# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  R1* in North America, South-East Asia and Australia

## Pallantides

> R1b isn't found in pre-Colombian Amerindians as far as is currently known. It is common in modern native Americans because Western European colonists killed a lot of native men in the 16th and 17th centuries and procreated with their women.


Not R1b but R1-M173 is found in Amerindians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigen...ndian_genetics



> Haplogroup R1 (Y-DNA) is the second most predominate haplotype found among indigenous Amerindians after Q (Y-DNA). The distribution of R1 is believed to be associated with the re-settlement of Eurasia following the last glacial maximum. Its main subgroups are R1a (M420) and R1b (M343). R1 is found predominantly in North American Algonquian groups - Ojibwe (79%), Chipewyan (62%), Seminole (50%), Cherokee (47%), Dogrib (40%) and Papago (38%). This suggests that population isolation began soon after migration into the areas after the Late Glacial Maximum.

----------


## LeBrok

That's hell of an interesting map! I wonder how possible is that Native American Q mutating in something we call M173, independently in America?

----------


## Pallantides

It seems the info on Wiki was wrong though.
http://usmex.ucsd.edu/assets/022/10143.pdf



> Gene map interpolations (Fig. 2A–C) indicate that the
> frequency of haplogroup Q is highest in Southwestern
> North America/Mesoamerica. The frequency of haplogroup
> C is highest in Northwestern North America and
> the frequency of haplogroup R, the presence of which is
> attributed to European admixture, reaches its maximum
> in Northeastern North America. In total, 73% percent of
> the populations analyzed exhibited haplogroup R, which
> ranges in frequency from 4 to 88% (Table 1).





> he influence of European admixture is evidenced by
> the strong gradient of haplogroup R from Northeastern
> to Southwestern North America. This gradient corroborates
> findings from previous studies of Y chromosome
> variation in Native Northeastern America (Bolnick
> et al., 2006; Hammer et al., 2006). The gradient might
> result from the earlier occurrence of European contact in
> Northeastern North America, which has provided a longer
> period of time for admixture to occur. Unlike mtDNA
> ...


Next time I need to be more careful and check the sources first.

----------


## LeBrok

Still a great find, no worry. It's amazing how much English and French settlers had mixed with locals. Few notches more than Spaniards and Portuguese. Very interesting.

----------


## Maciamo

That's the first time I hear of R1* (M173) being so widespread among Native Americans and being found among Austronesians and Australian Aborigines. That's very interesting indeed. 

I can conceive that R1* reached the Americas during the same migration as Q1a3a. Haplogroups N, O, P, Q, R are supposed to have originated in Central Asia during the Ice Age. Q and R are both descended from P. It is easy to see how nomadic tribes belonging to Q and R1* could have intermingled during their migrations around the Central Asian steppe, and some would eventually travel through Siberia and reach the Americas.

However there are also theories that the Americas was settled in (at least) two successive waves, the earliest dating possibly from as much as 30,000 years ago, and the latest around 10,000 years ago. Archaeology supports this scenario. The oldest skeletons in the Americas look distinctly more Europoid in their traits. Mongoloid features suddenly replaced them from the time of the Clovis culture, starting approximately 13,000 years ago.

But not all Amerindians look the same. Some do look more European than East Asian, particularly tribes of the north-eastern USA and eastern Canada, like the Iroquois and the Hurons. This is where it gets fascinating, because this is justly the region where mtDNA haplogroup X2 is found. And now it appears that Y-DNA R1* matches the same region.



Compare the X2 map with the above R map. The distribution is similar, though the frequency is very different. Where R1* exceeds 60% or even 80% of the paternal lineages, X2 makes at best 4% of the population. There are surely other Europoid mtDNA lineages, but if they are too similar to those found in Europe (e.g. one of the hundreds of subclades of H) it won't be possible to distinguish them from the lineages brought to North America by the Europeans. Chances are that the majority of European-looking mtDNA lineages found among Native Americans from the North-East of North America are of Amerindian origin and not European.

Haplogroup Q1a3a is probably more recent than R1*. In Siberia it is found almost exclusively among Mongoloid people, who carry similar maternal lineages as those found in the Americas (A, B, C, D).



As for R1* in Austronesia and Australia, the most likely route is via India. The Indian subcontinent is close to the region of origin of haplogroup R. R2 is almost exclusive to it. It's easy to imagine an early migration of R2 (or R*) and R1* lineages to the Indian subcontinent. From there, there are plenty of documented migrations of Indians to South-East Asia, who settled notably in Cambodia and Indonesia, where Hinduism was once the mainstream religion. But then other Indian haplogroups should also be found in the region, alongside R1*.

----------


## wolfswald

If one closely examines the R-M173 data published by Bolnick et al., they turn out not to be R1*, but R1b. Also, the modal type of Bolnick's R haplotypes is completely identical with the "Atlantic Modal Haplotype" of R1b.

Bolnick's "other" haplotypes, when analyzed by Whit Athey's Haplogroup Predictor, include a larger portion of I1 and an assortment of others. Mostly, the relative frequencies of the haplogroups parallel those in Western Europe, with about 65% R1b and 15% I1.

However, the haplotype diversity of the American R1b is more than double as high as the one for I1, and about halfway between Q1a3a1 and C - i.e., Bolnick's Q-M242* is the most diverse, followed by Q1a3a1 (Q-M3*), R1b, C, and I1. Plotted in the Fluxus network software, R1b shows a nice star structure with a clear center (the center being identical with the AMH and the American modal).

If those R1b were all descendants of European settlers, I would have expected a ... I don't know how to describe that in English. Something like a small number of founding haplotypes in a circle around the modal, with distinct groups of descendants around those founding haplotypes. Which is not the case. ... However, I should mention that I am just a simple historian and no expert for phylogenetic analyses.

Also, the descendancy from the European settlers does not seem to explain why this phenomenon is limited to the region around the Great Lakes, basically an ellipse stretching southeast to northwest, from the Atlantic Coast to somewhere in Canada. Why, then, would for example the regions occupied by the Spanish or the French not show higher portions of R1b?

wolfswald

----------


## LeBrok

Perhaps the R and I is even earlier. Possibly Vikings from round 800s AD. We know that there were Vikings settlements in NE America's coast. We also know that the settlements vanished after some time completely. 
It would make sense that if they intermingled with overwhelming numbers of locals in short time, they would lose their way of life, and their European looks. 
Now in their descendants autosomal DNA is local/native, but only R and I paternal survieved as European. This might mean that R and I males brought something special to the equation that increased survivability of their offsprings and overpopulating the local ones like Q.

I think the Y DNA is Viking, from 800 hundreds or even earlier. I'm surprised not to see any R1a though.

Welcome to Eupedia wolfswald.

----------


## Reinaert

Hmm? 

Didn't anybody on this forum ever read about the latest findings.
During the last ice age, people from Southern Europe (France and Spain) must have lived like the Inuit nowadays, and could travel across the Atlantic very easily. Just hop from icefield to icefield. They mixed with the natives on the Canadian and American East Coast. 

You can find it on internet very easy if you search for Clovis culture.
Clovis and Solutrean

The key to the modern research were the arrowheads found in the United States, that were exactly the same as European material in the same period.
Asian arrowhead (or spearheads) were made in a different way.
A bone with small flints stuck into.
These weapons are also found in Southern American native cultures.

Other clues.. Some Canadian natives are nearly 2 meters tall.

So, they have in fact European ancestors from 10.000 years ago.

And another fact. Columbus didn't even discover America.
Only an island. ;)

----------


## sparkey

> Hmm? 
> 
> Didn't anybody on this forum ever read about the latest findings.
> During the last ice age, people from Southern Europe (France and Spain) must have lived like the Inuit nowadays, and could travel across the Atlantic very easily. Just hop from icefield to icefield. They mixed with the natives on the Canadian and American East Coast. 
> 
> You can find it on internet very easy if you search for Clovis culture.
> 
> The key to the modern research were the arrowheads found in the United States, that were exactly the same as European material in the same period.
> Asian arrowhead (or spearheads) were made in a different way.
> ...


I dunno... the last Ice Age ended nearly 12,000 years ago. That's far before the I1 MRCA and also before R1b is likely to have reached Western Europe. In fact, that's pre-Clovis culture IIRC. If we had Ice Age European Y-DNA amongst American natives, we would expect something like I*, I2*, or I2b. 

Could you please give an actual source for that? All I'm finding are articles about a newly-found culture that predates Clovis culture.

----------


## Reinaert

One example:

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

It was on History Channel.

Hmm.. It seems the Clovis culture is older than American "establishment" scholars want to believe.

And R is typical for France and Spain in that period.

And the ice age ended 10.000 years BC. You're correct.
That's 12000 years ago now.

----------


## sparkey

> One example:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_theory
> 
> It was on History Channel.
> 
> Hmm.. It seems the Clovis culture is older than American "establishment" scholars want to believe.


Thanks for the link, I had actually never heard of this migration model. Sounds like it has more critics than proponents, but I'm sure that you expect that. I suppose that Y-DNA alone can't discount it, although I stand by my objections. If there is Ice Age European DNA in Amerinds, it's not reflected in Y-DNA.

----------


## sparkey

> And R is typical for France and Spain in that period.


Ice Age? Nope. R was typical for Asia in the Ice Age. I was typical for Europe in the Ice Age... although it's not clear what subclade was prominent in France and Spain at the time, it could have been a now-extinct I*.

----------


## Reinaert

Huh? Read this again...




> Quote:
> Haplogroup R1 (Y-DNA) is the second most predominate haplotype found among indigenous Amerindians after Q (Y-DNA). The distribution of R1 is believed to be associated with the re-settlement of Eurasia following the last glacial maximum. Its main subgroups are R1a (M420) and R1b (M343). R1 is found predominantly in North American Algonquian groups - Ojibwe (79%), Chipewyan (62%), Seminole (50%), Cherokee (47%), Dogrib (40%) and Papago (38%). This suggests that population isolation began soon after migration into the areas after the Late Glacial Maximum.


I guess nobody in this thread did read it very well.
It says Eurasia, not Asia!

And another hint..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfoundland_(dog)

I had such a dog.
Typical family of a dog from the Pyrenees mountains.
In the wiki it is written that the Newfoundland dog is brought to Canada by Portuguese fishermen, but what if Europeans from the same area 12.000 years ago took those dogs with them.
They were hunters, like the Inuit nowadays. (Inuit=Eskimo)
The Europeans lived and survived on the edge of the cold climate of the ice age.
And that for hundreds of years.
So, consider this before writing a hasty comment.

----------


## Regulus

> One example:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_theory
> 
> It was on History Channel.
> 
> Hmm.. It seems the Clovis culture is older than American "establishment" scholars want to believe.
> 
> And R is typical for France and Spain in that period.
> ...


 

Actually, American academia or the 'establishment' is very open to this possibility. This very topic has been out in the open here for probably close to 20 years.

----------


## sparkey

> Huh? Read this again...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess nobody in this thread did read it very well.
> It says Eurasia, not Asia!



Well... R1a may have been in Eastern Europe before the end of the Ice Age, but that's a bit beside the point. Based on the MRCA of R1b1b2 (younger than the end of the Ice Age) and apparent migrations based on archaeology and modern distributions, it seems that R1b didn't even become dominant in Western Europe until at least the Bronze Age. And recall that wolfswald brings up I1(!). That haplogroup has a very young MRCA and is associated strongly with Germanic peoples.

----------


## Eochaidh

> Could you please give an actual source for that? All I'm finding are articles about a newly-found culture that predates Clovis culture.


Here is a PBS link:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr..._stoneage.html

What is new is that there is now a DNA to link the mtDNA of the Ojibwa of North-America to Europe. This is illustrated by Maciamo's graphic in this thread. The Ojibwa are located near the Great Lakes.




> *NARRATOR:* But Stanford argues that crucial evidence is missing, submerged under 300 feet of wateras rising sea levels inundated the Solutrean coastline at the end of the Ice Age.
> The debate raged on, with arguments for and against the Solutrean theory. Then came evidence that, again, seemed like it might end the battle: DNA.
> It was the latest report from colleagues of Doug Wallace who were investigating early human migrations. They were puzzling over mitochondrial DNA samples from a Native American tribe called the Ojibwa.
> *DOUGLAS WALLACE:* When we studied the mitochondrial DNA of the Ojibwa we found, as we had anticipated, the four primary lineages—A, B, C and D—but there was about a quarter of the mitochondrial DNAs that was not A, B, C and D.
> *NARRATOR:* There was a fifth source of DNA of mysterious origin. They called it X, and unlike A, B, C and D, they couldn't find it anywhere in Siberia or eastern Asia. But it was similar to an uncommon lineage in European populations today. At first, they thought it must be the result of interracial breeding within the last 500 years, sometime after Columbus.
> *DOUGLAS WALLACE:* We naturally assumed that perhaps there had been European recent mixture with the Ojibwa tribe and that some European women had married into the Ojibwa tribe and contributed their mitochondrial DNAs.
> *NARRATOR:* But that assumption proved wrong. When they looked at the amount of variation in the X lineage, it pointed to an origin long before Columbus, in fact, to at least 15,000 years ago. It appeared to be evidence of Ice Age Europeans in America.
> *DOUGLAS WALLACE:* Well, what it says is that a mitochondrial lineage that is predominantly found in Europe somehow got to the Great Lakes region of the Americas 14,000 to 15,000 years ago.
> *NARRATOR:* Could X be genetic evidence of the Solutreans in America? Further investigation raised another possibility. The ancient X lineage may have existed in Siberia, but died out, though not before coming over to America with Ancient migrations.

----------


## sparkey

> Here is a PBS link:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr..._stoneage.html
> 
> What is new is that there is now a DNA to link the mtDNA of the Ojibwa of North-America to Europe. This is illustrated by Maciamo's graphic in this thread. The Ojibwa are located near the Great Lakes.


Agreed that mtDNA X is the most likely candidate for substantiation of this theory, but it remains ambiguous, wouldn't you say? The distribution of X in North America could also signify an Eastward migration that "crashed" into the sea and then died out along its migration path, like the narrator suggests. It is certainly the most mysterious haplogroup in either Y-DNA or mtDNA.

----------


## Reinaert

Haha...

This is what I meant:




> MICHAEL COLLINS: The best way in the world to get beaten up, professionally, is to claim you have a pre-Clovis site.
> 
> DENNIS STANFORD: When you dig deeper than Clovis, a lot of people do not report it, because they're worried about the reaction of their colleagues.
> 
> MICHAEL COLLINS: I've been accused of planting artifacts. People will reject radiocarbon dates just simply because there's not supposed to be any people here at those times, and it just goes on and on and on.


I wonder why it would be a problem.

----------


## wolfswald

Hi folks,

I am quite impressed. Now let's see.

I am aware of the Clovis/Solutren theory. In fact that was how I came across this problem, even though Bradley and Stanford, as far as the DNA is concerned, only talk about mtDNA (the haplogroup X), not about Y-DNA. What I wanted to know was if anybody could think of any alternative models to explain R1b in America. Because, beyond the fact that it is fascinating, it poses some very general problems. More later.

I think that the Vikings are not the source - the frequency of haplogroup I is too low, of R1a far too low (Bolnick shows one haplotype that is predicted as R1a, and two that might be R1a or I1 - whereas the clear I1's are 17 haplotypes). And R1b is too high for Viking origin.

The Clovis/Solutren theory, however, sounds extremely fascinating, but so far the evidence does not seem to be convincing (to me, that is).




> The key to the modern research were the arrowheads found in the United States, that were exactly the same as European material in the same period.
> Asian arrowhead (or spearheads) were made in a different way.


Bradley talks a lot about how these things were made, and so far I haven't understood the differences between overshot flaking and other ways of making flint blades. But if one takes a look at the (beautiful) Clovis points and the (likewise beautiful) Solutren points, they don't seem to be really similar.

Next problem is that Clovis is too young for a direct connection to Solutren - there is several thousand years in between. The pre-Clovis horizon in the Eastern US might do it, timewise, but the artifacts found so far have even less similarity with the Solutren material. At least so it seems to me. I'm not yet sure about the new Buttermilk Creek site in Texas, but that is so far west that they might as well have come from the Northwest.




> I dunno... the last Ice Age ended nearly 12,000 years ago. That's far before the I1 MRCA and also before R1b is likely to have reached Western Europe. In fact, that's pre-Clovis culture IIRC. If we had Ice Age European Y-DNA amongst American natives, we would expect something like I*, I2*, or I2b.


That is exactly the point. Because:

If they really went via the ice bridge from Biscay to Newfoundland, which I find a fascinating idea, they must have done so before the end of the Ice Age. In fact I personally am not sure if it would have been possible during the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum) because I am not sure if the ice bridge really went down south that far. There are, however, rather short periods (a few hundred years each) called Heinrich events, in which the sea currents seem to have been very different from LGM/Ice Age conditions AND modern conditions, and in which ice seems to have gone pretty far down south. Those Heinrich events seem to be caused by large amounts of iceberg breakoffs somewhere between Canada and Greenland, and their drifting south changed the salt content of the water and, with that, the currents, not too different from the scenario in "The Day After Tomorrow".

In any case, either way they then would have to have come before about 17000 years before now. Which would, as far as the current scientific opinions about mutation rates are concerned, be far too early for R1b getting over there, even if one takes the slow Zhivotovsky "evolutionary" rate and not the three times higher "genealogical" rate. ... That was why I got interested in this because I was trying to find a solution for the mutation rate problem, and the ice bridge transfer would have been an absolute terminus ante quem for the existence of R1b in Western Europe, and a definite upper limit for the mutation rate.

As far as the mt-haplogroup X (in fact X2a, plus one stray type called X2g) is concerned, I am not really convinced. As far as I've understood, there are no close parallels to this group anywhere. I tried to understand the current mtDNA haplogroup tree, and to me it seemed that the closest "neighbour" of X2a is X2j, which was found in the Egyptian desert. The Eurasian groups are X2b, c, and d. The one found in Siberia is X2e.

Of course, mtDNA would be a much stronger point against the post-Columbian European settlers having brought in the DNA, because one can imagine traders having children with Indian women to a certain extent, but that wouldn't explain female European DNA there.

The next problem is: so far, we are assuming that they were NOT able to cross the ocean by ship/boat. What if they were? Well - of course that would mean that my attempt to nail down the age of R1b and the mutation rate would not work. Pity, but could not be helped.

This is something I came across only very recently. Long ago, Thor Heyerdahl tried to prove that it was possible to sail from, say, Gibraltar, to America, landing somewhere in the Caribbean. He thought that it was not possible to do it the other way round, because of the current and the wind you'd have to cross against. Now a German biologist tried exactly that with a reed boat a few years ago, starting in New York. He had to give up the boat a few hundred miles before the Azores, but he will be trying again with a new boat next year. Some of the arguments he brings for a more or less regular traffic via the Atlantic is tobacco in Egypt, Solutren and Magdalnien cave paintings that show sea animals and possibly boats, and some sort of gourd which can be found on both sides of the pond and is genetically too old/diverse to have been transferred recently. - The Newfoundland Dog might indeed be another argument (anyway, what were Portuguese fishermen doing in Newfoundland in the beginning of the 16th century??).

wolfswald

----------


## Reinaert

Well, it can be explained.
The original R yDNA can have existed very early in Europe, and moved south during the last ice age. The R population adapted the cold climate, and part of them moved across the Atlantic. By sea. Just following the hunt. Eskimo's still do that. Why couldn't Europeans do that? It's easy to camp on ice fields, and move on the next day.
Of course they had small boats, canoe type vessels. They weren't able to sail open ocean, but they could travel through calm waters along the ice.
At least it's a fact that a lot of R yDNA moved from central Europe to the British Isles and Ireland. And it would be only natural if they went beyond that.
Iceland and Greenland were too much covered with ice then, so we don't see them populated. The route is more likely from France and Spain along the Irish coast to Canada.

----------


## wolfswald

> The original R yDNA can have existed very early in Europe, and moved south during the last ice age.


The geneticists' current age estimates for R1b - and this is what we are dealing with here - "are all more recent than the Last Glacial Maximum" (Wikipedia). However, the ice bridge theory would require R1b being in Western Europe during the LGM at the latest. That is what I am wondering about**: when did R1b appear in Western Europe?




> The R population adapted the cold climate, and part of them moved across the Atlantic. By sea. Just following the hunt. Eskimo's still do that. Why couldn't Europeans do that? It's easy to camp on ice fields, and move on the next day.
> Of course they had small boats, canoe type vessels. They weren't able to sail open ocean, but they could travel through calm waters along the ice.


Yes. But only till abt. 17000 BP. After that, there was no ice. ... Unless we do indeed accept that they might have had the possibility to sail in the open.




> At least it's a fact that a lot of R yDNA moved from central Europe to the British Isles and Ireland. And it would be only natural if they went beyond that.


I'd be curious if there are any estimates as to how old R1b in the British Isles is?

wolfswald

----------


## sparkey

> I'd be curious if there are any estimates as to how old R1b in the British Isles is?


That's a very tough question, especially considering the fact that it probably came over in multiple waves. For example, R1b-S116* probably showed up before R1b-L21, which probably showed up before significant levels of R1b-U106. Since R1b-S116* is the oldest, I would guess that it could have arrived with the Beaker culture, or maybe even earlier. The Grooved Ware culture before the Beakers was Britain-local, so it is less likely to have significant levels of R1b IMHO. And even the Beakers I would suspect to have higher levels of I2b than we see among Western Europeans today. R1b-U106's modern correlation with Germanic peoples suggests a Dark Ages origin in Britain for it, or at least most of it. R1b-L21 is less clear but could be linked to the Celtic expansion, maybe. But all of this is unresolved.

Either way, I think we can agree that regardless of when R1b first showed up in Britain, it is unlikely to have become dominant in Britain until relatively late, like with the rest of Western Europe.

----------


## Herbert

I'm very annoyed that on wikipedia that y-chromosome haplogroup R1 is indigenous to the Americas. Geneticist Hammer and other geneticist wrote an article in 2004 stated that haplogroup r1 was a result of admixture of European settlers. The haplogroup r1 that has been found in Native Americans is actually haplogroup R1b, and not realted to any R1 lineages in Asia. Only haplogroup Q and C are indigenous to the Americas whose ultimite origins are in Asia.

----------


## Templar

> The ancient X lineage may have existed in Siberia, but died out, though not before coming over to America with Ancient migrations.


Seems to explain the whole thing, especially if we consider R1 the "male counterpart" to X (which we can KIND OF assume). Indo-Europeans used to inhabit vast areas of central Asia and likely followed the Siberian mongoloids in their journey over the icebridge in NorthEastern Asia.

Clovis technology though I think came at a much earlier date. And the people who brought it likely died out (and therefore contributed little to nothing to the Native American gene pool in North America). And the people who brought it were paleolithic Cro-Magnon (carriers of HP I).

So Indo-Europeans DID come to America, but they had nothing to do with the Clovis arrowheads. Another piece of evidence of this that no Native Americans used clovis arrowheads at the time of Columbus's arrival.

----------


## sparkey

> Clovis technology though I think came at a much earlier date. And the people who brought it likely died out (and therefore contributed little to nothing to the Native American gene pool in North America). And the people who brought it were paleolithic Cro-Magnon (carriers of HP I).


No way it's Cro-Magnon I. The apparently Near Eastern mtDNA (like X2) that ended up in the Americas had a common launching point with the older European X2's in Asia; the odds that they launched from Europe is low.

If you're proposing that Clovis Culture originated from farther west than later migrations into the Americas, then J or E1b or G or T or even IJ (this is getting late for IJ though) would all be more realistic suggestions than I IMHO. Either way, Native American Y lineages got reduced to mostly just Q (Siberian origin) and some C.




> So Indo-Europeans DID come to America, but they had nothing to do with the Clovis arrowheads. Another piece of evidence of this that no Native Americans used clovis arrowheads at the time of Columbus's arrival.


See Herbert's post... this supposedly native R1 is a false alarm. There's no evidence of eastward migration of Indo-Europeans into the Americas. And X (lacking in Central Asia) isn't linked strongly to R1 (strong in Central Asia).

----------


## Templar

> See Herbert's post... this supposedly native R1 is a false alarm


Hmm sorry I didn't see it.

I see your point, but then how are the clovis arrow-heads explained away?

----------


## sparkey

> Hmm sorry I didn't see it.
> 
> I see your point, but then how are the clovis arrow-heads explained away?


I think there was an obvious cultural shift, but I'm not claiming to know whether or not there was a corresponding Y-DNA haplogroup replacement. It could have been one Q culture replacing another Q culture, although the lack of correspondence between Y-DNA Q and mtDNA X outside of the Americas is confusing. But I would still be surprised if Clovis wasn't mostly Q, or at least mostly C.

----------


## scottevines

> Actually, American academia or the 'establishment' is very open to this possibility. This very topic has been out in the open here for probably close to 20 years.


I've earned several degrees in Anthropology in the United States and I can assure you, the establishment shows extreme prejudice against the Solutrean Hypothesis to the point of ignoring it if at all possible. It is considered politically incorrect, in part, because many racists on both sides of the debate are compelled to twist it to their own ends. Sad.

----------


## KirKomrik

Hi all,

I've been reading this thread, and many like it, and I'm getting that cheesy horror flick feeling. You know the one where there's a guy in a cabin in the woods reading a scary story to a bunch of college girls and it turns out that the story he is reading is actually about them; but none of the girls realize it?

You guys are talking about a lot of data here and what is going on *appears to me* to be blatantly obvious. I'm not a scientist, so forgive me, but let me just ask it this way:

What if R* haplroup, the "progenitor" of R1b, if you will, came in from Asia a very long time ago. Who cares how. Then suppose this population in the Americas entered a proverbial genetic bottleneck (who cares how). Then suppose that an antecedent, call it P, led to a new haplogroup called R*, which led to R1b. Now suppose a heck of a lot time passed and the genetic bottleneck lifted. Now supppose a new population came in, who cares how, from Asia. Call it Q. Lets say Q and R didn't get along. Suppose R got pushed to the Atlantic and learned what most mariners today know very well: it is a *hell* of a lot easier to get into a boat and go east to Europe than it is to go west to the Americas. And that good ole, warm conveyor belt will dump you out reliably on the west coast of Ireland, north coast of Scotland and Iberia.

Now, if we go back and actually read about those spears and the Clovis deal, along with the datings going back to 21 kbp in VA of people who sure looked a heck of a lot like R1b pure breds, all the data fits right in, right? I've asked this a thousand times and never gotten a cogent answer.

Yes, I know about the "conventional" understanding of R moving east to west. The Bell Beaker phenom is like one of those cheesy horror stories. Read it. It's obvious it went from west to east. It was colonization ... everywhere. Read about the Tokians. They were all tall, very, very white and redheaded, just like the poor saps that got torched in caves in Nevada. And please don't accuse me of bias because I think I actually do at least understand the rudiments of evolution and know that genes over 5000 years ago have little to do with anyone living today. I've also asked that question and no one can explain to me how we *know for sure* that R moved westward. I don't think it did. And that part reminds me of linguistics games; the proverbial cognate that implies directionality is not as easy to identify as they make it sound. Someone, please lift the bane of my intellectual woes, thanks for your time  :Wink: 

- kk

----------


## KirKomrik

> I've earned several degrees in Anthropology in the United States and I can assure you, the establishment shows extreme prejudice against the Solutrean Hypothesis to the point of ignoring it if at all possible. It is considered politically incorrect, in part, because many racists on both sides of the debate are compelled to twist it to their own ends. Sad.


How did you earn "several degrees in Anthropology". I earned one vanilla degree and a professional degree and it almost killed me. Anyhoo,

I think the truth lies between. The "problem" with academia is that there is an overemphasis on quantity over quality. If I can stack a pile of studies high enough that's all some people care about. But the "quality" of the evidence is at least as important (I would argue more so).

If you find two of the only examples in the world at that time of bi-facial arrow heads on the opposite shores of the same pond there might be a connection. Similarly, if the same dating methods you used to conclude that there was an east to west migration are used to confirm that the dates on one coast are several thousand years too early for your east to west hypothesis, your causality train might need to be re-hitched. Forget linquistics and “piles” of “evidence”. See how this works? We don’t even need to confirm the absolute dates, just the relative dates. Nice.
This is why if you enter any western court room you’ll notice that judges have a tendency to want to take a peek at your evidence before you enter it. It’s called probative value, a stuck-up term for “quality”. Allowing people to enter whatever they want is a waste of time. Unfortunately, the quality of peer-review is compromised, which is where I think you’ve found a kernel of truth. Sorry, but that’s my opinion.
There’s a thing called the Conjunction Rule of probability theory that says that unless the information you have to add is pretty certain by itself (has probative force), the simpler explanation is usually the correct one. Juxtapose that with the Genetic Fallacy, that says ignoring evidence of good probative value is likewise an error. Nice.

- kk

----------


## oriental

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384887/

Dual origins of Native Americans




> Our results support and extend the hypothesis of at least two major male migrations from Asia to the Americas. The first migration brought haplogroup M3 Y chromosomes from Chukotka to the Americas. The founder haplotype of this lineage, M3(10-11-11-10), was derived from the southern Middle Siberian haplotype M45(10-11-11-10) during the latter’s migration through Chukotka and across the Bering Land Bridge down into North, Central, and South America. The southern Middle Siberian origin of this initial migration is further supported by the presence of M45(10-11-11-10) and of the closely related haplotype M45(10-11-10-10) in the Tuvan population. This population currently lives near the geographic center of Asia, in the region of arid steppes between Mongolia and the Sayan Mountains. Thus, the first Siberian migration into the Americas arose in southern Middle Siberia.
> The Tuvans and three other populations from the Upper Yenisey region west of Lake Baikal (the Tofalars, Buryats, and Yenisey Evenks) also harbored the ancestral Tat-C haplotypes. Thus, the Tuvans contain remnants of the source of both major male expansions from central Asia into Siberia. The earlier M45 migration, which acquired the M3 variant in northeastern Siberia, moved into the Americas. The later Tat-C migration reached the northeast Siberian coast but did not enter the Americas. Both migrations also moved westward into Europe. Indeed, the dispersal of the Tat-C haplogroup most likely accounts for the clustering of Y chromosomes from certain Middle Siberian populations with those of Europeans rather than with those of other Siberians or East Asians (Santos et al. 1999).
> The M45 haplogroup is divided into two subhaplogroups, M45a from Middle Siberia and M45b from eastern Siberia. These two lineages are distinguished by the M173 variant in the eastern Siberian M45b lineage as well as by different microsatellite alleles. The M45a subhaplogroup connects Middle Siberians with the North, Central, and South American Amerinds. The M45b/M173 subhaplogroup connects eastern Siberians with the North and Central American Na-Dene and surrounding Amerinds (fig. 3).
> The distinctive form, frequency, and distribution of the M45b subhaplogroup confirms that two separate migrations occurred. The M173 marker is only found in the M45 Y chromosomes of the eastern Siberians and North and Central American natives and not in those of the Middle Siberians or South Americans. Furthermore, three of the distinct North and Central American M45 haplotypes (M45[*,M173][11-11-11-11] and M45*[12-11-11-11]) are only shared with the populations of the Lower Amur and the Sea of Okhotsk region (fig. 3).
> This second Siberian migration also corresponds with the distribution of the S4Y-T macrohaplogroup (Karafet et al. 1999). In our study, the S4Y-T haplogroup marker, the RPS4Y-T, was detected in a single Navajo, but it had previously been seen in additional northern Amerind and Na-Dene Native Americans (Bergen et al. 1999; Karafet et al. 1999). Moreover, our data demonstrate that the Native American RPS4Y-T haplogroup originated in the eastern Siberian populations of Kamchatka and the Lower Amur River basin. The extended RPS4Y-T haplotype of our Navajo sample differs from a Lower Amur RPS4Y-T haplotype by just one mutational step but differs from those of southern Middle Siberia by three steps. Thus, the Native American RPS4Y-T Y chromosomes also came from eastern Siberia, along with the M45b chromosomes. These two haplogroups provide compelling evidence that there was a second male migration to North America from the eastern Siberian regions of Kamchatka and the Lower Amur River. This eastern Siberian RPS4Y-T lineage can be traced back to East Asia, where highly diversified RPS4Y-T haplotypes have been found (B. Su and L. Jin, unpublished data).


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...87/figure/FG1/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...87/figure/FG2/




> *Comparison of Y-Chromosome and mtDNA Data*Our identification of two major male migrations into the New World—one from southern Middle Siberia, bringing Y-chromosome haplogroups M45a and M3, and a second from eastern Siberia, bringing haplogroups M45b and RPS4Y-T—correlates well with previous conclusions about the maternal migrations that brought mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C, and D to the Americas. Since all Siberian migrations necessarily came through northwestern North America, the more southern distribution of the M45a and M3 lineages versus the M45b and RPS4Y-T lineages indicates that the southern Middle Siberian migration predated the eastern Siberian migration.
> The Y-chromosome M45a and M3 lineages, together with the mtDNA haplogroups C and D and the Amerind sublineages of mtDNA haplogroup A, are all found together in southern North America as well as in Central and South America. Furthermore, the M45a Y chromosomes—which are the precursors to the Native American M3 lineage—and the mtDNA haplogroups C and D are at their highest frequencies in southern Middle Siberia, with the M3 lineage and the Amerind mtDNA haplogroup A sublineages both being present in Chukotka. Hence, the first Native American migration must have originated in southern Middle Siberia, traversed Chukotka, and entered the Americas. If we assume that the Amerind Y-chromosome lineages arrived together with mtDNA haplogroups C and D, then this migration occurred ∼20,000–30,000 years before present (YBP) (Schurr et al. 1999).
> Similarly, the Y-chromosome haplogroups M45b and RPS4Y-T, along with the sublineage of mtDNA haplogroup A defined by the control-region sequence variant 16192T and the _Rsa_I polymorphism at np16392, are defining features of the Na-Dene of northwestern North America. Furthermore, the M45b and RPS4Y-T Y-chromosome lineages are found at their highest frequencies in the Lower Amur and Sea of Okhotsk regions of eastern Siberia, having originated earlier in Southeast Asia (B. Su and L. Jin, unpublished data). This implies that a major component of the Na-Dene migration arose in southeastern Siberia. Likewise, the precursor of the haplogroup A 16392 _Rsa_I sublineage, defined by the control-region variant 16192T, has been observed in Chukotka and Kamchatka (Schurr et al. 1999), which border on the Sea of Okhotsk. Assuming that the mtDNA haplogroup A 16192T sublineage arrived in the Americas together with the Y-chromosome lineages M45b and RPS4Y-T, then this migration came from southeastern Siberia at ∼7,000–9,500 YBP.
> In conclusion, there appears to be a striking correspondence between Siberian and Native American Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroup distributions, and, hence, they must have been associated during trans-Beringian migrations. The results strongly suggest that both males and females came to the New World in at least two coherent waves of migration, the first arising in southern Middle Siberia and the second arising later from southeastern Siberia.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...87/figure/FG3/

----------


## bicicleur

the point is, is it R1a/R1b or R1* ? 
R1a/R1b may come from European colonizers, R1* comes from stone age Central Asia
that goes for both, America and Australia

----------


## bicicleur

about mtDNA x : 
with wich Y-haplogroup is x associated in Eurasia?
what subclade of x is there in America?
does this same subclade exist in Eurasia? where?

----------


## oriental

> The M173 marker is only found in the M45 Y chromosomes of the eastern Siberians and North and Central American natives and not in those of the Middle Siberians or South Americans.


M173 is R1




> R1a, distinguished by several unique markers including the M420 mutation, is a subclade of Haplogroup R1, which is defined by SNP mutation M173. Besides R1, R1 also has the subclades R1b, defined by the M343 mutation, and the paragroup R1*. There is no simple consensus concerning the places in Eurasia where R1, R1a or R1b evolved.


M420 is R1a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogr...20_%28Y-DNA%29

----------


## nordicwarrior

So I'm confused Oriental, is it now believed that R1a and/or R1b settled the Americas through the Bering Sea land bridge/ice packs? Are they both now part of the "main flow" of y-DNA through Siberia into the Americas?

----------


## oriental

> The M45b/M173 subhaplogroup connects eastern Siberians with the North and Central American Na-Dene and surrounding Amerinds


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...87/figure/FG3/

M173 is R1. I am not sure if R1b evolved from the M173 in North America.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Oriental, the dates on the ncbi link are 2001/2002. I'm thinking this is a strain of Q rather than R. Wouldn't there have been major press if American Indian Q was reclassified as R1?

----------


## oriental

http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/u...c6e-A63356.jpg

Here is an image of a Cree Indian. He certainly looks European.

Since Native Americans were hunter-gathers essentially stone-age people their R1 genes didn't experience much mutation unlike in Central Asia and Europe. The pastoral life style bypassed them as well as the metal ages, mead and liquor consumption, etc. The date of the publication doesn't invalidate their findings. We just have to wait for the update. I know when I bought technical books waiting for the latest edition I found only less than 5% were new or additional material while the price went up 20%. 95% of my old technical books were good enough. We are oversold on getting the latest.

----------


## oriental

http://usmex.ucsd.edu/assets/022/10143.pdf

Here is a study by Univ. of Calif., San Diego showing Native Indians with Haplogroup R.

----------


## sparkey

> http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/u...c6e-A63356.jpg
> 
> Here is an image of a Cree Indian. He certainly looks European.


He doesn't look European to me...




> Since Native Americans were hunter-gathers essentially stone-age people their R1 genes didn't experience much mutation unlike in Central Asia and Europe. The pastoral life style bypassed them as well as the metal ages, mead and liquor consumption, etc.


AFAIK the only major impact on mutation rates on the Y chromosome within a population is rate of childbearing. Is there some literature demonstrating an impact from, say, metal and alcohol?




> The date of the publication doesn't invalidate their findings. We just have to wait for the update. I know when I bought technical books waiting for the latest edition I found only less than 5% were new or additional material while the price went up 20%. 95% of my old technical books were good enough. We are oversold on getting the latest.


I don't know of any studies that demonstrate an ancient R1* present in Native American populations. Malhi 2008 included R in their percentages but said that they were evidence of European admixture. Indeed, I would expect some tribes like the Cherokee to have much greater European admixture than others, like the Navajo... and the R frequencies correspond correctly.

So, find me some ancient R1* before you make too much out of 2002 studies. I'll help you start: Cherokee and Algonquian samples, two of the highest tribal groups in terms of their R1 frequencies.

----------


## nordicwarrior

I totally agree Sparkey. I better place to look at R1 would be the Algonquian tribes... that area is already a hotspot of debate because of X2. Early R1 in modern day New York state would give even further credence to Atlantic routes.

----------


## EAB

Old thread and quite exciting. I was just wondering why, if the arrows are used as potential proof of contact between European technology and native american, couldn´t this exchange have happened in Siberia? For example if there are two accepted migrations into America with two groups of basically similar tribes, was that just chance or couldn´t they have just stayed in contact with the Siberians updating the Americans on technology? What is the arrow technique was developed in the Americas and went through Siberia into Europe.

Isn´t it possible that the second wave of immigration into America was simply invited in and guided? Perhaps hard to prove, but why would the Bering straits have to be a one way street. I think it is funny that people get precious over this subject, the world after all is a globe. An Irish Monk got near to Cananda in a canoe, it can´t have been that hard or completely unknown of. I can understand those who did know about a way didn´t spread it about, maps have always been preciously guarded, but to think the Americas couldn´t have been discovered multiple times by different people is more ridiculous in my opinion. When I grew I thought it was likely that someone else had found America before Columbus, but it was impossible to say it. Now we are told an Icelandic European "discovered" it first. It seems the further forward in time we go the further back we see.

Of course, we shouldn´t forget multiple people invent things (or re-discover them) at the same time all the time. The TV, the telephone, the radio, oddly there is usually a few people who come up with similar ideas in different locations somewhat independently. Probably because the same issues are arising in their lives. That there is technology regression also shouldn´t be surprising, most Cro Magnons could probably navigate by the stars, I doubt many Europeans could do this on a dark night. The Chinese regressed in technology quite markedly after their massive boon where it is even suspected a Chinese admiral "discovered" America.

----------


## LeBrok

> Old thread and quite exciting. I was just wondering why, if the arrows are used as potential proof of contact between European technology and native american, couldn´t this exchange have happened in Siberia? For example if there are two accepted migrations into America with two groups of basically similar tribes, was that just chance or couldn´t they have just stayed in contact with the Siberians updating the Americans on technology? What is the arrow technique was developed in the Americas and went through Siberia into Europe.
> 
> Isn´t it possible that the second wave of immigration into America was simply invited in and guided? Perhaps hard to prove, but why would the Bering straits have to be a one way street. I think it is funny that people get precious over this subject, the world after all is a globe. An Irish Monk got near to Cananda in a canoe, it can´t have been that hard or completely unknown of. I can understand those who did know about a way didn´t spread it about, maps have always been preciously guarded, but to think the Americas couldn´t have been discovered multiple times by different people is more ridiculous in my opinion. When I grew I thought it was likely that someone else had found America before Columbus, but it was impossible to say it. Now we are told an Icelandic European "discovered" it first. It seems the further forward in time we go the further back we see.
> 
> Of course, we shouldn´t forget multiple people invent things (or re-discover them) at the same time all the time. The TV, the telephone, the radio, oddly there is usually a few people who come up with similar ideas in different locations somewhat independently. Probably because the same issues are arising in their lives. That there is technology regression also shouldn´t be surprising, most Cro Magnons could probably navigate by the stars, I doubt many Europeans could do this on a dark night. The Chinese regressed in technology quite markedly after their massive boon where it is even suspected a Chinese admiral "discovered" America.


All valid points EAB. We discussed the first paragraph in Suletrean hypothesis thread. There could have been 2 way movement of people through Bering Strait. It is more likely however that new arrow tip was invented in Siberia and went with people both ways to America and to Europe by means of R1 folks. In this case we don't need to worry about 2 way movement through the Bering Strait, or technology making it all the way from America to Europe or vice versa, or being reinvented.

----------


## RobertColumbia

> Old thread and quite exciting. I was just wondering why, if the arrows are used as potential proof of contact between European technology and native american, couldn´t this exchange have happened in Siberia? For example if there are two accepted migrations into America with two groups of basically similar tribes, was that just chance or couldn´t they have just stayed in contact with the Siberians updating the Americans on technology? What is the arrow technique was developed in the Americas and went through Siberia into Europe.
> 
> Isn´t it possible that the second wave of immigration into America was simply invited in and guided? Perhaps hard to prove, but why would the Bering straits have to be a one way street. I think it is funny that people get precious over this subject, the world after all is a globe. An Irish Monk got near to Cananda in a canoe, it can´t have been that hard or completely unknown of. I can understand those who did know about a way didn´t spread it about, maps have always been preciously guarded, but to think the Americas couldn´t have been discovered multiple times by different people is more ridiculous in my opinion. When I grew I thought it was likely that someone else had found America before Columbus, but it was impossible to say it. Now we are told an Icelandic European "discovered" it first. It seems the further forward in time we go the further back we see.
> 
> Of course, we shouldn´t forget multiple people invent things (or re-discover them) at the same time all the time. The TV, the telephone, the radio, oddly there is usually a few people who come up with similar ideas in different locations somewhat independently. Probably because the same issues are arising in their lives. That there is technology regression also shouldn´t be surprising, most Cro Magnons could probably navigate by the stars, I doubt many Europeans could do this on a dark night. The Chinese regressed in technology quite markedly after their massive boon where it is even suspected a Chinese admiral "discovered" America.


Great points.

Exchange of technology, artifacts, and even haplogroups can happen in multiple directions, and can also happen repeatedly. For example, there are many Scandinavian-linked I1, Q1a, and R1a y-haplotypes in England today. Can we, today, determine which of those are remnants of Viking settlement and which derive from 16th century Danish merchants? Perhaps there are a few cases where we can, but otherwise the time period is stretching the capabilities of genealogy to its limit.

A similar thing is happening with my own y-haplotype of R1b-M222. Since the documentary evidence points to the presence of my paternal ancestors in the USA from at least 1820, it makes it unlikely that my particular copy came to the USA via potato famine migrants. That fact in no way allows one to conclude that it must, therefore, not be from Ireland. The reality is that there were two separate, major Celtic migrations to the USA, one in the 1700's and one in the 1800's.

One of the more recent examples of a major discovery that was made twice by two separate people at about the same time was Calculus - developed by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Colombus wasn't the first to find America, but his discovery of America lead to the modern Americas. Icelanders found America and nothing came of it. They weren't as sophisticated navigators, map makers, traders, etc. as the empires several hundred years after them.

----------


## RobertColumbia

> Colombus wasn't the first to find America, but his discovery of America lead to the modern Americas. Icelanders found America and nothing came of it. They weren't as sophisticated navigators, map makers, traders, etc. as the empires several hundred years after them.


That's a good point. The ancient Greeks invented the steam engine, but then did nothing with it (slave labor was cheap, who needs this weird gizmo?).

----------


## EAB

What is interesting historically is that the first response of people upon finding new land wasn't to tell the world "Hey, we've got a load of other humans here. Shall we make friends?" The Dutch, Portugese and Chinese kept their discoveries well hidden. The Chinese on the extreme purged many of their discoveries from the common mans' knowledge, much in the way of the Catholic church had depositories of banned science, to keep the status quo. In fact in China the regression in technology led people to become physically smaller because the feudal system meant agriculture suffered and people had to eat less. If someone found America and found a way to keep it secret because they had a trade advantage anytime in the last 12,000 years, they would have and did. There are other reasons for this apart from trade too, such as just not being believed. There is a story about a inuit who was ridiculed after telling his tribe what he had seen in Copenhagen. When the next person from the tribe went to Copenhagen, he told them "there was lots of fish there and the penguins were plentiful". 

With the Catholic Church, the burning of the Library of Alexandria and the Chinese purging their own knowledge, I wonder what has been lost.

----------

