# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Paleolithic & Mesolithic >  To everyone who claims that Malta Boy was "Mongoloid"

## Tomenable

This thread is decicated to all people who claim that ANE admixture is "Mongoloid".

Malta Boy is on GEDmatch - kit number *F999914*.

*Malta Boy in Dodecad V3 calculator = 84% Caucasoid:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
*1 West_European 37.68*
*2 South_Asian 26.04
3 East_European 20.03*
4 Northeast_Asian 15.53
5 Neo_African 0.38
6 Palaeo_African 0.34

*Malta Boy in Gedrosia K3 calculator = 70% Caucasoid:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
*1 W_Eurasian 69.88*
2 E_Eurasian 30.12

*Malta Boy in Eurogenes K15 calculator = 0% East Asian:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Eastern_Euro 38.02
2 South_Asian 20.31
3 Amerindian 18.62
4 North_Sea 15.91
5 Baltic 6.54
6 Sub-Saharan 0.47
7 Oceanian 0.12

*Malta Boy in Gedrosia K6 = 94% ANE, 2% East Asian, 2% WHG, 2% ASE:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
*1 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 94.13*
2 East_Asian 2.01
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 1.93
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.78
5 Sub_Saharan 0.09
6 Natufian 0.06

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
*1 AG2 6.76
2 AG3 6.76
3 MA1 6.76
=========
4 EHG 24.08*
5 GujaratiB 62.91
6 Punjabi 63.18
7 CHG 64
8 GujaratiA 64.19
9 Kalash 64.27
10 Sindhi 64.28
11 Pathan 64.43
12 Kurd_SE 65.3
13 Burusho 65.56
14 Balochi 65.81
15 Steppe_EMBA 66.02
16 GujaratiC 66.15
17 Brahui 66.21
18 GujaratiD 66.47
19 Punjabi_PJL 67.62
20 Makrani 67.68

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 93.5% MA1 + 6.5% GoyetQ116 @ 1.92
2 93.5% AG2 + 6.5% GoyetQ116 @ 1.92
3 93.5% AG3 + 6.5% GoyetQ116 @ 1.92
4 93.4% AG2 + 6.6% Kharia @ 2.14
5 93.4% AG3 + 6.6% Kharia @ 2.14
6 93.4% MA1 + 6.6% Kharia @ 2.14
7 92% MA1 + 8% Bengali @ 2.54
8 92% AG2 + 8% Bengali @ 2.54
9 92% AG3 + 8% Bengali @ 2.54
10 92.8% AG2 + 7.2% Palliyar @ 2.55
11 92.8% AG3 + 7.2% Palliyar @ 2.55
12 92.8% MA1 + 7.2% Palliyar @ 2.55
13 93.1% AG2 + 6.9% Uzbek @ 2.57
14 93.1% AG3 + 6.9% Uzbek @ 2.57
15 93.1% MA1 + 6.9% Uzbek @ 2.57
16 92.1% AG2 + 7.9% Steppe_IA @ 2.58
17 92.1% AG3 + 7.9% Steppe_IA @ 2.58
18 92.1% MA1 + 7.9% Steppe_IA @ 2.58
19 93.2% AG2 + 6.8% Paniyas @ 2.64
20 93.2% AG3 + 6.8% Paniyas @ 2.64

----------


## Angela

What a complete and utter straw man argument. To my knowledge, no one here claims that Mal'ta boy was "Mongoloid". What was claimed by Russian anthropologists and what is probably true, in my opinion, and not just in my opinion, is that there was East Eurasian intrusion westward and Mal'ta boy has some ancestry from them, as even using these calculators shows.

----------


## MarkoZ

Since we don't have his skull, we can only speculate. I'd think he didn't yet developed in either direction, much like the Sungir individuals or Kostenki.

Let's do the Sungir skulls, who are a few thousand years older than Mal'ta and situated near Moscow:

Male, 60-year-old



Adult woman



Boy, 13-year-old



Girl, 8-year-old



They don't resemble the Caucasoid morphology in the Near East and Europe very closely, imho.

----------


## LeBrok

He does have a lot of American and Beringian, though I'm not sure if any of these back then were involved in Mongoloid characteristics. Probably not. He completely misses SE Asian, NE Asian and Siberian admixtures being known to carry these from way back. Though, he might not look like a typical modern European either.

F999914
R

Mal'ta
24kya

Run time
8

S-Indian
10.13

Baloch
24.09

Caucasian
-

NE-Euro
40.14

SE-Asian
-

Siberian
-

NE-Asian
-

Papuan
0.7

American
17.71

Beringian
6.74

Mediterranean
-

SW-Asian
-

San
0.3

E-African
-

Pygmy
0.19

W-African
-

----------


## bicicleur

Malta split from R 28.2 ka.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R/
R lived north of the Hindu Kush, not in Siberia.
Haplo Q lived in Siberia, like AF2 (17 ka) 
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L472/
Malta mingled amongst them.
The Malta branch got extinct.

Mongoloid traits started to devellop in Siberia, Mongolia & N. China 30 ka.

----------


## MarkoZ

> Malta split from R 28.2 ka.
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/R/
> R lived north of the Hindu Kush, not in Siberia.
> Haplo Q lived in Siberia, like AF2 (17 ka) 
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L472/
> Malta mingled amongst them.
> The Malta branch got extinct.
> 
> Mongoloid traits started to devellop in Siberia, Mongolia & N. China 30 ka.


Something like this seems to be the best explanation at the time. I'm curious though: what makes you think that it's the Hindu Kush mountains where R lived? That's very specific.

----------


## MOESAN

> Since we don't have his skull, we can only speculate. I'd think he didn't yet developed in either direction, much like the Sungir individuals or Kostenki.
> 
> Let's do the Sungir skulls, who are a few thousand years older than Mal'ta and situated near Moscow:
> 
> Male, 60-year-old
> 
> 
> 
> Adult woman
> ...


I prefer to look at skulls than to reconstructions - here the 4 ones show some disparity between them - 
and typical 'eurasian' and 'eastasian' types are the result of the latter evolutions, the "cardinal" features of every type are not always totally found in every individual but in a majority of them only; some archaic common ancient hum

----------


## Tomenable

> He does have a lot of American and Beringian, though I'm not sure if any of these back then were involved in Mongoloid characteristics.


Native Americans were *"triracial"* to begin with, Mongoloid (Han) + ANE (MA1) + Negrito/Australoid (Onge).

All those groups mixed in Beringia (see the *"Beringian Standstill"* hypothesis), producing Paleo-Americans:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...134#post188134

----------


## Tomenable

*I. Native American mtDNA includes:*

*1) Typically East Asian mtDNA:*

A2 
B2 
D1
D2a
D3
D4h3a
D4e1c

*2) West Eurasian mtDNA:*

X2a
X2g

*3) Either ANE or East Asian:*

C1b 
C1c
C1d 
C4c

*II. Native American Y-DNA includes:*

Q1a2a1-L54
Q1a1a-F746
C2b1a1a-P39

These could be from any group, not just from East Asians. Haplogroup Q1a could be from ANE.

Y-DNA haplogroup C2b1a1b-F3985 - very closely related to Native American C2b1a1a-P39 - can be found among modern Europeans (samples from Germany, Slovakia, Austria, Czech Republic and Poland). It might be Solutrean.

As we already know, there used to be a lot of C1a2 and C1b in Upper Paleolithic Europe.

C1b is also typical for Australian Aborigines. Maybe C2b was from Onge-like admixture.

----------


## Tomenable

Negrito/Australoid = *ASE (Ancestral South Eurasian)* in Gedrosia K6.

Australians/Papuans score over 90% ASE, and Negritos score it as well:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post495473

So Native Americans are a mixture of *East Asian (Han) + ANE + ASE.*

This seems to be supported by GEDmatch results of Native Americans:

*Gedrosia K6 calculator:*


*NA42 Peru (Chachapoya) 1000-1500 AD:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 72.22
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.62
*3 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 9.16*


*MARC1492 Mi'kmaq 1550-1700 AD:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 62.05
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 26.07
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 5.36
4 Natufian 3.6
*5 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.6*
6 Sub_Saharan 0.33


*Paleo-Eskimo Saqqaq ca. 2000 BC:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 76.08
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 10.91
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 6.09
4 Sub_Saharan 3.06
*5 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.66*
6 Natufian 1.2


*Clovis Anzick-1 Montana 10700-10550 BC:*


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 60.7
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 23.77
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 8.54
*4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 5.84*
5 Sub_Saharan 1.16


*Kennewick Man USA 7000-6900 BC:*


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 58.83
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.52
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 11.66
4 Natufian 3.23
5 Sub_Saharan 3.08
*6 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.68*

----------


## bicicleur

> Something like this seems to be the best explanation at the time. I'm curious though: what makes you think that it's the Hindu Kush mountains where R lived? That's very specific.


I admit, it is a guess of mine.
But it is a possibility.

I noticed there was R1b in SW Asia (R1b-V88 but also other, but no R1b-P297) and there was R1b in Eastern Europe, mainly R1b-P297
The oldes East European R1b is EHG admixed with some WHG, but no CHG, that came later, as demonstrated in the latest paper.
The R1b in SW Asia was very heavy on CHG.
So there were 2 kinds of R1b in 2 different areas.
They must have had a common origin from where they split.

This is a theory I came up with, a few weeks ago, and for which I found some confirmation in the new paper :

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post500965

----------


## bicicleur

> *II. Native American Y-DNA includes:*
> 
> Q1a2a1-L54
> Q1a1a-F746
> C2b1a1a-P39


Q1a2a1-L54 : 2 clades are Native American indeed : M3 & Z780
C2b1a1a-P39 Native American, related to Na-Dene
but
Q1a1a-F746 is it Native American or is it Inuit/Eskimo?

C1 and C2 split 47 ka, no relation at all between both.

----------


## Megalophias

> Y-DNA haplogroup C2b1a1b-F3985 - very closely related to Native American C2b1a1a-P39 - can be found among modern Europeans (samples from Germany, Slovakia, Austria, Czech Republic and Poland). It might be Solutrean.


 There are Manchus and Altaians in the same C2b-F1756 clade as C2b-F3985. Meanwhile Koryaks in Kamchatka have C2b-B77 which is at least as closely related to C2b-P39 as C2b-F1756 is, if not closer. C2b is both abundant and diverse in Northeast Asia.

Rare this and that is always showing up in Europe just because it is so well tested. That can give the illusion that it is the source rather than the recipient, but in this case the latter is far more likely.

----------


## MOESAN

> Negrito/Australoid = *ASE (Ancestral South Eurasian)* in Gedrosia K6.
> 
> Australians/Papuans score over 90% ASE, and Negritos score it as well:
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post495473
> 
> So Native Americans are a mixture of *East Asian (Han) + ANE + ASE.*
> 
> This seems to be supported by GEDmatch results of Native Americans:
> ...


I wonder what would occur if today Western European pops were tested with this calculator???
phonetypically speaking the ASE (ancestral) appers or appeared in some rare and tiny pops of the Amazone, but a light % of auDNA cannot be seen everytime in phenotype, it's true (1- too tiny - 2 - phenotype itypical nnovations not already appeared in ancestral "giving" pop -
my believings were these DNA influence could have come later by sea, but Amazone is not too close to Pacific Ocean! or it has been erased in less remote region by north coming Amerindian pops???
plus: I don' know what status to give to light auDNA %s of "archaic" pops in us modern people? but over 2,5%/3% it takes maybe some sense...

----------


## Tomenable

> I wonder what would occur if today Western European pops were tested with this calculator?


Some examples:

*North-Western Europeans:*


*Modern Scottish:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 44.13
2 Natufian 32.90
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.78
4 East_Asian 1.23


*Modern Scottish:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 43.12
2 Natufian 34.23
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.99
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.94
5 East_Asian 1.73


*Modern North Dutch:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 44.75
2 Natufian 35.9
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.07
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.15
5 Sub_Saharan 0.14


*Modern English:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 42.61
2 Natufian 36.62
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 17.84
4 East_Asian 1.41
5 Sub_Saharan 1.14
6 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 0.38


*Modern Swedish:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 46.24
2 Natufian 33.38
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.13
4 East_Asian 2.25


*Modern Irish:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 43.1
2 Natufian 33.58
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.8
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.72
5 East_Asian 0.8


*Rathlin-1 Ireland 2030-1880 BC:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 43.39
2 Natufian 29.8
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 22.68
4 Sub_Saharan 2.27
5 East_Asian 1.86


*Hinxton-1 Britain 160 BC - 25 AD:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 45.16
2 Natufian 35
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 19.84


*Hinxton-4 Britain 170 BC - 80 AD:*

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 45.11
2 Natufian 33.9
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 19.27
4 East_Asian 1.72

----------


## holderlin

I thought it was understood that there was no way MA-1 was "Mongloid". All of the evidence suggest they were strong chinned, pronounced nosed Caucasoids.

----------


## Angela

> Since we don't have his skull, we can only speculate. I'd think he didn't yet developed in either direction, much like the Sungir individuals or Kostenki.
> 
> Let's do the Sungir skulls, who are a few thousand years older than Mal'ta and situated near Moscow:
> 
> Male, 60-year-old
> 
> 
> 
> Adult woman
> ...


No, they don't to me either, but I always distrust reconstructions. They were so completely wrong with Otzi, for example, as we discovered when more sophisticated analysis was one.

I found this in my files. It's a picture of the skeleton of the Mal'ta boy. I don't know what someone could make of this:



The Russian anthropologists who actually handled the bones and measured them said that the nasal bones, some "shoveling" in the incisors, and the flatness of the upper face were signs of a "Mongoloid" appearance. They found some evidence of "Mongoloid" traits in the Sunghir individuals as well.

I have no way of knowing whether they were correct or not, but even if they were, I don't know how one would jump to the conclusion that they were "Mongoloid". After all, we know for an absolute fact that the SHG carried the alleles for EDAR, which is definitely an East Asian set of traits today. Were they "Mongoloid"?

My own personal opinion is that it makes no sense to try to assign discrete "racial" identities, identities put together by anthropologists in the late 19th century, to people this far back in history. 

Fwiw, these are some of the figurines created by these people. If one goes by this, they were certainly long nosed, but I doubt this kind of evidence as well. People adopt a "style" even when it doesn't look much like them in actuality. It's far better to go with skeletal evidence if one doesn't have enough genetic material to check for alleles.

----------


## Tomenable

> 


*^^^ Looks just like Jesus Christ:*

----------


## johen

Can we think about the other ANE, Afontova Gora 17,000bc together, who had more west eurasian components than Malta?

1. The anthropolosist V. P. Alekseev’s opinion, who sharply mentioned south asian components also.




> V. P. Alekseev discussed the racial types of the Altai-Sayan uplands during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. On the basis of geological and palreo-climatic evidence, he feels that the initial human settlement of the area could have taken place as far back as the Lower Palreolithic (which in Soviet usage includes the Mousterian). *Judging by the Afontova Gora II cranial fragment, the Upper Palreolithic population evidently must be assigned to the Mongoloid race.* The Europeoid component begins to penetrate into certain areas during the Neolithic-especially into the southern part of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. *Alekseev identifies in this latter area a morphologically Negroid type which would indicate contact with southern regions.* In the Afanasievo period the Europeoid component becomes predominant, while the physical similarity of the Afanasievo population with that of the ancient Yamno culture of the South Russian steppes evidences their kinship as well as the western origin of the bulk ofthe Afanasievo population. The formation ofthe racial type characteristic of the Andronovo period probably took place in the region of Kazakhstan and the Altai in pre-Andronovo times, with subsequent penetration into the Minusinsk basin. The basic type of the Karasuk population, in Alekseev's opinion, is a brachycranial Europeoid one; hence the origin ofthe Karasuk people is not linked with China but with eastern Turkestan and the southern regions of Soviet Central Asia."


2. Then, ask why genetic data's result is so different from anthro data's?

*Afontova Gora II* with Eurogenes K15:

*North sea 19.25 
Baltic 9.77 
East Euro 51.75* 
south aisan 2.26 
south east asian 1.63 
sibreian 3.58 
american Idian 16.97 
oceanian 0.34 
Northeast African 0.26

3. and then I want more to ask whether the K15 data is correct in ancient fossils? B/C ANE is close to East Asian Han, far from WHG.

----------


## MOESAN

> No, they don't to me either, but I always distrust reconstructions. They were so completely wrong with Otzi, for example, as we discovered when more sophisticated analysis was one.
> 
> I found this in my files. It's a picture of the skeleton of the Mal'ta boy. I don't know what someone could make of this:


I agree as a whole with your post -
but I find the picture you posted a bit subject to doubt; is it a photographic picture or something else? ATW as you say I don't see what could be made based on it!

----------


## MOESAN

> Can we think about the other ANE, Afontova Gora 17,000bc together, who had more west eurasian components than Malta?
> 
> 1. The anthropolosist V. P. Alekseev’s opinion, who sharply mentioned south asian components also.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Then, ask why genetic data's result is so different from anthro data's?


*"Judging by the Afontova Gora II cranial fragment, the Upper Palreolithic population evidently must be assigned to the Mongoloid race."
*Perhaps have we here kind of answer? Too quick conclusion based on too poor stuff? a modern well characterized type requires a lot of mutations/drifts that could not be found in remote times, and 25% of pseudo-mongoloid DNA can provide some mongoloid features in individuals, not shared by entire pop.

----------


## Tomenable

Unmixed Native Americans are around 20-25% Caucasoid (West Eurasian).

Kits of Native Americans (first 3 are unmixed, last 3 slightly Euro-admixed):

M174237
M192137
M637791
M051413
M283662
M221108 - mostly Mayan



*Their results in Gedrosia K3:*



*Unmixed Native American* (kit M174237):

*Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 E_Eurasian 77.21
2 W_Eurasian 22.79*

Finished reading population data. 129 populations found.
3 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Altaian @ 3.850997
2 Yukagir @ 7.566089
3 Yukagir @ 7.566089
4 Kharia @ 7.710388
5 Great_Andamanese @ 8.578797
6 Onge @ 9.086884
7 Birhor @ 9.304724
8 Kyrgyz @ 10.345919
9 Bhumij @ 11.542670
10 Sherpa @ 13.354014
11 Gond @ 17.560059
12 Paniyas @ 18.258831
13 Thai @ 20.282179
14 Changapa @ 20.967503
15 Nihali @ 23.295263
16 Kattunayakkan @ 25.599689
17 Mongola @ 25.925554
18 Nganasan @ 26.953400
19 Tibet-refugees @ 27.252836
20 Hazara @ 28.312693

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Hazara +50% Subba @ 0.308882
2 50% Hazara +50% Tibet-refugees @ 0.537675
3 50% Hazara +50% Nganasan @ 0.680751
4 50% Hazara +50% Mongola @ 1.194173
5 50% Kyrgyz +50% Yukagir @ 1.389913
6 50% Kyrgyz +50% Yukagir @ 1.389913
7 50% Kyrgyz +50% Sherpa @ 1.506657
8 50% Hazara +50% Ulchi @ 1.851572
9 50% Altaian +50% Yukagir @ 1.857543
10 50% Altaian +50% Yukagir @ 1.857543
11 50% Han +50% Hazara @ 1.935836
12 50% Dai +50% Hazara @ 1.955318
13 50% Ami +50% Hazara @ 1.955349
14 50% Hazara +50% Nivkh @ 1.955349
15 50% Irula +50% Subba @ 2.188093
16 50% Ami +50% Chenchu @ 2.229834
17 50% Chenchu +50% Nivkh @ 2.229834
18 50% Chenchu +50% Dai @ 2.229897
19 50% Chenchu +50% Han @ 2.244962
20 50% Birhor +50% Yukagir @ 2.295154

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Ami +25% Ami +25% Chechen @ 0.000000



*Unmixed Native American* (kit M192137):

*Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 E_Eurasian 75.58
2 W_Eurasian 24.23*

Finished reading population data. 129 populations found.
3 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Altaian @ 1.686324
2 Kharia @ 5.924846
3 Great_Andamanese @ 6.830129
4 Birhor @ 7.350073
5 Kyrgyz @ 8.177081
6 Onge @ 9.396663
7 Bhumij @ 9.480144
8 Yukagir @ 9.736913
9 Yukagir @ 9.736913
10 Gond @ 15.393288
11 Sherpa @ 15.514201
12 Paniyas @ 16.138699
13 Nihali @ 21.121679
14 Thai @ 22.443312
15 Changapa @ 23.133221
16 Kattunayakkan @ 23.425608
17 Hazara @ 26.142723
18 Irula @ 27.731430
19 Mongola @ 28.095785
20 Nganasan @ 29.123621

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Kyrgyz +50% Yukagir @ 0.791240
2 50% Kyrgyz +50% Yukagir @ 0.791240
3 50% Hazara +50% Mongola @ 0.980906
4 50% Ami +50% Bengali @ 1.196445
5 50% Bengali +50% Nivkh @ 1.196445
6 50% Bengali +50% Dai @ 1.196501
7 50% Chenchu +50% Ulchi @ 1.206835
8 50% Bengali +50% Han @ 1.213791
9 50% Chenchu +50% Han @ 1.243518
10 50% Ami +50% Chenchu @ 1.252263
11 50% Chenchu +50% Nivkh @ 1.252263
12 50% Chenchu +50% Dai @ 1.252301
13 50% Mala +50% Ulchi @ 1.283897
14 50% Bengali +50% Ulchi @ 1.289442
15 50% Han +50% Mala @ 1.297913
16 50% Ami +50% Mala @ 1.301914
17 50% Mala +50% Nivkh @ 1.301914
18 50% Dai +50% Mala @ 1.301966
19 50% Ami +50% Kamsali @ 1.321784
20 50% Kamsali +50% Nivkh @ 1.321784

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Altaian +25% Hazara +25% Nganasan @ 0.000000



*Unmixed Native American* (kit M637791):

*Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 E_Eurasian 74.58
2 W_Eurasian 25.42*

Finished reading population data. 129 populations found.
3 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Altaian @ 0.000000
2 Kharia @ 5.194213
3 Great_Andamanese @ 6.105125
4 Birhor @ 6.327569
5 Kyrgyz @ 6.623735
6 Bhumij @ 8.256154
7 Onge @ 10.256041
8 Yukagir @ 11.288272
9 Yukagir @ 11.288272
10 Gond @ 13.948858
11 Paniyas @ 14.787859
12 Sherpa @ 17.073860
13 Nihali @ 19.653416
14 Kattunayakkan @ 21.954786
15 Thai @ 24.001825
16 Hazara @ 24.590527
17 Changapa @ 24.689009
18 Irula @ 26.232796
19 Mongola @ 29.647739
20 Nganasan @ 30.675585

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Altaian +50% Altaian @ 0.000000
2 50% Changapa +50% Hazara @ 0.000000
3 50% Hazara +50% Thai @ 0.562507
4 50% Bengali +50% Ulchi @ 0.872074
5 50% Bengali +50% Han @ 0.913657
6 50% Ami +50% Bengali @ 0.923566
7 50% Bengali +50% Nivkh @ 0.923566
8 50% Bengali +50% Dai @ 0.923601
9 50% Ulchi +50% UP_Chamar @ 1.340246
10 50% Bengali +50% Subba @ 1.377002
11 50% Han +50% UP_Chamar @ 1.378648
12 50% Ami +50% UP_Chamar @ 1.387753
13 50% Nivkh +50% UP_Chamar @ 1.387753
14 50% Dai +50% UP_Chamar @ 1.387790
15 50% Chenchu +50% Subba @ 1.520503
16 50% Ami +50% Kallar @ 1.524083
17 50% Kallar +50% Nivkh @ 1.524083
18 50% Dai +50% Kallar @ 1.524150
19 50% Han +50% Kallar @ 1.533447
20 50% Chenchu +50% Nganasan @ 1.545272

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Altaian +25% Altaian +25% Altaian @ 0.000000

----------


## Tomenable

Another unmixed Native American (this time ancient DNA sample):

*Clovis Anzick-1, Montana, 10700-10550 BC* (kit F999919):

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 E_Eurasian 74.24
*2 W_Eurasian 24.66*
3 SSA 1.10

Finished reading population data. 129 populations found.
3 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Altaian @ 1.390273
2 Kharia @ 4.253368
3 Great_Andamanese @ 5.162654
4 Birhor @ 5.679259
5 Kyrgyz @ 7.049500
6 Bhumij @ 7.863260
7 Onge @ 8.939782
8 Yukagir @ 11.074672
9 Yukagir @ 11.074672
10 Gond @ 13.935334
11 Paniyas @ 14.581216
12 Sherpa @ 16.789351
13 Nihali @ 19.686832
14 Kattunayakkan @ 21.991709
15 Thai @ 23.698168
16 Changapa @ 24.406475
17 Hazara @ 24.915745
18 Irula @ 26.342995
19 Mongola @ 29.382793
20 Nganasan @ 30.409595

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Ami +50% UP_Chamar @ 0.000000
2 50% Chenchu +50% Subba @ 0.000000
3 50% Dai +50% UP_Chamar @ 0.000000
4 50% Han +50% UP_Chamar @ 0.000000
5 50% Mala +50% Subba @ 0.000000
6 50% Nivkh +50% UP_Chamar @ 0.000000
7 50% Ulchi +50% UP_Chamar @ 0.000000
8 50% Hallkipiki +50% Subba @ 0.281488
9 50% Kamsali +50% Ulchi @ 0.480379
10 50% Bengali +50% Ulchi @ 0.547935
11 50% Han +50% Kamsali @ 0.564644
12 50% Bengali +50% Han @ 0.582207
13 50% Dai +50% Kamsali @ 0.584120
14 50% Ami +50% Kamsali @ 0.584152
15 50% Kamsali +50% Nivkh @ 0.584152
16 50% Bengali +50% Dai @ 0.590645
17 50% Ami +50% Bengali @ 0.590713
18 50% Bengali +50% Nivkh @ 0.590713
19 50% Chenchu +50% Tibet-refugees @ 0.788032
20 50% Ami +50% Bhil @ 0.872780

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Altaian +25% Kattunayakkan +25% Thai @ 0.000000

----------


## LeBrok

F999919 Clovis-Anzick-1
N America, Montana 12.5kya
Run time 18.2
S-Indian - 
Baloch 0.49
Caucasian - 
NE-Euro 1.51
SE-Asian 1.05
Siberian 1.17
NE-Asian 0.18
Papuan 0.23
American 88.41
Beringian 5.25
Mediterranean 0.68
SW-Asian - 
San 0.17
E-African - 
Pygmy 0.09
W-African 0.76

He is 88% American admixture. Surui-Karitiana is 100%. Therefore he should have similar look to these people.

----------


## ThirdTerm

MA-1 belongs to Y-DNA haplogroup R* and mtDNA haplogroup U. Haplogroup U is a typical haplogroup of European hunter-gatherers and Y-DNA haplogroup R* is the ancestral haplogroup for R1a and R1b. West Siberian populations such as Mansi and Khants have the high frequency of hg U4, which is a West Eurasian haplogroup inherited from ancient European hunting-gatherers. The presence of Asian haplogroups is a result of population admixture which goes back to 6,000–10,000 years ago. Ancient Siberians who lived around 24,000-10,000 years ago had no East Asian admixture. Raghavan et al. (2014) found that MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and it's also related to modern-day Native Americans (14-38%). Native Americans carry a high frequency of R1 (R-M173), which may be partialy derived from MA-1 in addition to presumed post-Columbian admixture. Haplogroup R-M173 (R1) is common among some Native American tribes (38-79%) and R1 is also widespread among certain south-central Siberian groups.




> The origins of the First Americans remain contentious. Although Native Americans seem to be genetically most closely related to east Asians, there is no consensus with regard to which specific Old World populations they are closest to. Here we sequence the draft genome of an approximately 24,000-year-old individual (MA-1), from Mal'ta in south-central Siberia, to an average depth of 1×. To our knowledge this is the oldest anatomically modern human genome reported to date. The MA-1 mitochondrial genome belongs to haplogroup U, which has also been found at high frequency among Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers, and the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages. Similarly, we find autosomal evidence that MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Native Americans, with no close affinity to east Asians. This suggests that populations related to contemporary western Eurasians had a more north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought. Furthermore, we estimate that 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from this ancient population. This is likely to have occurred after the divergence of Native American ancestors from east Asian ancestors, but before the diversification of Native American populations in the New World. Gene flow from the MA-1 lineage into Native American ancestors could explain why several crania from the First Americans have been reported as bearing morphological characteristics that do not resemble those of east Asians. Sequencing of another south-central Siberian, Afontova Gora-2 dating to approximately 17,000 years ago, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures as MA-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum. Our findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans.

----------


## MarkoZ

I don't think the case for pre-colonial R1 is particularly strong. Native Americans are very well-studied, and there's little reason to doubt the convential view that their R1 is of recent European derivation.

----------


## LeBrok

> I don't think the case for pre-colonial R1 is particularly strong. Native Americans are very well-studied, and there's little reason to doubt the convential view that their R1 is of recent European derivation.


For years I was betting on Vikings to seeded the R1b in America. Another example how viral R1b can be, for still unexplained reason.

----------


## Dov

A. Zubov said that the teeth morphology have no Mongoloid features (Zubov, Grohman 2003)
Also I. Grohman and Okladnikov saids about Europoid burial. Although he probably did have some Mongoloid admixture, based on his DNA. But it does not matter.
_
Copy of the Malta burial from Irkutsk Museum_



Because material culture of Mal'ta site have roots in Europe. Some hunters-gatherers from Eastern Europe migrated to Lake Baikal 24 000-25 000 years ago. Stone tools which definitely resembles a European tools. (Efimenko. 1953)
Also Palaeolithic Venus were unique European Palaeolithic art, they are also were found in Malta. Although slightly modified form.
However, they no longer found anywhere in the world. Only in Europe and Mal'ta.

_Venus from Kostenki_





Some other points are summarized by M. Anichkov:

- The closest analogue of Malta and Burete rounded semi-dugout - is dugout of Gagarino type (Eastern Europe)
- Using a large mammoth bones for home constructions, as in the Eastern Europe paleolithic cultures
- There are found arctic fox bones, whose meat is not used for food: after removing the skins, carcasses were buried in special pits. The similar thing was in Kostenki13 and Avdeevo.
- Hearth with a facing of stones similar to Zaraisk hearth.

It is definitely looks like unique and black sheep culture for Northern Asia.

And if all this is true, it means that 25 000 - 30 000 years ago in Europe probably has been Y-DNA* R* and autosomal DNA something like Afontova Gora. Probably somewhere in Don River region. And this mean that all fantasies about "Mongoloid Indians" who had come to Europe from Siberia is nonsense. We just need more Paleo DNA from these paleolithic places. Moreover, 38 000 year old sample from Kostenki already has about 25-30% of the modern euro DNA.

_Kostenki rus wiki_
https://translate.google.ru/translat...%B8&edit-text=*
Zaraysk rus wiki*
https://translate.google.ru/translat...25BA%25D0%25B0

----------


## MarkoZ

> Because material culture of Mal'ta site have roots in Europe. Some hunters-gatherers from Eastern Europe migrated to Lake Baikal 24 000-25 000 years ago. Stone tools which definitely resembles a European tools. (Efimenko. 1953)
> Also Palaeolithic Venus were unique European Palaeolithic art, they are also were found in Malta. Although slightly modified form.
> However, they no longer found anywhere in the world. Only in Europe and Mal'ta.
> 
> 
> Some other points are summarized by M. Anichkov:
> 
> - The closest analogue of Malta and Burete rounded semi-dugout - is dugout of Gagarino type (Eastern Europe)
> - Using a large mammoth bones for home constructions, as in the Eastern Europe paleolithic cultures
> ...


I take it that you're an adherent of the Polako school of anthropological science  :Grin: 

In all seriousness though, how do you expect haplogroup R to have arrived in the European Gravettian from South-East Asia? There's just no archaeological precedent to make a scenario like that even remotely feasible. If we go by the conventional view that the European Gravettian was born of the fusion between the indigenous Aurignacian (the originators of the characteristic Venus figurines) and Eastern Mediterranean elements emanating from the late Ahmarian, R just does not fit into the picture at such an early date.

You're absolutely right to point out that Mal'ta-Buret is Gravettian, albeit somewhat of an oddball perhaps. Though if we go by the assumption that the Mal'ta individuals experienced a recent admixture event (which would nicely concord with the models proposed by Fu et al. as of recent), wouldn't it be more realistic to say that his matrilineage is likely to be responsible for his 'Europeanness'?

----------


## Dov

> I take you're an adherent of the Polako school of anthropological science


I Do not know what you mean, but at least Im not looking proto-Indo-European language in Himalaya. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in your reasoning. 



> In all seriousness though, how do you expect haplogroup R to have arrived in the European Gravettian from South-East Asia? There's just no archaeological precedent to make a scenario like that even remotely feasible.


All that we know is the fact that Malta archaeological roots are in Eastern Europe. And the group of mammoth hunters 25 000 years ago penetrated into Siberia and they were autosomal European in the most part and have Y-DNA R. The rest is madness fantasies, which are not tracked now. Just like 8 years ago we had Andronovo and Togarian Y-DNA and we knew where they came from. And these facts were compared.

Good luck with the search for PIE in the Himalayas.

----------


## Dov

Many people are mistaken in good faith, believing that Malta people come into Europe. Hence all these fantasies about "Indians". But in fact, it is *Europe Paleolithic Mammoth Hunters come to Mal'ta*. This is key.

----------


## MarkoZ

> I Do not know what you mean, but at least Im not looking proto-Indo-European language in Himalaya. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in your reasoning.


You must have mistaken me for someone else.




> All that we know is the fact that Malta archaeological roots are in Eastern Europe. And the group of mammoth hunters 25 000 years ago penetrated into Siberia and they were autosomal European in the most part and have Y-DNA R. The rest is madness fantasies, which are not tracked now. Just like 8 years ago we had Andronovo and Togarian Y-DNA and we knew where they came from. And these facts were compared.


I guess that's what happens when one tries to reconstruct pre-history based on a single sample.

Mal'ta was not 'European for the most part'. Within Eurasia Caucasians and several South Asian groups have a significantly closer affinity to him. I'm sure various Siberian groups like the Kets are similar in this regard, though I don't have any numbers to back this up.




> Many people are mistaken in good faith, believing that Malta people come into Europe. Hence all these fantasies about "Indians". But in fact, it is *Europe Paleolithic Mammoth Hunters come to Mal'ta.* This is key.


The narrative about Amerindians invading Europeans was misleading indeed, but you've gone to the opposite extreme by assuming that because the Mal'ta-Buret cultural package has European associations it necessarily follows that the population must have been genetically European. It's perfectly possibly that the Gravettian culture-bearers who migrated into Siberia would have been outnumbered by the local population, in which case their descendants would have become sharply differentiated from the European Gravettian hunters (as is clearly the case with the Mal'ta boy).

----------


## Dov

> You must have mistaken me for someone else.


You repeatedly referred to the controversial article of turkologist Anna Dybo about Proto-Indo-European ancestral homeland as great mountain system.




> I guess that's what happens when one tries to reconstruct pre-history based on a single sample.
> 
> Mal'ta was not 'European for the most part'. Within Eurasia Caucasians and several South Asian groups have a significantly closer affinity to him. I'm sure various Siberian groups like the Kets are similar in this regard, though I don't have any numbers to back this up.


He was more then 57% european, according to him autosomal dna:
*1 West_European 37.68
3 East_European 20.03*

Malta was European with Asian component.
Closer to Europe territory Afontova Gora already had a no strong Asian admixtute.




> The narrative about Amerindians invading Europeans was misleading indeed, but you've gone to the opposite extreme by assuming that because the Mal'ta-Buret cultural package has European associations it necessarily follows that the population must have been genetically European.


We have archaeological evidence that group of European mammoth hunters from specific sites Kostenki13, Avdeevo, Zaraysk, Gagarino came into an empty and sparsely populated Siberia, and brought a unique culture, which is archaeologically different from the local cultures . Yes, they're absorbed impurity rare local population. But at the same time there was no migration of R Mal'ta boy to Europe. There is no any archeological evidence for this. That is the key point. 

Is that so hard to understand? But some people began to theorize that R came from Siberia with a Mal'ta boy population.
It is as if Andronovo came to Europe CWC from Central Asia with their R1a, and not vice versa.

----------


## Angela

Saag et al paper on ancient Estonia includes the following Admixture chart. Mal'ta seems to have not only "Siberian" admixture, but CHG and some Anatolian as well. Of course, it's Admixture.

Admixture analysis Saag et al Estonian paper.PNG

----------


## MarkoZ

> He was more then 57% european, according to him autosomal dna:
> *1 West_European 37.68
> 3 East_European 20.03*
> 
> Malta was European with Asian component.
> Closer to Europe territory Afontova Gora already had a no strong Asian admixtute.


Present day Europeans carry significant admixture from sources the fall outside the main West Eurasian branch. When attempting to quantify a hypothetical Gravettian input, using calculators based on modern populations doesn't really work. Perhaps something like Villabrunna or some of the European samples published by Fu et al. would work. Gravettian samples from Bulgaria or the Crimean peninsula would probably yield even more accurate results.




> We have archaeological evidence that group of European mammoth hunters from specific sites Kostenki13, Avdeevo, Zaraysk, Gagarino came into an empty and sparsely populated Siberia, and brought a unique culture, which is archaeologically different from the local cultures . Yes, they're absorbed impurity rare local population. But at the same time there was no migration of R Mal'ta boy to Europe. There is no any archeological evidence for this. That is the key point.


I actually more or less agree on all points. The speculations about a migration from Lake Baikal to Europe are mostly amateur pet theories, though. I haven't seen these mentioned in any serious publications.

----------


## LeBrok

Here are few genomes of ancient folks.







T732095
Oase1

F999936
C-V199

F999914
R

F999935
K-M526

Goyet, Belgium 35kya
Vestonice, Czech 24Kya
Romania, Central Balkans
40kya

Kostenki
37kya

Mal'ta
24kya

Ust'-Ishim, Siberia
45kya

Run time


Run time


Run time
4.52

Run time
18.02

Run time
8

Run time
21.09

S-Indian
17.68

S-Indian
14.06

S-Indian
26.35

S-Indian
13.18

S-Indian
10.13

S-Indian
26.72

Baloch
1.71

Baloch
1.68

Baloch
6.99

Baloch
12.49

Baloch
24.09

Baloch
8.4

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
2.19

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

NE-Euro
33.89

NE-Euro
41.3

NE-Euro
16.81

NE-Euro
29.02

NE-Euro
40.14

NE-Euro
6.51

SE-Asian
5.42

SE-Asian
0.8

SE-Asian
14.75

SE-Asian
4.28

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
12.11

Siberian
2.65

Siberian
3.98

Siberian
0.22

Siberian
1.75

Siberian
-

Siberian
2.05

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
1.21

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
3.84

Papuan
5.67

Papuan
4.65

Papuan
9.3

Papuan
5.16

Papuan
0.7

Papuan
10.9

American
1.94

American
3.75

American
-

American
3.32

American
17.71

American
1.13

Beringian
1.27

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
1.43

Beringian
6.74

Beringian
2.7

Mediterranean
22.73

Mediterranean
23.93

Mediterranean
7.61

Mediterranean
18.76

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
8.14

SW-Asian
4.34

SW-Asian
2.99

SW-Asian
2.94

SW-Asian
5.89

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
4.65

San
1.91

San
1.27

San
5.62

San
1.24

San
0.3

San
2.44

E-African
0.8

E-African
0.42

E-African
3.02

E-African
1.82

E-African
-

E-African
7.27

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.92

Pygmy
0.19

Pygmy
1.74

W-African
-

W-African
1.18

W-African
2.99

W-African
0.73

W-African
-

W-African
1.39

----------


## LeBrok

Here are the two of similar age, Vestonice and Mal'ta. They have more similarity with each other than to oldest guys from 40kya, however Vestonice is more similar to 35kya Goyet than 24kya Mal'ta. It doesn't look like Malta is a straight descendent from European population. At least not Central European. He is related though to European ones. The difference is about 40% in Baloch and American which were always strong in Central Asia and developed their.







F999914
R

Goyet, Belgium 35kya
Vestonice, Czech 24Kya
Mal'ta
24kya

Run time


Run time


Run time
8

S-Indian
17.68

S-Indian
14.06

S-Indian
10.13

Baloch
1.71

Baloch
1.68

Baloch
24.09

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

NE-Euro
33.89

NE-Euro
41.3

NE-Euro
40.14

SE-Asian
5.42

SE-Asian
0.8

SE-Asian
-

Siberian
2.65

Siberian
3.98

Siberian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

Papuan
5.67

Papuan
4.65

Papuan
0.7

American
1.94

American
3.75

American
17.71

Beringian
1.27

Beringian
-

Beringian
6.74

Mediterranean
22.73

Mediterranean
23.93

Mediterranean
-

SW-Asian
4.34

SW-Asian
2.99

SW-Asian
-

San
1.91

San
1.27

San
0.3

E-African
0.8

E-African
0.42

E-African
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.19

W-African
-

W-African
1.18

W-African
-

----------


## Dov

CHG and Anatolian just can says that they came from European area, where they can contacted with these populations. Moreover, Don near to the Caucasus. 




> Here are the two of similar age, Vestonice and Mal'ta. They have more similarity with each other than to oldest guys from 40kya, however Vestonice is more similar to 35kya Goyet than 24kya Mal'ta. It doesn't look like Malta is a straight descendent from European population. At least not Central European. He is related though to European ones. The difference is about 40% in Baloch and American which were always strong in Central Asia and developed their.


Well, he should be a descendant of the Eastern Europeans Paleolithic Kostenky / Avdeevo / Zaraysk, not central. At the same time he shows the relationship with central Europe.
And what about Sungir 30,100 and Kostenki12 32.990? We do not have autosomal? I have never seen this, as far I understand.
However, tested still very little DNA, only 3 old sample in Eastern Europe. Also, very little DNA material. For example, only one baby tooth were found in Zaraysk culture.

----------


## Tomenable

> He is 88% American admixture. Surui-Karitiana is 100%. *Therefore he should have similar look to these people.*


Why should he be similar to the Surui-Karitiana in particular ???

There are many different phenotypes among Native Americans:

https://antropologia-fizyczna.pl/typ...zi#rasy-i-typy

https://antropologia-fizyczna.pl/typ...dzka-indianska

https://antropologia-fizyczna.pl/typ...rasowy-ameryki

----------


## LeBrok

> Why should he be similar to the Surui-Karitiana in particular ???
> 
> There are many different phenotypes among Native Americans:
> 
> https://antropologia-fizyczna.pl/typ...zi#rasy-i-typy
> 
> https://antropologia-fizyczna.pl/typ...dzka-indianska
> 
> https://antropologia-fizyczna.pl/typ...rasowy-ameryki


Are you saying that phenotype wasn't passed in DNA from Kennewick Man (like) to Karitiana people?

----------


## Tomenable

No I'm saying that all Native Americans have the same "American admixture", but they have different phenotypes. By the way, if you are interested - here are three GEDmatch kits of people who are fully Native American:

*M174237
M192137
M637791*

They have similar results in various calculators as Clovis Anzick-1 (*F999919*).

===========

Three more people who are almost fully Native (slightly European-admixed):

M051413
M283662
M221108 - mostly Mayan

===========

*Gedrosia K6 of 3 modern Natives and ancient Clovis:*

*M174237*. Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 E_Eurasian 77.21
2 W_Eurasian 22.79

*M192137*. Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 E_Eurasian 75.58
2 W_Eurasian 24.23

*M637791*. Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 E_Eurasian 74.58
2 W_Eurasian 25.42

*F999919*. Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 E_Eurasian 74.24
2 W_Eurasian 24.66
3 SSA 1.10

So full-blooded Native Americans are around 1/4 Caucasoid (W_Eurasian).

----------


## LeBrok

> No I'm saying that all Native Americans have the same "American admixture", but they have different phenotypes.
> 
> BTW, here are several GEDmatch kits of people who are fully Native American:
> 
> M174237
> M192137
> M637791
> 
> They have similar results in various calculators as Clovis Anzick-1 (F999919).
> ...


 Some facial traits are common for most American Indian. Look for it.

----------


## Tomenable

> Some facial traits are common for most American Indian. Look for it.


Which ones? There are also many differences.

This is probably the best website on physical anthropology in Polish internet: https://antropologia-fizyczna.pl

I also happen to know the author of this site.

----------


## MOESAN

> Some facial traits are common for most American Indian. Look for it.


Here I don't agree: Amerindian phenotypes are far to be very homogenous, spite tribes seems having more within homogeneity than, say, Europeans (maybe for evident reasons!) - the NE Amerindians, by instance, are the farthest from the 'east-asian' well evolved pattern - (some curious rare types too in Amazonia, with something '"afro-oceanian" very primitive, not 'mongoloid' at all, but I believe that some curious DNA as been found among some tribes there) - That said, some features in someones seem 'archaisms', other are innovations which can have occurred upon the same auDNA mean - phenotypes say something, but as you know, don't say all about auDNA basis -

----------


## Rethel

............................................

----------


## Qamdalan

Malta Boy or ANE is around 1/3 ASI related ENA ancestry so Native Americans who are 30 to 40% ANE are around 21 to 28% to 30% WNA related ancestry.

----------

