to see B4b is the only B haplogroup that can be placed anywhere north of southern China.

terryt said...

Sorry. Yet another comment, this one with regard to German's comment:

"Neandertals are known to have traversed the Arctic Circle (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6031/841.short)".

I have managed to access the abstract where they write:

"Here we show that at Byzovaya, in the western foothills of the Polar Urals, the technological structure of the lithic assemblage makes it directly comparable with Mousterian Middle Palaeolithic industries that so far have been exclusively attributed to the Neandertal populations in Europe. Radiocarbon and optical-stimulated luminescence dates on bones and sand grains indicate that the site was occupied during a short period around 28,500 carbon-14 years before the present (about 31,000 to 34,000 calendar years ago), at the time when only Upper Palaeolithic cultures occupied lower latitudes of Eurasia".

From that they conclude:

"Byzovaya may thus represent a late northern refuge for Neandertals, about 1000 km north of earlier known Mousterian sites".

But that conclusion has been superseded by the later study Dienekes posted here:

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/oldest-modern-human-genome-from-siberia.html

So German is now claiming that a northern population at 31,000 to 34,000 calendar years ago is definitely Neanderthal. Yet we have an individual dated more than 10,000 years earlier ('to 45,000 years ago'), is demonstrated to be genetically 'modern'. Admittedly the earlier individual is nowhere near as far north as Byzovaya but surely it makes sense to assume the later population is genetically modern as well rather than being Neanderthal. We know genetically modern people used Mousterian technology and so the presence of that technology at Byzovaya is hardly 'proof' the population was Neanderthal.

Ebizur said...

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2177-Clovis-boy-Y-DNA-Q-L54*(xM3)-and-mtDNA-D4h3a/page3

According to the first post on this page, D4h3a (the clade to which the recently published Anzick individual associated with the Clovis archaeological culture is said to belong) has been estimated to be 12,954 years +/- 2580 years old. The entire D4h3 clade has been estimated to be about 18,000 years old, with D4h3b and other subclades of D4h all being found in Asia. D4h appears to be part of a D4a'b'c'h clade that contains mainly lineages that are common among modern East Asians (Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, etc.). Thus, contrary to the Solutrean hypothesis of a derivation of the Clovis culture from a culture of Palaeolithic Southwest Europe, the mtDNA of the tested Anzick individual shows derivation from the ancestors of modern East Asians.

A1, A13, and A17 according to the new subdivision of old A4 a.k.a. A(xA5) are all Asian mtDNA haplogroups. In the data set analyzed by Lippold et al. (2014), A1 is represented by Mon1226_A4a (a Mongol from the PRC), A13 is represented by Nax1337_A4c and Lah1318_A4c (a Naxi and a Lahu, respectively), and A17 is represented by Yi1184_A4 (a Yi). A1, A13, and A17 all coalesce to a common ancestor about 17,500 YBP, and this common ancestor (A1'13'17) coalesces to a common ancestor with another subclade found among at least Mongols in the PRC (pre-A1'13'17) about 21,000 YBP. Based on this limited data set, the most parsimonious explanation would be that the MRCA of A1'13'17 and pre-A1'13'17 lived in or near Inner Mongolia, with some descendants moving south(west)ward to become members of modern Tibeto-Burman-speaking ethnic groups in SW China, and other descendants remaining in Inner Mongolia to become members of the modern Mongol ethnic group. In regard to the possibility of migration from America to Asia, I think A15 would be more relevant; besides A15c in the Naxi, A15a has been found in the HGDP sample of Mongols from the PRC. Unfortunately, Lippold et al. have not included this individual in their sample set, so I do not know how old the separation of Naxi A15c and Mongol A15a (though the upper limit should be 20,000 YBP, i.e. the TMRCA of A15c and American A2, unless the new "A15" designation is meant to include A2 as a subclade).

Haplogroup C appears at first glance to exhibit a basal split between American (C1) and Asian (C(xC1)) clades, but the C1a subclade, which has been found in e.g. Daurs, has been separated from American C1d for only about 15,500 years. C1a does appear to be a good candidate for a marker of a migration from America (or Beringia) to Asia. Note that the separation of Asian C1a from American C1d appears to have occurred at around the same time as the Bering Strait is estimated to have reopened, physically separating Asia and America.

terryt said...

An interesting series of possibilities arises from considering all Ebizur's data. It does involve a couple of 'ifs'. It is reasonably widely accepted that the earlier population in South China/Southeast Asia was not of Mongoloid phenotype. It was more like modern Papuans/Australian Aborigines. It is also accepted that the Tianyuan mt-DNA B individual was not Mongoloid. It was more like modern Papuans/Australian Aborigines. It has also been claimed the earliest Americans, perhaps mt-DNA B, looked somewhat like Papuans/Australian Aborigines.

"B (incl. R11) vs. R0'HV vs. P: approx. 55,000 YBP"

That places P in Australia at that time.

"A vs. N9'Y: approx. 57,500 YBP"

That makes it extremely likely N13, N14, S and O had also reached Australia by that time.

P's phylogeny, and the Oceanian mt-DNA paper, suggests P1'2'8'10 soon moved back to Eastern Indonesia. Presumably the boating technology necessary to reach Australia rapidly spread back through already inhabited regions of Southeast, East, and South Asia. If B originated in SE Asia it would easily explain the early Papuan/Australian Aborigine phenotype's presence through South China, Tianyuan and America.

Haplogroups C and D look to have moved north through the China/Tibet border region, where they either picked up or developed the EDAR370A mutation, carrying it further north and to America. D, M7c, M8'C/Z, M9, M11 and M12'G were just the very few M haplogroups who moved north from the NE India/SW China border region. As well as to New Guinea and Australia (M14, M15, M27, M28 and M29'Q) other M haplogroups appear to have spread around the Bay of Bengal, presumably by sea: M19'53 (M19 in the Philippines, M53 in Orissa and Central India), M24'51 (M24 in Palawan, M51 in Orissa and Central India), M31 (M31b'c in Eastern India/Tibet, M31a in the Andamans), M32'56 (M32a in the Andamans, M56 in India), and, most interesting, M42'74 (M42 in Australia and India, M74 in southern China). That strongly suggests a considerable expansion from SE Asia, perhaps also involving mt-DNA R.

The development of the Mongoloid phenotype in SE Asia is the product of various A, C and D haplogroups having moved south in more recent times. Possibly starting with, 'A5b1b (Miao) vs. A5b1b (Han): approx. 15,000 YBP'. Certainly B4a1a1 had become at least partly Mongoloid by the time it appeared.

Kristiina said...

Terry, according to ”Genetic evidence for the colonization of Australia”, 2011, the oldest mtDNA haplogroups in Australia are the following (estimations are from Hudjashov et al 2007):
P4 (AusNG) 65.9
P4b (Aus) 47.3
M42a (Aus) 40.6
S (Aus) 25
S1 (Aus) 22
O/N12 (Aus) 16.9

You ask ”But the big question is: was M already there when N passed through on its way to Australia?” On the basis of the paper above, one R line managed to get to Australia first and also colonized Sunda at an early date. Australian M42a is the next oldest, but it does not have links with Indonesia. According to the Spanish Wikipedia (M page), Australian M42 forms a cluster with M74, i.e. M42’74, and M42a is found in Australia and M42b in India among Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian people and M74a is found in China and Indo-China and M74b in Philippines. According to the paper above, N(xR) was the last haplogroup to arrive in Australia.

Check this article by Rao at http://www.ijrat.org/downloads/dec-2013/paper%20id-15201380.pdf However, I must say that I think that N22 may have spread from SEA to India and not the opposite way, but their coalescence age for N22 is only 20,600 years. To me it looks like mtDNA N(xR) came from the north and spread to North China first, and spread gradually southward and reached Australia c. 25 kya.

In this paper http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1821119/, they say that ”haplogroup N9a might be one of the mitochondrial haplogroups that had been selected for adaptation to cold climates”. According to Sukernik et al, 2012 http://www.academia.edu/5407402/Mitochondrial_Genome_Diversity_in_the_Tubalar_Even_and_Ulchi_Contribution_to_Prehistory_of_Native_Siberians_and_Their_Affinities_to_Native_Americans, the coalescence age of N9 is 38.7 and they argue that ”Spatial patterns and coalescent dates of the N9a, N9b, and Y haplogroups suggest that the N9 root (5417) emerged in southwest Asia … (and their) derivatives might have spread through the corridor provided by southern refugia that stretch from mountainous Altai to the Russian Far East on one hand and deserted areas of Central Asia steppe on the other”.

This paper (2008) is much more radical http://www.researchgate.net/publication/23319209_PCA_and_clustering_reveal_alternate_mtDNA_phylogeny_of_N_and_M_clades, as it places N9a near A and I, and N9b near B4c and B4a, and R cluster has completely disappeared. This model would explain nicely why the oldest Northeast Asian haplogroup is represented in America only by relatively young haplogroup A, as N9b would in fact be a sister haplogroup of B4.

German Dziebel said...

@TerryT

"We know genetically modern people used Mousterian technology and so the presence of that technology"

What are you talking about? Do we have modern human DNA from a sample associated with Mousterian technology?

"But that conclusion has been superseded by the later study Dienekes posted here"

How is it "superseded"? You're treating every paper as a new commandment from a wishy-washy god who overwrites his own orders. BTW, the ongoing study you linked to shows Amerindians as being the closest to Neandertals out of al the modern populations.

terryt said...

@ German:

"What are you talking about? Do we have modern human DNA from a sample associated with Mousterian technology?"

You are once more carefully avoiding your big problem. I asked:

"How on earth can you reconcile Ebizur's data with your out of America belief?"

So let's hear it. We have myriad examples of modern humans being present in particular regions lacking an Upper Paleolithic technology.

@ Kristiina:

"On the basis of the paper above, one R line managed to get to Australia first and also colonized Sunda at an early date".

P isn't actually present in 'Sunda' but in Wallacea, the region between Sunda and Sahul. With P being present outside Australia the age is calculated from a more diverse basal population than are the N haplogroups. I am unable to access the paper but, as we understand the phylogeny at present, it is extremely unlikely that R is more ancient that N. Do the dates for the Australian N haplogroups refer to their separation form basal N or to the expansions of the fully-formed individual haplogroups? The Australian N-derived haplogroups are all absent outside Australia and so the dates of their expansion deals only with the process within Australia. It cannot really tell us the date of their arrival on the continent. It is possible that they might have originally been a single haplogroup that diversified once it reached Australia. I which case we could then look at the combined data for a date for their arrival. As things stand with these dates we can guess that their wide expansion within Australia was no more than some 20-25,000 years ago. Possibly after a prolonged drought.

On the other hand M42a is particularly common in the Riverine region. That is unlikely to have suffered so extremely during any prolonged aridity.

"Check this article by Rao at http://www.ijrat.org/downloads/dec-2013/paper%20id-15201380.pdf"

I wasn't able to access it as it was blocked for some reason. I agree with your comment, 'I must say that I think that N22 may have spread from SEA to India and not the opposite way'. According to my notes it is mainly an Orang Asli haplogroup (Malay Peninsula).

"their coalescence age for N22 is only 20,600 years. To me it looks like mtDNA N(xR) came from the north and spread to North China first, and spread gradually southward and reached Australia c. 25 kya."

Possible. But R must have sprung from N in some particular region, and R is very diverse through island and mainland SE Asia.

"haplogroup N9a might be one of the mitochondrial haplogroups that had been selected for adaptation to cold climates".

Which would suggest that if N was a relatively recent arrival in Australia from North China it would carry evidence for that 'adaptation to cold climates'. It doesn't seem to be so.

"This model would explain nicely why the oldest Northeast Asian haplogroup is represented in America only by relatively young haplogroup A, as N9b would in fact be a sister haplogroup of B4".

In which case we can expect a complete overhaul of mt-DNAs N and R. However I agree completely that N moved east through northern regions, not via South Asia.

Ebizur said...

terryt wrote,

"You have B4 vs. B5'R11 but Phylotree still has R11 as part of B6. Is your comparison independent of the conflicting correlations?"

As I have previously noted, the data that I have presented are excerpts from my synthesis of the works of Lippold et al. (2014) and Ian Logan. Neither of them has analyzed any
member of the HGDP sample set as belonging to a haplogroup B6. I do not know whether this is because of a lack of any representative of B6 in the HGDP, or because of a change
in those researchers' understanding of the phylogeny or the associated nomenclature.

In any case, the data presented above do not preclude the possibility that there may be a clade, B6, that is either a superset or a sister clade of R11. The data only assert that
B5 and R11 share a common ancestor more recent (about 5,000 years more recent to be precise) than either clade shares with B4.

terryt wrote,

"You have also compared D to M2 specifically. I remember a recent paper claimed such a connection but Phylotree hasn't adopted the connection. M2 is most definitely a South Asian haplogroup and so if the connection holds it would place D's deeper origin firmly into South Asia."

According to Supplementary Figure 14 of Lippold et al. (2014), the linkage between D and M2 versus other members of haplogroup M is about the same magnitude as the linkage between D4 and D5 versus M2.

Philippine M80, which you often have mentioned, is not included in this data set, so I do not know how it might relate to D and M2.

terryt wrote,

"D, M7c, M8'C/Z, M9, M11 and M12'G were just the very few M haplogroups who moved north from the NE India/SW China border region."

And M10, M13, etc.

In any case, the names do not have any absolute, quantifiable significance. What matters is the TMRCA, and typically East Asian (and American) subclades of M, both individually and as a group, exhibit a greater TMRCA than typically South Asian subclades of M. Papuan/Melanesian Q is quite old (MRCA ca. 40,000 YBP), but it is still not so old as East Asian D (TMRCA D4 + D5 approx. 47,000 YBP) or M7 (TMRCA M7a + M7b'c approx. 46,000 YBP). South Asian M (except M2) appears to be about 10,000 years younger than D, with a TMRCA of approx. 37,000 YBP.

terryt said...

Kristiina, you will find this essay on Australian demographics relevant:

http://royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1761/20130486

Quote:

"The greatest increase in population occurred in the Late Holocene, but in contrast to existing intensification models, changes in demography and diversification of economic activities began much earlier. Some demographic changes appear to be in response to major climatic events, most notably during the last glacial maximum, where the curve suggests that population fell by about 60 per cent between 21 and 18 ka."

That fits the data you provided for S, S1 and O'N12 quite well. In other words the dates you showed are the result of demographic expansion within Australia, not the date of arrival of the haplogroups. A further consideration is that it is extremely unlikely that N diversified (according to Ebizur's data) some 57,500 years ago in northern China (or nearby) yet as recently as 20-25,000 years ago four separate N haplogroups carrying no mutations beyond basal N were able to enter Australia and diversify there. It is far more likely the four Australian N haplogroups began diversifying around the time the northern N haplogroups began to do so. And much of their existence was spent in Australia.

Another excerpt of passing interest from the above paper:

"Founding populations are generally considered to have been small (less than 150), reflecting a family group or band of people [1,3,18]. However, recent mitochondrial DNA research suggests that a large population (greater than 1000) would have been required to produce the genetic diversity observed [10,19]; and O'Connell & Allen [20] argue that initial colonization of the continent would have required deliberate organized sea travel, involving hundreds of people".

That supports other evidence of a series of crossings from Timor gradually expanding along the northern coast of Australia eventually reaching eastern New Guinea and then Melanesia.

terryt said...

Thanks for the clarification Ebizur.

"What matters is the TMRCA, and typically East Asian (and American) subclades of M, both individually and as a group, exhibit a greater TMRCA than typically South Asian subclades of M".

That does make it possible that M too moved east through Central Asia rather than through South Asia. That really would sound the death knell for the great southern coastal migration theory.

"Papuan/Melanesian Q is quite old (MRCA ca. 40,000 YBP), but it is still not so old as East Asian D (TMRCA D4 + D5 approx. 47,000 YBP) or M7 (TMRCA M7a + M7b'c approx. 46,000 YBP)".

Makes complete sense. But Q is downstream of M29 and so the Papuan/Melanesian haplogroups could possibly be closer in age to D/M7.

maxei said...

"We also find some African Americans who carry D1 just like the Mexican girl."

What??? a Mexican girl from 12000 years ago? African origin of D1??

Oh boy! Mexico as a country dates back to only 1821 (yes, XIX century); formerly, it was a Spanish province called the Vicerroyalty of New Spain. Mexicans were originally the Aztec, inhabitants of the city-state of Tenochtitlan/Meshico.

As for the idea that D1 comes from Africa, it is the most ludicrous and ridiculous thing that a self-called 'doctor' could dare to invent. definitely, Dienekes could not care more but to filter such wild, ignorant and false claims, like those from "Dr" Clyde. Otherwise, "let that chaos prevail, and deception abound", would be this blog's moto.

Actually, everyone commenting here seem all "experts", yet discrepant points of view abound. definitely, the Thruth is Elsewhere, but here.

Dienekes, my comment deserves to be here, much more than "dr" clyde's. Oh boy! Oh boy!

maxei said...

"I think it might be the other way round. The MA-1 type was first into America, via Beringia, while a later migration, probably involving mt-DNA B, bypassed Beringia and arrived by boat (from Japan?)."

@terryt:
Have you tried doing some "boating" in the glacial, choppy waters of north Pacific, prone to large waves and blasting winds? Like in a picknick day, yeah!
Like someone said it: by land, you can hypothesize that large groups of people crossed; but, by sea??!! that is another story. No way intelligent humans would dare to adventure in such a crazy, suicidal attempt, towards the unknown.
It doesn't take more than a tiny particle of common sense and logic, to realize the foolishness of such "theory". Sometimes I cannot believe the things that some so-called "experts" can pull out of the sleve.

terryt said...

"Have you tried doing some 'boating' in the glacial, choppy waters of north Pacific, prone to large waves and blasting winds? Like in a picknick day, yeah!"

We have no idea what the seas were like at times when sea level was low enough to connect many islands in the Kuril and Aleutian island chains. We do know that humans were capable of crossing reasonable expanses of sea by 50,000 years ago to reach Australia and so it would not be at all surprising if the technology had spread north at least as far as Japan by 30,000 years ago. I do agree it is quite possible Amerindian B arrived over land of course. But somehow the haplogroup seems to have missed far northeast Eurasia, unlike other Amerindian haplogroups.

"As for the idea that D1 comes from Africa, it is the most ludicrous and ridiculous thing that a self-called 'doctor' could dare to invent".

German Dziebel's beliefs make it a close-run thing.

Basil S said...

@maxei

“Mexicans were originally the Aztec, inhabitants of the city-state of Tenochtitlan/Meshico“

Yes SOME Mexicans are of Aztec descent. But, they are also: Otomi, Mixteca, Tlahuica,Tarascan,Purepecha, Zapotec, Totonac, Mazahua.

The tribes I have mentioned above spoke languages completely unrelated to the language of the Aztecas-which was Uto-Aztecan. In fact, there is strong evidence for their origin in SW United States(where the rest of their language family is found)They arrived around 700 years ago in the Valle de Mexico-only yesterday in the greater scheme of things. The people they pushed out(or killed-Otomies for example) had lived in Central Mexico for perhaps at least 6000 years and perhaps were the people who built Teotihuacan.

Understandably, the Aztecas seem to dominate Mexican history, but unfortunately it is to the detriment of other tribes. It is shocking to find that even in Mexico, its almost like they believe that they are ALL descended from the Aztecas. A lot of people here do not even realize they are only ancestors genetically speaking to a fraction of the Mexican population.

German Dziebel said...

@TerryT

"German Dziebel's beliefs make it a close-run thing."

The original comment was not made at me. As always, you are delusional, Terry.

Michelle G said...

Ok first off it's likely that the first natives did a coastal migration. There is no evidence of boats that early,sorry. If they were walking along the coast it would have allowed them food and water also by passing the harsh snow during the ice age. Eva Longoria for example is A2 and her ancestor was Mayan. A whole tribe can be mixed showing A, B, C, Or D and even X haplogroups. However D1 is usually shown in coastal natives, like the Chumash in Ca
ifornia and even the Yupiks from Alaska. D1 haplogroup can be found all the way from Alaska to Chile. I am actually D1 like the skeleton found and that is found in usually in only 11% of Natives and my people also live in a coastal state so just saying.

terryt said...

"There is no evidence of boats that early,sorry".

Actually there's plenty of evidence for boats that early. The first people to reach Australia must have arrived by boat, and that was at least 45,000 years ago.

"The original comment was not made at me. As always, you are delusional, Terry".

The original comment was made about you, not to you.