# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Paleolithic & Mesolithic >  Solutrean hypothesis: Native American Clovis Culture & NW Europe: (ydna Q, mtdna X2)

## Tabaccus Maximus

I am posting this here because I couldn't find the original post on mtdna haplogroup X2 and its presence, mostly limited to Western Europe and the Americas. Then I found a discussion on Ydna haplogroup Q titled "How did Y-DNA haplogroup Q enter Scandinavia?" and its presence in the North Atlantic Fringe. So I decided to cut and paste here and make comments on both the paternal and maternal haplogroups together since they seem to be linked...

(An article I read in Science daily rekindled interest in this topic - autosomal similarilites in Euros and Indians - I can't link so find it yourself.)

What I find interesting is that there have been a number of mostly "non-mainstream" theories in various disciplines that link a component of early Native American culture with something specifically coming out of the Middle Upper Paleolithic in Europe.

That's "specifically and directly" from Europe, not a thousad year Siberian trek across the straits of Alaska.
So here's a bunch of dots that seem to reasonable to connect:
1) The Solutrean hypothesis shows a very similar technology at about the same time as Clovis in the Atlantic Fringe. The geographic distribution of Clovis seems to overlay points 2, 3,4 below.

2) X2 is distributed throughout the Americas where its highest frequency overlays the Clovis culture sites. It's negligble spread in South America is probably the result of gene flow assuming X entered the Americas at a later date from the other four Native American mtdna haplogroups. Any form of X shows Eastern Siberia and East Asia were the other other Native American founding haplogroups are located in number and diversity . If it was part of the founding population of America along with A,B,C and D, why is it's distribution and diversity so far west? The Altay people are sometimes used as a relict population in West Siberia due to the presence of all four Haplogroups, but that combination can be explaned in other ways and migrations in the historical period.

3) Frequency of X2 peaks in North America dropping off sharply beyond Central America which suggests to me that it was not part of the originial founding population. Intrestingly, it peaks in areas where Q-242 peaks, and again in geographic areas where the Na-Dene family of languages are spoken, again limited to North America. American Q also has subclades that are too young to have come across the Beringia Crossing which no one seems to have an explanation for. If we open the door by stating that the Indian genome is not the result of a single founding across the bearing strait, then there is not reason to be supremely sure that X or Q at all was there day one as well and didn't migrate in a different way.

4) The most interesting bit is the extinction timeline of the mammoth. You will see that the extinction begins in Europe with (possibly) Solturean technology (or methods) and spreads westwardly through the Americas. Finally, the last mammoths die out in Siberia and a few islands. Is it possible that Q-M242 entered Asia via the Americas and further back from Europe rather than the other way around. 
To quote wiki on the decline of the mammoths: "The spread of advanced human hunters through northern Eurasia and the Americas around the time of the extinctions was a new development, and thus might have contributed significantly" (What technology? Large bifacial, fluted spear points?)

5) Again with the distribution of Q, is it not possible that it's presence in Eastern Siberia is the result of a declining mammoth population and hunters tracking Westward, not Eastward following dying herds?

6) Are the Dene languages and Caucasian languages remnants of a race of mammoth hunters?

----------


## nordicwarrior

Tabaccus Maximus, I too am a proponent of Solutreans. The distribution and age of X2 in North America really doesn't leave another explanation. Also, Native American meta-myths speak of the land already being populated when they arrived (giants with red hair) and that they slayed the males and kept the females. But when factoring in Clovis and the Atlantic Ice Sheet progressions, wouldn't Solutreans in the Americas be a minimum of 17,000 years old? How does that square with y-haplogroup Q being the "carrier" of X2?

----------


## LeBrok

> 5) Again with the distribution of Q, is it not possible that it's presence in Eastern Siberia is the result of a declining mammoth population and hunters tracking Westward, not Eastward following dying herds?


It makes sense. Hunters following their main food source. 

Also this is interesting, but can't find what haplogroups were found.



> Based on the genome, the scientists believe there was a distinct, separate migration of peoples from Siberia to North America some 5,500 years ago. They noted that this was independent of earlier migrations whose descendants comprised the historic cultures of Native Americans as well as of the later migration by the Inuit. By 4,500 years ago, descendants of this migration had reached Greenland. The remains used for analysis were found in a Saqqaq culture area.[3]
> The scientists reported that the man, dubbed "Inuk", had A+ blood type, genes suggesting he was adapted to cold weather, had brown eyes, brownish skin, dark hair, and would likely bald later in life. This marked the first sequencing of an ancient human's genome and the first sequencing of an ancient human's mitochondrial genome.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Eskimo

----------


## nordicwarrior

That is very interesting Lebrok, I hadn't heard of that before. I like the idea of multiple waves, it seems to be a theme modern genetics proves out more and more. The Vikings made it to Newfoundland afterall, and probably further south judging by the butternut remains found in their settlements. But the possible migration 5,500 years ago wouldn't account for Clovis or the ancient meta-myths of the land being already occupied.

----------


## Taranis

I'm personally somewhat sceptical of the Solutrean hypothesis, especially, I'm not quite sure with the evidence that you link together here, Tabaccus. From the genetic perspective, I'm not sure why you bring up the Na-Dene peoples: in terms of Y-Dna, they are predominantly Haplogroup _C_, and their distribution does not add up with mt-Haplogroup X2. If anything, I would associate X2 with the Algonquian-speaking peoples.


From the linguistic side, I'm also sceptical of the concept of "Dene-Caucasian", since it encompases such a wide range of languages, including Basque, Burushaski, Sino-Tibetan and two of the three language families of the Caucasus. It doesn't take an expert to see that this is fairly speculative. In particular, the Dene-Caucasian model stands in confrontation to the Dene-Yeniseian model, which (in my opinion, in a much more compelling way) argues for a closer relationship of the Na-Dene languages and the Yeniseian languages of Siberia: although both Na-Dene and Yeniseian are _also_ considered to be Dene-Caucasian, neither of them are particularly close within the Dene-Caucasian framework.


But, disregarding the Solutrean model, there is something which is in my opinion not any less fascinating, and can be very much backed up by genetic and linguistic evidence: that there was more than one prehistoric wave of migration into the Americas.

----------


## sparkey

I'm an opponent of the Solutrean-Clovis connection.




> 1) The Solutrean hypothesis shows a very similar technology at about the same time as Clovis in the Atlantic Fringe.


Not exactly. There are some similarities, but also some differences, between the industries in the two cultures. The parts of blades that connected to shafts is totally different, for example. Also, "about the same time" is totally wrong... there is at minimum a 1000 year difference. Is Charlemagne living about the same time as us?




> 2) X2 is distributed throughout the Americas where its highest frequency overlays the Clovis culture sites. It's negligble spread in South America is probably the result of gene flow assuming X entered the Americas at a later date from the other four Native American mtdna haplogroups. Any form of X shows Eastern Siberia and East Asia were the other other Native American founding haplogroups are located in number and diversity . If it was part of the founding population of America along with A,B,C and D, why is it's distribution and diversity so far west? The Altay people are sometimes used as a relict population in West Siberia due to the presence of all four Haplogroups, but that combination can be explaned in other ways and migrations in the historical period.


We can agree, I'm sure, that the X2 in the Americas is an old and unique branch, so it is difficult to compare with European or Asian X2, and either way it looks like a founder in the Americas + a decline at its source. So our best shot is to try to date it, to see if it corresponds to the others, or if it has a separate date (like the method studies have used to show that the Na Dene came later). But so far American X2 has yielded the same dates as the others, indicating that it came from the same source population.




> 3) Frequency of X2 peaks in North America dropping off sharply beyond Central America which suggests to me that it was not part of the originial founding population. Intrestingly, it peaks in areas where Q-242 peaks, and again in geographic areas where the Na-Dene family of languages are spoken, again limited to North America. American Q also has subclades that are too young to have come across the Beringia Crossing which no one seems to have an explanation for. If we open the door by stating that the Indian genome is not the result of a single founding across the bearing strait, then there is not reason to be supremely sure that X or Q at all was there day one as well and didn't migrate in a different way.


I didn't know that X2 peaks in areas where Q peaks, and if it does, that goes against your point. Q is usually considered linked to Bering populations, has fairly clear continuity with Asia, and is dominant in South America. (And which subclades of Q are "too young"? What are you talking about?)

From what I've read, the Na Dene have a decent amount of X2a2, but share it with some non-Na Dene, and X2a1 and X2a* tend to be non-Na Dene, meaning that the highest diversity is not with them, nor is the origin likely with them.




> 4) The most interesting bit is the extinction timeline of the mammoth. You will see that the extinction begins in Europe with (possibly) Solturean technology (or methods) and spreads westwardly through the Americas. Finally, the last mammoths die out in Siberia and a few islands. Is it possible that Q-M242 entered Asia via the Americas and further back from Europe rather than the other way around. 
> To quote wiki on the decline of the mammoths: "The spread of advanced human hunters through northern Eurasia and the Americas around the time of the extinctions was a new development, and thus might have contributed significantly" (What technology? Large bifacial, fluted spear points?)


No, a much simpler explanation is that climate led to humans expanded at roughly the same time in different parts of the world. Also, you'll need to back up your ideas about Q with some subclade analyses. Don't count on that being easy... unlike with mtDNA X2, YDNA Q subclades are generally easy to link back to Asia. 




> 5) Again with the distribution of Q, is it not possible that it's presence in Eastern Siberia is the result of a declining mammoth population and hunters tracking Westward, not Eastward following dying herds?


Unlikely... wrong diversity pattern.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Taranis, if you disregard Solutrean, what model do you attribute the introduction of X2? I doesn't look like X2 took the more well travelled route through Siberia (based on population samples). Another possible, but in my opinion less likely, occurence is that the Native Americans captured a few very productive X2 sisters from earlier Viking expeditions--that would explain the maps. I still do favor Solutreans though.

----------


## Taranis

> Taranis, if you disregard Solutrean, what model do you attribute the introduction of X2? I doesn't look like X2 took the more well travelled route through Siberia (based on population samples). Another possible, but in my opinion less likely, occurence is that the Native Americans captured a few very productive X2 sisters from earlier Viking expeditions--that would explain the maps. I still do favor Solutreans though.


I'm not sure: as Sparkey said, unlike Y-Haplogroup Q, mt-Haplogroup X2 doesn't fit well at all with the first migration into the Americas from Siberia. We know about the (considerably later) migration of Proto-Na-Dene peoples, which doesn't add up well with X2 either. It could be that there was another migration wave that we actually overlooked.

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

X2 can't be linked specifically to Na-Dene languages or cultures at all, but neither can any dna to any culture.
What you do see, is a _rough_ geographical limitation of both in North America. 
And while X2 may comprise a larger component of Northern peoples like the Algonquian, it doesn't necessarily mean that over time Algonquian languages became dominant in the NE North America for other reasons.
And remember, we are only talking about a small component of Native American ancestry, not a tribe of people with a "X2" emblazoned on their shields. (Based on some discussions elsewhere it appears some take that view)

Even with the Dene-Yeniseian model, Vajda notes the exclusive occurance of a Q subclade between Kets and Native Americans so the low frequency among Na-Dene speakers "could be" just a matter of space and time (which I admit looks bizarre).

----------


## nordicwarrior

> X2 can't be linked specifically to Na-Dene languages or cultures at all, but neither can any dna to any culture.
> What you do see, is a _rough_ geographical limitation of both in North America.


Excellent point Tabaccus, that's why finding and using actual bodies is so important. Nothing can anchor a people in time and place better than physical remains surrounded by other verifiable artifacts. I don't get too bogged down in languages because they are so flexible and changing (especially languages with no written word to accompany them). I'm with you on Solutreans, but I do want to hear more on how Q would have brought X2 over 17,000 years ago. I would think more likely canidates would have been G, proto I1, I-2, or even I-J.

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

-I don't think Solutrean needs to be a 1:1 relationship to Clovis to be valid. It could be a similar technology with a genetic relationship but _not necessarily_ same time, same place. 
-X2 may very well have entered the Americas during a single founding event and I would agree with the notion that there is a limit to how many founding events occurred, and that the population has been well amalgamated. 
-With Q, my point was that it's presence in Eastern Siberia could be the result of migration from the Americas rather than left-overs from staybehinds. Also, to mention subclades, Q1a3 is mentioned in a report of the 'genetic genealogist', I can't link to it now, but is interesting. Subclades P89 and NWT regardless of whether it originated .
-ISOGG places origing in Northern Eurasia 17k b.p. not the Far East.

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

> I'm not sure: as Sparkey said, unlike Y-Haplogroup Q, mt-Haplogroup X2 doesn't fit well at all with the first migration into the Americas from Siberia. We know about the (considerably later) migration of Proto-Na-Dene peoples, which doesn't add up well with X2 either. It could be that there was another migration wave that we actually overlooked.



I think we tend to think of our planet as a sort of East-West arrangment. Anyone going to or from America from Asia/Europe must go Left or Right across a big body of icy water and endless thousands of miles on lifeless permafrost. Turn the globe on its side and see what it looks like during our non-ice-age. It's a much smaller world and watching Eastern Siberians mush sled dogs across the ice with their mammoth knife hilts and powder horns seems to beacon an earlier time when nomadic big game hunters trekked the ice in all directions.

I just don't buy the wandering band of lost, purposeless beringa people crossing with ice breaking up behind every footstep.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> I think we tend to think of our planet as a sort of East-West arrangment. Anyone going to or from America from Asia/Europe must go Left or Right across a big body of icy water and endless thousands of miles on lifeless permafrost. Turn the globe on its side and see what it looks like during our non-ice-age. It's a much smaller world and watching Eastern Siberians mush sled dogs across the ice with their mammoth knife hilts and powder horns seems to beacon an earlier time when nomadic big game hunters trekked the ice in all directions.
> 
> I just don't buy the wandering band of lost, purposeless beringa people crossing with ice breaking up behind every footstep.


I totally agree with the Left/Right orientation being a limiting perspective on historical human journeys. I've tilted the globe on it's side more than a few times myself. However, the problem with this line of thinking for the period 17,000 years ago is the much colder climate. A brutal ice-age would make this route next to impossible. By using ice platforms further south, the Solutreans travellers could "hop-skip-and-jump" across the Atlantic with kayaks using walrus and seals for food. It's important to remember Neanderthal was on boats well before this period, so the kayak usage is certainly plausible.

----------


## JS Bach

Okay, this is my understanding of the genetic evidence for the Solutrean Hypothesis so far:

On Wikipedia it says that “Q-M3 is the predominant haplotype in the Americas, at a rate of 83% in South American populations, 50% in the Na-Dené populations, and in North American Eskimo-Aleut populations at about 46%.” On Eupedia.com where it talks about the Y-chromosomes of Native Americans, it also says that Q1a2a1a1 (M3) is "the main subclade of Native Americans", which is found under the branch Q1a2a1a (CTS11969). 

And further, for what it says about all the sub-branches of Q1a2a1a (CTS11969), it says:

*Q1a2a1a1 (M3)*: the main subclade of *Native Americans*Q1a2a1a2 (L804): found in Germany, Scandinavia and Britain (possibly Hunnic)
Q1a2a1a2a (L807): observed in Britain 

In other words, the places in the world where the closest matches to the Y-chromosomes of most Native Americans are found, are "Germany, Scandinavia and Britain". And Q1a2a1a2 (L804) isn't found among Native Americans.

Also, regarding the autosomal dna that was recently extracted from the remains of the 24,000-year-old boy from South-Central Siberia, it was found that he shared genes with both Native Americans and Europeans, but not to East Asians. And further dna analysis deduced that Europeans can be shown to statistically descend from 3 populations, one of which (the ANE) is comprised of this Siberian boy’s dna. And also, that a good percentage (perhaps 40 to 50 percent) of Native Americans’ dna descends from this same population. 

Also, they tested the DNA of an 8000-year-old hunter-gatherer from Motala (Southern Sweden). And they found that about 19 percent of his dna was from this ANE component and the rest was from the WHG component. So, this ANE component was present in Sweden about 8000 years ago. 
In Europe today, this ANE component appears to peak in Estonia (18.3%) and Scotland (18.2%). I agree with some suggestions made that this ANE component probably also came to Europe in another wave with the Indo-European invasions around 5000 years ago. 

On page 28 of the paper, it says that another one of the 8000-year-old men from Motala, Sweden (Motala6) "was L55+ (19413335 G>A), placing it in Y-haplogroup Q1a2a, but L232‑ which contradicts the hypothesis that it belongs to haplogroup Q1. These two observations are phylogenetically inconsistent, and we are unable to assign a haplogroup to this individual." Hopefully it can be tested again. If it is found to be Q1a2a1a, that would be very exciting. The four men from Motala, Sweden that were tested successfully for their Y-chromosomes fell into haplogroup I, as did the Loschbour, Luxembourg guy. 

On Eupedia’s graph of the distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup Q in Europe, the hotspot with the greatest frequency of haplogroup Q occurs in Southern Sweden, right near Motala, where the samples were found. And the next hotspot in Europe where it's found is in East-Central France, right near Solutre, where the Solutrean hypothesis gets its name. The Solutrean Hypothesis contends that ancient hunter-gatherers from the Solutrean culture in France and Spain made their way across the Northern Atlantic in boats about 19,000-or-so years ago to become the first, or among the first, Native Americans.

Regarding mtdna haplogroup X2, according to Family Tree DNA X2b is the phylogenetically closest branch of X2 to the Native American X2a. And judged by its distribution, X2b seems likely to have originated in Europe. (Unlike the X2 that was found in the Altai, that was all or mostly all X2e.) An X2b has been found in Portugal dating to 3,400 BCE, and another X2 has been found in Brittany, France dating to 4,200 BCE.

Also, regarding mtdna C1, the Native American subclades are C1b, C1c and C1d, and C1a is found in East Asia. However, two new subclades, dubbed by some as C1e and C1f, have been found in Northern Europe: C1e in Iceland; and C1f from a 7,500-year-old individual in Western Russia next to Finland.

Given all these findings around Scandinavia and Europe’s West coast, my guess is that mtdna C1 was brought to America by the Solutreans, along with Q-M3 and X2. I also wouldn’t be surprised if some clades of ydna R1 were as well, and possibly even some others, such as mtdna C4. 

I also think that the Solutreans were largely from a different stock than the Gravettian and Magdalenian cultures that preceded and succeeded them in SouthWestern Europe. I suspect they originally came from Siberia / Central Asia. I doubt they had light skin like modern Europeans either. Maybe they looked similar to Patrick Stewart with somewhat darker skin. In Stanford and Bradley’s book “Across Atlantic Ice” they note how different their stone tool set was from the Gravettian/Magdalenian ones. In addition to pointing out how similar the Solutrean tools are to the Pre-Clovis and Clovis tools in America, in the book they also indicate by doing cluster analyses that if anything, the Solutrean stone tools are closer to some Beringian tools than to the French Gravettian and French Magdalenian toolsets (which are similar to each other.)

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

A lot has changed since the original post.

With the many new ancient dna results over the past few months, I've cooled a bit on the Solutrean (like) hypothesis.

However, I will say that it does seem likely that at one time there was a Pan-50th parallel hunting culture. I suppose the question is if whether any of them entered from the right side of North America versus the left side.

In order for a Solutrean-like hypothesis to work the crossing from Europe would probably have to predate Mesolithic Europe since typical Mesolithic uniparental dna does not appear to be present within ancient remains of the Americas. One caveat is that one of the Motala individuals had an un-identified haplotype that wasn't Q, but had some characteristic of Q.

Because Mesolithic Europeans had a small portion of ANE (Ancestral North Eurasians), I suppose that could open up the possibility that another, unidentified population (Q*+C*) lived in the Northern Fringes of Europe in the Late Paleolithic or Mesolithic and only in the Mesolithic began intermingling with the brute European mesolithics (hence ANE in them).

In this scenario, the genetic flow would have to be one way.

----------


## ElHorsto

> I also think that the Solutreans were largely from a different stock than the Gravettian and Magdalenian cultures that preceded and succeeded them in SouthWestern Europe. I suspect they originally came from Siberia / Central Asia.


I also wonder why Loschbourg and La Brana finds appear not Cro-Magnoid. Loschbour in particular does not even look Caucasoid to me. 10000 year old Cro-Magnid skulls have been found in north Africa, so the genetic composition of Berbers might answer some question. On the other hand it is hard to imagine that WHG should not be related to Cro-Magnon.

----------


## Aberdeen

​I don't think the Solutrean idea holds up, for some of the reasons that sparky mentioned. However, I have another theory, which I know he also disagrees with. To understand it, you have to realize that Y haplotype R1 is the second most common Native American haplotype in North America, but it's largely absent from South American populations. And although R1 is fairly common among Dene, it's the main Y haplotype among some Algonquin speaking tribes and is common among some other tribes that used to live around the Great Lakes area, such as Iroquoan and Siouian speaking people. Geneticists have stated that the R1 in Native Americans is all from modern Europeans as a result of post-Columbian contact, even among tribes like the Ojibwe who are 79 percent R1. And why do the geneticists think that all the R1 among Native Americans is from modern Europeans? Well, it just is, so let's not discuss the issue. But I want to discuss the issue, especially since the mtDNA X2 is clustered almost completely among tribes who have high R1. I think another piece of the puzzle is the fact that, although the first wave of people into the Americas happened about 15,000 years ago, there was a separate wave of people into the Americas about 8.000 years ago. The theory currently accepted by academia is that this wave of settlement was fairly small and was limited to Dene speakers, but I've never seen any solid facts to support that idea. My own theory is that the wave of immigration 8,000 years ago was much larger than has been assumed and that the largest component consisted of Algonquin speakers who migrated east to the Great Lakes area. They are the ones who brought Y-R1 and mtDNA-X2 to North America. As for any Q that is too modern to have been part of either early wave of settlement, as long as its a fairly small component, I think it could be accounted for by small, more recent waves of immigration from Siberia. We know that the Dorset and Thule people arrived in the Americas just a few thousand years ago, and there could have been a few other small groups that headed south and mixed with existing populations.

----------


## JS Bach

> In order for a Solutrean-like hypothesis to work the crossing from Europe would probably have to predate Mesolithic Europe since typical Mesolithic uniparental dna does not appear to be present within ancient remains of the Americas. One caveat is that one of the Motala individuals had an un-identified haplotype that wasn't Q, but had some characteristic of Q.


Mtdna X2a has been found in Windover, Florida dating to about 8,000 years ago. This is mentioned in Bryan Sykes's book "DNA USA" as well as Stanford and Bradley's book. Also, mtdna haplogroups A,B,C,D and M have been found in America dating to before 5,000 years ago. And Q-M3 was also found in a sample dating to 10,300 years ago.

I'm not a geneticist but I wonder how likely it might be that the Motala6 L232- result, indicating it being negative for Q1, might be due to DNA degradation. However, I'm confident more ancient DNA like that will be tested.

----------


## adamo

Has M really been found in the Americas?

----------


## JS Bach

> Has M really been found in the Americas?


I can't post links but apparently yes, according to a paper titled "Ancient DNA Analysis of Mid-Holocene Individuals from the Northwest Coast of North America Reveals Different Evolutionary Paths for Mitogenomes." However, they say this haplogroup has yet to be identified in any extant Native American population.

----------


## adamo

Keep me updated on it, thanks. Seems it may be probable, but I haven't heard of any still around today.

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

> ​I don't think the Solutrean idea holds up, for some of the reasons that sparky mentioned. However, I have another theory, which I know he also disagrees with. To understand it, you have to realize that Y haplotype R1 is the second most common Native American haplotype in North America, but it's largely absent from South American populations. And although R1 is fairly common among Dene, it's the main Y haplotype among some Algonquin speaking tribes and is common among some other tribes that used to live around the Great Lakes area, such as Iroquoan and Siouian speaking people. Geneticists have stated that the R1 in Native Americans is all from modern Europeans as a result of post-Columbian contact, even among tribes like the Ojibwe who are 79 percent R1. And why do the geneticists think that all the R1 among Native Americans is from modern Europeans? Well, it just is, so let's not discuss the issue. But I want to discuss the issue, especially since the mtDNA X2 is clustered almost completely among tribes who have high R1. I think another piece of the puzzle is the fact that, although the first wave of people into the Americas happened about 15,000 years ago, there was a separate wave of people into the Americas about 8.000 years ago. The theory currently accepted by academia is that this wave of settlement was fairly small and was limited to Dene speakers, but I've never seen any solid facts to support that idea. My own theory is that the wave of immigration 8,000 years ago was much larger than has been assumed and that the largest component consisted of Algonquin speakers who migrated east to the Great Lakes area. They are the ones who brought Y-R1 and mtDNA-X2 to North America. As for any Q that is too modern to have been part of either early wave of settlement, as long as its a fairly small component, I think it could be accounted for by small, more recent waves of immigration from Siberia. We know that the Dorset and Thule people arrived in the Americas just a few thousand years ago, and there could have been a few other small groups that headed south and mixed with existing populations.



The problem with the distribution of R1 and X2 is that it appears to be limited tothe eastern half North America. That would seem to suggest a rather recent origin, otherwise it would be evenly distributed over both continents.
Also, any migration by foot would have to happen during the glacial maximum, I would think. There's still a lot of blue water at the North Pole that was iced over.

----------


## LeBrok

> The problem with the distribution of R1 and X2 is that it appears to be limited tothe eastern half North America. That would seem to suggest a rather recent origin, otherwise it would be evenly distributed over both continents.
> Also, any migration by foot would have to happen during the glacial maximum, I would think. There's still a lot of blue water at the North Pole that was iced over.


First time I saw R1 signature in NA I thought it was a gift from Vikings, who settled East Coast for a while around 1,000 CE during warm medieval period.

----------


## Aberdeen

> First time I saw R1 signature in NA I thought it was a gift from Vikings, who settled East Coast for a while around 1,000 CE during warm medieval period.


The levels of R1 seem to be far too high for that. Also, there seems to be a consistent pattern of the highest levels of R1 being reported among Dene, Algonquin speaking people and tribes that historically were in fairly close proximity to Algonquins. And the Algonquin speaking people with high reported levels of R1 are in many cases the ones with high reported levels of mtDNA X2. Of course, there could be a problem with the small sample sizes that these figures are derived from, or a problem with where the samples were obtained. For example, it's reported that the Ojibwe are 79% Y-DNA R1 and 22% mtDNA X2, but I believe those percentages comes from a fairly small number of samples.

One of the difficulties is that many Native Americans are opposed to DNA testing. Another problem is that researchers so far have apparently not done any further analysis of R1 found among Native Americans because the researchers assume that it's as a result of recent European admixture. They assume that it must be, because they already know that R1 isn't found in Native American populations. A classic example of circular reasoning. I'd like to see a researcher actually apply the scientific method to this situation, instead of just making assumptions. A few bloggers have reported that the STR values in many cases are not typical of European results, but all the details on that sort of thing seem to be under lock and key, for some reason. So, the apparent amount of R1 among Native Americans may be an interesting phenomenon or it may not be, but we don't know because researchers would rather just make assumptions that there's nothing to see here, please move along.

----------


## sparkey

More Native American R1 silliness. There are plenty of Amerind DNA projects, and plenty of R1 samples in them. Which samples look even vaguely non-European?: AmericanIndian DNA Project, Amerindian DNA Project, Algonquian East DNA Project, Cherokee DNA Project. Plenty of samples to choose from, no carefully guarded secrets or anything.

----------


## Aberdeen

I think we can expect that the results for people who are participating in a DNA study because they know they're a mixture of Amerindian and European ancestry could be different from random sampling of Native Americans living on reserves. When I was talking about data not being available, I was talking about studies such as Tarazona-Santos and Santos, 2002; Zegura et al., 2004; Balnick et al, 2006, etc. In other words, the studies that indicated high levels of R1 among specific Native American groups. I'd just like to know how detailed their information is and what it says. Anyway, I was mainly trying to suggest that there could be an alternative to the Solutrean hypothesis to explain how mtDNA X2 got to North America. I suppose another possibility could be that a lot of Finnish women emigrated to North America and married Native Americans, if it weren't for the fact that the Native American version of X2 either has been shown to be or is assumed to be different from the European X2 - I haven't seen the data on that one either, although I haven't actually tried to find it.

----------


## nordicwarrior

The way I understand Native American hg. X2 is that it's been here (U.S. and Canada) for at least 10,000 years.

----------


## JS Bach

> The way I understand Native American hg. X2 is that it's been here (U.S. and Canada) for at least 10,000 years.


I won't quarrel with that. R1/X2 could have come at a later date than Q-L55/C1 though. My prediction is that Q-L55/C1 came over with the Solutreans and R1/X2 came over with either the Solutreans or some of their descendants before 10,000 years ago. Motala6 (Sweden, 8,000 ybp) tested L55+. And downstream of Q-L55 (Q1a2a) are the Native American Q-M3 and Q-Z780. And the unique mtdna C1e and C1f have been found in Scandinavia. But if I'm wrong I'll have to eat my words.

----------


## JS Bach

I was just looking at Family Tree DNA's mtdna Haplogroup C Project webpage where it shows the map of the locations of their most distant ancestors. Of the 39 locations of the most distant known ancestors for people confirmed there as belonging to mtdna C1, 37 of the locations show the Americas, and the other 2 show Spain. And the locations are *País Vasco, Spain (*for an individual with Confirmed Haplogroup: *C1b)* and *Cantabria, Spain (*for an individual with Confirmed Haplogroup: *C1c1b**)*. And those locations are right next to each other in the centre of the north coast of Spain, right where the Solutreans allegedly made their journey to America from.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I was just looking at Family Tree DNA's mtdna Haplogroup C Project webpage where it shows the map of the locations of their most distant ancestors. Of the 39 locations of the most distant known ancestors for people confirmed there as belonging to mtdna C1, 37 of the locations show the Americas, and the other 2 show Spain. And the locations are *País Vasco, Spain (*for an individual with Confirmed Haplogroup: *C1b)* and *Cantabria, Spain (*for an individual with Confirmed Haplogroup: *C1c1b**)*. And those locations are right next to each other in the centre of the north coast of Spain, right where the Solutreans allegedly made their journey to America from.


Interesting results. However, depending on how far back their records go, I think it's possible that the most distant known maternal ancestors of these people could be Native American women who married Spanish men who then returned to Spain with their Native American wives.

----------


## JS Bach

Yes, that’s got to be considered. On the corresponding haplogroup assignment results page there, they list a C1c1b as “Ungrouped” right at the bottom, but I don’t know if it’s the Spanish C1c1b in question. And I can’t tell if there’s a C1b on the list that’s that much different from the others.


There’s a similar situation with Q-M3 on the ydna Haplogroup Q project webpage. Out of about 50 individuals’ locations on their map, all but one of them are in the Americas, and the one that isn’t is in Gibraltar (which borders Spain and where there are Solutrean sites).

----------


## Aberdeen

> Yes, that’s got to be considered. On the corresponding haplogroup assignment results page there, they list a C1c1b as “Ungrouped” right at the bottom, but I don’t know if it’s the Spanish C1c1b in question. And I can’t tell if there’s a C1b on the list that’s that much different from the others.
> 
> 
> There’s a similar situation with Q-M3 on the ydna Haplogroup Q project webpage. Out of about 50 individuals’ locations on their map, all but one of them are in the Americas, and the one that isn’t is in Gibraltar (which borders Spain and where there are Solutrean sites).


That's definitely an interesting result, given that Y-DNA was probably much less likely to migrate to Europe from the Americas during the colonial period, although that could have happened, I suppose. And if the one example of Q was in Gibralter, the person's ancestors are quite likely to have been British. But then we have to explain the presence of Q-M3 in Britain.

----------


## JS Bach

I agree. What also intrigues me is the position of Q1a2a1a2 (L804) on the phylogenetic tree. Here is the current sub-structure of the Q1a2a1 (L54) branch:

· Q1a2a1a (CTS11969) 

*Q1a2a1a1 (M3)*: the main subclade of *Native Americans*Q1a2a1a2 (L804): found in Germany, Scandinavia and Britain (possibly Hunnic)
Q1a2a1a2a (L807): observed in Britain 

· Q1a2a1b (Z780): found among Native Americans, notably in Mexico

· Q1a2a1c (L330): the main subclade of the Mongols, also found among the Kazakhs and Uzbeks, as well as in Ukraine, Turkey and Greece (probably Mongolian and Turkic)


On the ydna Haplogroup Q project webpage where they list the locations for the L804+ people of their most distant known ancestor on their direct male line, the breakdown comes out as follows:

 England
 8


 Scotland
 2


 Ireland
 2
(one unique surname)

 Sweden
 1


 Germany
 1


Norway
 1


 United Kingdom
 1


 Unknown Origin
 2



I don’t think all of these were due to Native Americans migrating to Northern Europe, especially since none of them list the Americas, and there is only 1 out of 50 Q-M3’s that don’t list the Americas for their most distant known ancestor. What it looks like to me is that these L804’s were probably integrated into Germanic tribes thousands of years ago – and were probably mixed in with R1b-U106-Z8’s like me.

It also seems to me that Q1a2a1 (L54) likely originated somewhere around Siberia / Central Asia, since it’s the main subclade among the Mongols, and some branches then migrated over to France and Spain. In Stanford and Bradley’s book they mention the Streletskayan archaeological culture (located southeast of Moscow) as their perhaps prime candidate for “a Solutrean progenitor”, although they mention a couple others as well. (Bradley talks about this on a webpage of his as well) But that’s still a ways from Siberia, though.

----------


## Aberdeen

Interesting. Although the migration of Q from Siberia to Iberia seems like a bit of a stretch, I think it makes more sense than Solutrean migration across the Atlantic. And perhaps the differences between Solutrean and Clovis can be explained by the fact that they're both descended from a common source, rather than one being derived from the other.

----------


## JS Bach

The Solutreans were noted for being very advanced technologically. My understanding is that they probably had the best stone tool technology in the world at the time, as well as with other survival technologies for cold climates. For instance, in “Across Atlantic Ice” they say: “The earliest small, sharply pointed, eyed needles made of bone have been found in Solutrean deposits.” And as earlier cultures evidently made and used boats for long journeys (e.g. the first Australians) the Solutreans were probably quite capable of doing so too, the argument goes. 

There are many videos and documentaries on youtube describing how the Solutreans might have made the journey across the edge of the ice sheets of the North Atlantic at the time.

They also say in “Across Atlantic Ice” that most of the earliest evidence of people in North America comes from eastern North America, especially along the east coast, and that the stone tool technology there is very close to that of the Solutreans, and looks as if it was derived from them. That’s their argument anyway.

Also, haplogroup Q in Eurasia seems to peak in Western Siberia, north of India. And they seem to be a very mobile haplogroup judged by their distribution across the continents, as is also the case with haplogroup R.

----------


## JS Bach

I’m a bit surprised that there isn’t more activity on this thread. I suspect a lot of people are afraid of supporting the Solutrean Hypothesis for fear of being called racist. I think that’s ironic though, since I think it’s quite possible that the Solutreans were the first settlers of NorthWestern Europe after the ice sheets there from the Last Glacial Maximum melted. Just look at the distribution of haplogroup Q in Europe, for instance. Something like 40 percent of the average genetic makeup of Native Americans may be attributable to the Solutreans, whereas the component might make up just a few percent of the genomes of NorthWest Europeans. Maybe it could be argued that the Cherokees, Ojibwes and Micmacs are the Native NorthWest Europeans.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ...Maybe they looked similar to Patrick Stewart with somewhat darker skin...


Wouldn't we then see a much more pronounced rate of sagittal keel in the Americas? 

Kidding... I love Picard. Best Star Trek Captain. Ever.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I’m a bit surprised that there isn’t more activity on this thread. I suspect a lot of people are afraid of supporting the Solutrean Hypothesis for fear of being called racist. I think that’s ironic though, since I think it’s quite possible that the Solutreans were the first settlers of NorthWestern Europe after the ice sheets there from the Last Glacial Maximum melted. Just look at the distribution of haplogroup Q in Europe, for instance. Something like 40 percent of the average genetic makeup of Native Americans may be attributable to the Solutreans, whereas the component might make up just a few percent of the genomes of NorthWest Europeans. Maybe it could be argued that the Cherokees, Ojibwes and Micmacs are the Native NorthWest Europeans.


I imagine most people take the view that Q entered the Americas from Siberia, and that any Q currently in Europe is either descended from a Q hunter-gatherer who strayed west from Asia a long time ago or is the result of more recent population movements across northern Eurasia (depending on which subclade is involved). Most people view the Solutreans and Clovis as separate but similar developments. You may not agree but I doubt you'll convince many people unless you can get a Solutrean to come back from the dead and give a talk on 'How We Emigrated to the Americas".

----------


## LeBrok

> Kidding... I love Picard. Best Star Trek Captain. Ever.


Indeed we have something in common!  :Good Job:

----------


## nordicwarrior

As someone who not only entertains the Clovis/Solutreans connection, but supports it... I think Solutean's main "proof" revolves around the maternal X2 we see centered around what is New York State. I haven't heard another good explanation of this haplogroup's curious location, and it's the key facet of this entire controversial conjecture. Of course this is only my opinion-- as we all know everyone has one.

----------


## bicicleur

> As someone who not only entertains the Clovis/Solutreans connection, but supports it... I think Solutean's main "proof" revolves around the maternal X2 we see centered around what is New York State. I haven't heard another good explanation of this haplogroup's curious location, and it's the key facet of this entire controversial conjecture. Of course this is only my opinion-- as we all know everyone has one.


problem is x2 in American Natives is a sperate subclade, not found in Eurasia ..

----------


## sparkey

I don't think that supporters of the Solutrean hypothesis are being racist, I just think that they're wrong. The greatest evidence against it is the temporal difference of a few thousand years. By the time Clovis appears, SW Europe was no longer Solutrean.




> I agree. What also intrigues me is the position of Q1a2a1a2 (L804) on the phylogenetic tree. Here is the current sub-structure of the Q1a2a1 (L54) branch:
> 
> · Q1a2a1a (CTS11969) 
> 
> *Q1a2a1a1 (M3)*: the main subclade of *Native Americans*Q1a2a1a2 (L804): found in Germany, Scandinavia and Britain (possibly Hunnic)
> Q1a2a1a2a (L807): observed in Britain 
> 
> · Q1a2a1b (Z780): found among Native Americans, notably in Mexico
> 
> ...




Addressing this in particular: As Aberdeen indicated, this is not solid evidence of which direction migrations happened, it is only evidence of a relationship of some sort. The relationship is just as predicted by conventional models as it is by the Solutrean hypothesis, however the conventional methods would support a North Eurasian connection as opposed to the SH Atlantic connection. So, which has more support based on modern distribution patterns? I would argue that the Scandinavian tendency of L804 (and apparent Scandinavian origin of British samples) as well as the distribution of its closest relative clades is much more indicative of a North Eurasian connection. What looks remotely Solutrean about it?

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

I'm not totally sold on Solutrean, but I think it is now more likely than it was last week.


After reading some of the other comments, here's a few points that I'd like to make.

1. Although C-V20 is Euro-unique, Mesolithic "La Brana I" would have been only a descendant of Paleolithic Solutrean. So it is perfectly concievable that the European Solutreans were upstream of both C-V20 and Jomonese C-M8, at least. Also, while C-V20 has survived at asterik levels in Europe, there may have been other clades that did not survive, or at least are virtually undetectable as of yet.

2. A number of sites in the Americas that are intermediate between Clovis and Solutrean time frames may preceed the Bearing ice bridge in the LGM. This puts us back to boat arguments or possibly another route, possibly across the arctic.

3. People are forgetting that the Bearing Strait was not a one-way street. It's possible that some Siberian subclades of Q are descended from American ones. It could be the same for C clades in Northern Japan as well.

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

It's also possible that C entered the Americas via the _conventional_ Bearing crossing route. 

It could be just another example of the 50th parallel hunting culture that spanned across the north of the globe.
Maybe Solutrean and Clovis_ are_ related via a North Eurasian ancestor but not necessarily through an Atlantic connection.

----------


## LeBrok

> 2. A number of sites in the Americas that are intermediate between Clovis and Solutrean time frames may preceed the Bearing ice bridge in the LGM. This puts us back to boat arguments or possibly another route, possibly across the arctic.


Even if they did this in boats, it is much easier to jump islands on small boats through Bering Sea (chain of Aleutian Islands) than traverse long distances at once going through Atlantic. 








> 3. People are forgetting that the Bearing Strait was not a one-way street. It's possible that some Siberian subclades of Q are descended from American ones. It could be the same for C clades in Northern Japan as well.


 It is very plausable.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> Even if they did this in boats, it is much easier to jump islands on small boats through Bering Sea (chain of Aleutian Islands) than traverse long distances at once going through Atlantic...


True, but then we have the issue of where Solutreans/Clovis spear-heads were found. Not to mention the pesky myth about giants with red hair.

----------


## Aberdeen

> It's also possible that C entered the Americas via the _conventional_ Bearing crossing route. 
> 
> It could be just another example of the 50th parallel hunting culture that spanned across the north of the globe.
> Maybe Solutrean and Clovis_ are_ related via a North Eurasian ancestor but not necessarily through an Atlantic connection.


Perhaps there's was a small hunting culture somewhere in Siberia that created the precursor to the Solutrean and Clovis cultures, and at some point it split in two, with the future Solutreans going west and the future Clovis types, composed of Q and/or C men and X2 women, going east and crossing the Bering Straits into the Americas. The limited archeological evidence of the pre Solutrean and pre Clovis culture may be buried in a riverbank in some remote part of southern Siberia. I also think it's possible that both groups went west and one of them continued on across the Arctic ice to the Americas, but if that did happen, you're not going to find any archeological evidence of it. And a Bering Straits crossing is admittedly a much more likely scenario, simply because a person who's adapted to arctic living could easily cross on a small boat or even walk across at certain times of the year during certain periods during the past several thousand years. If the Straits are frozen, you just walk across, but I don't see that happening in the north Atlantic.

----------


## bicicleur

> Perhaps there's was a small hunting culture somewhere in Siberia that created the precursor to the Solutrean and Clovis cultures, and at some point it split in two, with the future Solutreans going west and the future Clovis types, composed of Q and/or C men and X2 women, going east and crossing the Bering Straits into the Americas. The limited archeological evidence of the pre Solutrean and pre Clovis culture may be buried in a riverbank in some remote part of southern Siberia. I also think it's possible that both groups went west and one of them continued on across the Arctic ice to the Americas, but if that did happen, you're not going to find any archeological evidence of it. And a Bering Straits crossing is admittedly a much more likely scenario, simply because a person who's adapted to arctic living could easily cross on a small boat or even walk across at certain times of the year during certain periods during the past several thousand years. If the Straits are frozen, you just walk across, but I don't see that happening in the north Atlantic.


ever heard of Dyuktai culture, eastern Siberia ?
14-19000 years ago
they were mammoth hunters and developped Solutran-like spearpoints
it is from these Clovis descend, 13000 years ago

Clovis spearpoints dissapeared after extinction of mammoths and large mammals in nothern America
Solutrean spearpoints dissapeared after extinction of mammoths and large mammals in western Europe

where did Dyuktai people come from? from Mal'ta : they were R1
who were their wives : X2 
who went west from Mal'ta : R1a and R1b
who were their wives : X2 and U5 and others

----------


## Aberdeen

Yes, I was thinking of the Mal'ta folk, but so far we don't have any evidence that the Solutreans were Y haplotype R.

----------


## JS Bach

I agree that the position of L804 on the haplogroup Q tree isn’t solid evidence of a Solutrean connection, but I think that the evidence favouring the Solutrean hypothesis in general is accumulating, with that being one of the clues.

Regarding the ANE component comprising 19 percent of the makeup of the 8,000 ybp Motala6 guy in Sweden, that’s where more fun begins, because now we don’t just have the Y-chromosome and mtdna to work with; we have the whole genome. Maybe in the near future they could subdivide the ANE component further into different components, such as a Native American component, a proposed Indo-European component, etc. And perhaps we could ascertain whether or not the ANE component of Motala6 is closer to the Native American component. 

Also, regarding haplogroup X, I wasn’t aware until recently that in the sub-structure of X2, X2a and X2b are on one sub-branch, and X2c, X2d, X2e and X2f are not on it, at least according to Family Tree DNA: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ection=results In this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez they analyzed nine haplogroup X sequences from the Altai, and all nine belonged to X2e, so that Altai connection of X2 to the Americas hypothesis seems to me to be a bit weakened now due to this.

Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes says in this video (from about 2:15 to 3:40) that he thinks haplogroup X most likely came to America from Europe around 10,000 years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jTAueCy4O0 

In Stanford and Bradley’s book “Across Atlantic Ice” they say Solutrean-like artifacts found at three different sites along America’s east coast have been dated to fall within the Solutrean Date Range. These sites are named in the book as: “Cinmar”, “Miles Point”, and “Cactus Hill”. They say: “The artifact assemblage from Miles Point includes biface projectile points, blades, scrapers, and burins that are technologically close to artifacts found in Solutrean levels 4, 5, and 6 in La Riera Cave that date to 20,970 +- 50 RCYBP.”

In Across Atlantic Ice they do mention the Dyuktai culture. In their cluster analysis by “technology” dendrogram, the Dyuktai stone tools cluster most closely with the Beringian samples. However, in their cluster analysis by “tool type” dendrogram, their “Early Dyuktai” samples cluster most closely with their “Pre-Clovis” samples, and their “Late Dyuktai” samples cluster most closely with their Clovis and Solutrean samples. The authors say these two results were their only surprises in their analysis, and they say they may be attributed to small sample sizes. And they also say: “This analysis does not take flaking technology into account, so we do not think it is the best method to investigate possible historical connections.”

And here’s a picture of Patrick Stewart beside a reconstruction of Kennewick Man: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld...losqo1_400.jpg

----------


## nordicwarrior

I'm of the opinion that mainstream archeologists don't want to consider Solutreans Theory because it would "open a can of worms". I've heard rumblings of South American findings that don't fit ANY models (too old in some cases-- hints of Australian DNA or skeltal reports in others). I think ancient humans were better sailors than we realize with our current understanding.

Patrick Stewart link is a trip by the way! To what y-haplogroup do we think he might belong?

----------


## JS Bach

I've heard the same thing about some South American findings not fitting any models. Your guess is as good as mine.

Yeah, it would be interesting to know Patrick Stewart's Y-haplogroup, and his ANE percentage (mine's 13.7%). I'll go out on a limb and guess C this time.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Really you have him pegged as a C? 

I would put him solidly in the "I" lineage.

----------


## JS Bach

Well, seeing how La Brana was C and no one guessed it right, I thought I'd say why not.

But now that I think about it more, the eyes and wide jaw make me want to lean toward Q now.

----------


## JS Bach

I found this study of mtdna results for 16 Native North American tribes: http://www.researchgate.net/publicat..._United_States (Click where it says “FULL-TEXT” and go to page 4 where it has the table of haplogroup frequencies.) 

The Algonquin tribes all have the highest occurrences of haplogroup X. For the Micmac tribe (located in the Maritime provinces of Canada) 3 out of 6 belong to haplogroup X. Although admittedly, 6 is a small sample size. But the Wisconsin Chippawa and the two Ojibwa tribes (all located around the Great Lakes area) have the next highest frequencies of X, all at least 25%, and they have sample sizes of 62, 33, and 26. (I think Chippawa might just be another name for Ojibwa)

The two Cherokee tribes have the highest frequencies of mtdna haplogroup C. (52.5% and 43.3%, respectively) I suspect that the ANE component from the Mal'ta boy correlates with mtdna haplogroups X and C among Native North Americans. According to Eupedia, “C1 has also been found among modern Basques and Catalonians,” http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...1a_Y-DNA.shtml Again, right where Stanford and Bradley propose the Solutreans started their voyage “Across Atlantic Ice” to America from.

----------


## Nanda gikendaan

> The Algonquin tribes all have the highest occurrences of haplogroup X. For the Micmac tribe (located in the Maritime provinces of Canada) 3 out of 6 belong to haplogroup X. Although admittedly, 6 is a small sample size. But the Wisconsin Chippawa and the two Ojibwa tribes (all located around the Great Lakes area) have the next highest frequencies of X, all at least 25%, and they have sample sizes of 62, 33, and 26. (I think Chippawa might just be another name for Ojibwa)
> 
> The two Cherokee tribes have the highest frequencies of mtdna haplogroup C. (52.5% and 43.3%, respectively) I suspect that the ANE component from the Mal'ta boy correlates with mtdna haplogroups X and C among Native North Americans.


 The oral history of the Ojibwe/Chippewa state they migrated from the east coast. The Lenape who are called the “Old Ones” or “Grandfathers” in several Algonquin languages are thought to be the ancestral population. At contact the Lenape inhabited the area just south of the Míkmaq.

There is no connection between the Algonquin and the Iroquoian tribes (Cherokee), The Algonquin are patrilineal and the Iroquoian are matrilineal. Even today, there is almost no intermarriage between those tribes.

So finding a male/female haplogroups (X/C) connection between the Algonquin/Iroquoian tribes is not likely. If haplogroups X/C are found in those tribes then they arrived separately, because the Iroquoian tribes say they migrated to the northeast from the southwest US.

----------


## JS Bach

Thanks for the info. In the study I linked to there were no instances of haplogroup X among the Iroquoian tribes, whereas there was a good amount among the Algonquin tribes. Mtdna C1 seems likely to me to be an older lineage in the Americas, based on its wide distribution there. It also seems to me to have no less diversity in Europe than in East Asia, based on the number of mutations on the C1e (and C1f) branches, compared with the C1a branches. There’s a tree listing those mutations in a diagram on page 165 of this paper: http://digital.library.adelaide.edu..../1/02whole.pdf So far, most of the earliest evidence of human settlement in the Americas has been found on the East Coast of North America, but as the authors say in the book “Across Atlantic Ice”: “Of course, wherever we look, be it North Atlantic or North Pacific, we must keep in mind that the best evidence is undoubtedly below the waves on the continental shelves. This is also true in southwestern Europe.”

----------


## Nanda gikendaan

> Thanks for the info. In the study I linked to there were no instances of haplogroup X among the Iroquoian tribes, whereas there was a good amount among the Algonquin tribes. Mtdna C1 seems likely to me to be an older lineage in the Americas, based on its wide distribution there.


 It seems we’re NOT talking about the same thing.

Because your reference was to Y-DNA; I mistakenly thought you were pointing out 

1. "mtDNA X" was predominate in the Algonquin 
2. “Y-DNA C” was predominate among the Cherokee
3. that combination only found in North America, had a correlation with European DNA/ANE 

I didn’t notice you were talking about mtDNA in both cases, I’m somewhat confused as to the point you were making.

“Y-DNA C” is only found in North America, predominately in the west; where as “mtDNA C” is found throughout the Americas.

I don’t see how mtDNA C & X would indicate an affinity with Europe, since mtDNA C is found primarily in Asia.

----------


## JS Bach

Yeah, I know it’s confusing with the different C haplogroups. I think y-dna C and mtdna C mirror each other though in that they likely were both much more prevalent in Europe in ancient times compared with today, though I think that came about through different migrations. Mtdna C has turned up in many ancient dna results in Europe: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml Also, to my knowledge there is only one distinct subclade of mtdna C1 found in East Asia, whereas there are two distinct subclades of C1 found in Europe, C1e and C1f, at least according to the paper I linked to: http://digital.library.adelaide.edu..../1/02whole.pdf with C1f being found in ancient dna dating to 7,500 years ago in northwestern Russia next to Finland. The other subclades of C1: C1b, C1c, and C1d are said to be unique to Native Americans.

In another link I gave:* http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...1a_Y-DNA.shtml* if you scroll down to a heading in the middle of the webpage that says: “The maternal lineages (mtDNA) corresponding to haplogroup R1a” it gives a paragraph listing places where some of the ancient mtdna C has been found. Included there are the 4,000-year-old fair-haired Tarim mummies from northwestern China, 14 out of 20 of which belong to mtdna C4. C4c is a unique clade among Native Americans. Regarding the C1 that it says there has been found among modern Basques and Catalonians, I guess we’ll have to wait and see what subclades they belong to.

----------


## Nanda gikendaan

> if you scroll down to a heading in the middle of the webpage that says: “The maternal lineages (mtDNA) corresponding to haplogroup R1a” it gives a paragraph listing places where some of the ancient mtdna C has been found. Included there are the 4,000-year-old fair-haired Tarim mummies from northwestern China, 14 out of 20 of which belong to mtdna C4. C4c is a unique clade among Native Americans. Regarding the C1 that it says there has been found among modern Basques and Catalonians, I guess we’ll have to wait and see what subclades they belong to.


*Origin and Post-Glacial Dispersal of Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups C and D in Northern Asia*
Excerpt: The present-day variation of haplogroups C and D suggests that these mtDNA clades expanded before the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), with their oldest lineages being present in eastern Asia.

The pre-LGM origin of mtDNA C is in East Asia. Native American mtDNA originates from this period. 

All other variants of mtDNA in East/Northeast Asia stem from post-glacial re-colonization of northern Asia and the reason Native Americans and North/East Asians are not more closely related.

mtDNA C entered Europe during the middle Holocene and European mtDNA is not closer to Native American mtDNA than the East/Northeast Asian mtDNA is.

Native Americans have NO genetic connection to Europeans; in spite of the fact Europeans and Native Americans have a genetic connection to Northeast Asia.

----------


## martiko

> The problem with the distribution of R1 and X2 is that it appears to be limited tothe eastern half North America. That would seem to suggest a rather recent origin, otherwise it would be evenly distributed over both continents.
> Also, any migration by foot would have to happen during the glacial maximum, I would think. There's still a lot of blue water at the North Pole that was iced over.


really R1 among amrindians (Blackfeet) because they seem to be the very rare survivors of the cataclysme caused by the explosion of the meteorite, otherwise they have no DNA of epoch because everything burned during years on all northwest of the North America.(11500BCE)

01Pacific_Ocean_laea_relief_location_map.jpgPossible trajectory

----------


## LeBrok

> really R1 among am�rindians (Blackfeet) because they seem to be the very *rare survivors* of the catclysme caused by the explosion of the meteorite, otherwise they have no DNA of epoch because *everything burned* during years on all northwest of the North America.(11500BCE)


What, every DNA burned but somehow people (Blackfoot) survived?!:43:

----------


## martiko

Very for the time being theory is, and for the survivors they are those located the most distant from the place of low atmosphere where blew up the meteorite, therefore least on the West
it is determined the redemption of all kinds of big animals and arboreal flora, at the same time to Clovis in the precise date of the disaster (tiger, lion, huge buffalo, horses, huge bear, mamouth,....)

----------


## JS Bach

> *Origin and Post-Glacial Dispersal of Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups C and D in Northern Asia*
> Excerpt: The present-day variation of haplogroups C and D suggests that these mtDNA clades expanded before the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), with their oldest lineages being present in eastern Asia.
> 
> The pre-LGM origin of mtDNA C is in East Asia.


 I agree with that part. Mtdna C and D are on the East Asian “M” branch of the mtdna tree. However, I suspect y-dna Q (and R) probably originated in Northern Asia as well and were originally caucasoid, or at least mostly caucasoid. The dna of the 24,000-year-old boy from Mal’ta, South-Central Siberia is more closely related to western Eurasians than eastern Eurasians, and belongs to haplogroup R*, which is close to the base of Q on the y-dna tree.


We can speculate as to when mtdna C entered Europe. My view is that mtdna C probably entered Europe with the proto-Solutreans, and from there crossed the North Atlantic to North America, but I’m expecting many people to disagree with that. I think the best evidence I have for that is contained in the book “Across Atlantic Ice” by Stanford and Bradley.


To anyone who’s interested, Stanford gives an overview of the book in a lecture broken down into 6 videos on youtube. In the fourth part here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl3t4rRo3SM he talks about haplogroup X from around 4:00 on. From Wikipedia, Dennis Stanford is an archaeologist and director of the Paleoindian/Paleoecology program at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I agree with that part. Mtdna C and D are on the East Asian “M” branch of the mtdna tree. However, I suspect y-dna Q (and R) probably originated in Northern Asia as well and were originally caucasoid, or at least mostly caucasoid. The dna of the 24,000-year-old boy from Mal’ta, South-Central Siberia is more closely related to western Eurasians than eastern Eurasians, and belongs to haplogroup R*, which is close to the base of Q on the y-dna tree.
> 
> 
> We can speculate as to when mtdna C entered Europe. My view is that mtdna C probably entered Europe with the proto-Solutreans, and from there crossed the North Atlantic to North America, but I’m expecting many people to disagree with that. I think the best evidence I have for that is contained in the book “Across Atlantic Ice” by Stanford and Bradley.
> 
> 
> To anyone who’s interested, Stanford gives an overview of the book in a lecture broken down into 6 videos on youtube. In the fourth part here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl3t4rRo3SM he talks about haplogroup X from around 4:00 on. From Wikipedia, Dennis Stanford is an archaeologist and director of the Paleoindian/Paleoecology program at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution.


I haven't read the book by Stanford and Bradley, so perhaps you could give me a brief explanation why you've concluded that any connection between Europeans and pre-Columbian Native Americans happened as a result of movement across the Atlantic, as opposed to a common origin in southern Siberia that resulted in the ancestors of Native Americans going across the Bering Straits and the ancestors of Europeans heading west from Siberia into Europe. I'll look at the Youtube videos and perhaps they will address my concerns, but can you summarize here?

----------


## JS Bach

> I haven't read the book by Stanford and Bradley, so perhaps you could give me a brief explanation why you've concluded that any connection between Europeans and pre-Columbian Native Americans happened as a result of movement across the Atlantic, as opposed to a common origin in southern Siberia that resulted in the ancestors of Native Americans going across the Bering Straits and the ancestors of Europeans heading west from Siberia into Europe. I'll look at the Youtube videos and perhaps they will address my concerns, but can you summarize here?


 Well, I think seeing Stanford presenting the videos starting with part 1 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tjoHMMPH90 would convey a far better explanation of it than I could ever give, but basically he looks at the archaeological findings and artifacts of pre-Clovis and Clovis sites in North America, compares them with the Solutrean ones in southwestern Europe, and concludes that the former are derived from the Solutrean. I’m not a stone tool knapper so I can’t say with certainty if he’s correct about that, but he backs up his points with lots of reasons for his claims, and I think he does it in an entertaining fashion as well. I know the topic of stone tools may not sound very interesting, but he has a very easy-going demeanour, is very experienced with the topic, and presents lots of graphs and pictures with his jokes sprinkled in throughout the talk.

----------


## martiko

> What, every DNA burned but somehow people (Blackfoot) survived?!:43:


Polymorphismes des groupes sanguins :



> The polymorphisme ABO is found everywhere in the world, except for the native populations of Central America and for the South where alone the group O is present.
> 
> *In the northwest of North America, they find the highest worldwide frequency of the group A to Indian Blackfoot and Blood.*
> 
> It is east of Asia where the prevalency of the *group B is the strongest.*
> 
> *The B group*, it seems, penetrated into Europe from Asia in the course of the different waves of plagues, what explains that his frequency diminishes to an est/sud-ouest gradient, from Russia to the Basque Country.
> 
> *It is nonexistent in amrindiennes populations and aborigines of Australia.*
> ...


therefore it is also determined at home big proportion of A followed of B and O weaker and it in contradiction with other amrindiens.
And as to the different europens'( Russian, Basque, Scandinavian) they seem to be comparable. They are therefore one descendants different.

High frequency
O negative: Basque and Icelandic
A positive: German and Scandinavian
B positive: Europeans (from Russian to basques)

----------


## Nanda gikendaan

> I agree with that part. Mtdna C and D are on the East Asian “M” branch of the mtdna tree. However, I suspect y-dna Q (and R) probably originated in Northern Asia as well and were originally caucasoid, or at least mostly caucasoid. The dna of the 24,000-year-old boy from Mal’ta, South-Central Siberia is more closely related to western Eurasians than eastern Eurasians, and belongs to haplogroup R*, which is close to the base of Q on the y-dna tree.
> 
> We can speculate as to when mtdna C entered Europe. My view is that mtdna C probably entered Europe with the proto-Solutreans, and from there crossed the North Atlantic to North America, but I’m expecting many people to disagree with that. I think the best evidence I have for that is contained in the book “Across Atlantic Ice” by Stanford and Bradley


 The problem with this theory is: R1 has only been in Europe for about 5-6000 years, which does not coincide with the Solutrean period, so if there was a migration from Europe it was not the Solutrean.

Secondly, there is no scientific evidence of pre-colonization R1 in the Americas.

The only source for R1 in the Americas is Wikipedia. That’s because there are a few “core Wikipedia Editors" who promote the Solutrean Theory.

Other core Editors and the public have pointed out many times that the references cited do not support pre-colonization R1 in the Americas. It’s only the Wikipedia produced maps which show R1 in the Americas. 

No Scientific study has ever produced a map indicating R1 is an Amerindian haplotype.

The uniparental markers found in the 24,000 year old Mal’ta boy were Siberian/East Asian. Although those markers are found in Europe/West Eurasia today, those markers were not European/West Eurasian 24,000 years ago nor was the Mal’ta boy Caucasoid.

----------


## JS Bach

> The problem with this theory is: R1 has only been in Europe for about 5-6000 years, which does not coincide with the Solutrean period, so if there was a migration from Europe it was not the Solutrean.
> 
> Secondly, there is no scientific evidence of pre-colonization R1 in the Americas.
> 
> The only source for R1 in the Americas is Wikipedia. That’s because there are a few “core Wikipedia Editors" who promote the Solutrean Theory.
> 
> Other core Editors and the public have pointed out many times that the references cited do not support pre-colonization R1 in the Americas. It’s only the Wikipedia produced maps which show R1 in the Americas. 
> 
> No Scientific study has ever produced a map indicating R1 is an Amerindian haplotype.
> ...


 Well I guess we’ll see where the evidence leads with those things in the future.

----------


## Aberdeen

> The problem with this theory is: R1 has only been in Europe for about 5-6000 years, which does not coincide with the Solutrean period, so if there was a migration from Europe it was not the Solutrean.
> 
> Secondly, there is no scientific evidence of pre-colonization R1 in the Americas.
> 
> The only source for R1 in the Americas is Wikipedia. That’s because there are a few “core Wikipedia Editors" who promote the Solutrean Theory.
> 
> Other core Editors and the public have pointed out many times that the references cited do not support pre-colonization R1 in the Americas. It’s only the Wikipedia produced maps which show R1 in the Americas. 
> 
> No Scientific study has ever produced a map indicating R1 is an Amerindian haplotype.
> ...


Although I'm not a fan of the Solutrean theory, I'm curious as to how you know that R1 has only been in Europe for about 5-6000 years. If you have a lot of YDNA samples for remains that date prior to that period and that were found in those areas that currently are very high in R (Wales, Ireland and the Basque country), please tell me where this data has been published. Also, if there are scientific studies that show that all of the R1 YDNA tested in the Native American samples are from European subclades, please tell me where this data has been published (and no, a statement like "it is assumed" is not scientific proof). I'm sure some of the R1 results that have been found in Native Americans are as a result of European contact (the Cherokee are fairly mixed, for example) but I'm particularly interested in the results that people like Bortolini and Malhi found among Dene people such as the Chippewyan (62.5 R1 and zero other "European" Y haplotypes) and the Dogrib (40% R1 and zero other European haplotypes). If these results weren't tested any further than R1, we have to say that we have no data on that particular question.

----------


## kamani

> nor was the Mal’ta boy Caucasoid.


Can you back this up with a reference. It got my curiosity..

----------


## martiko

> The problem with this theory is: R1 has only been in Europe for about 5-6000 years, which does not coincide with the Solutrean period, so if there was a migration from Europe it was not the Solutrean.
> 
> Secondly, there is no scientific evidence of pre-colonization R1 in the Americas.
> 
> The only source for R1 in the Americas is Wikipedia. That’s because there are a few “core Wikipedia Editors" who promote the Solutrean Theory.
> 
> Other core Editors and the public have pointed out many times that the references cited do not support pre-colonization R1 in the Americas. It’s only the Wikipedia produced maps which show R1 in the Americas. 
> 
> No Scientific study has ever produced a map indicating R1 is an Amerindian haplotype.
> ...


R1 is a theory but not a certainty!
What is proved to be it is the intersidereal catclysme which endes the physiognomy of the North America by ruining the colossal forests of the middle west and disintegrating colossal floes.

_...... In October, 2007, a team of 26 researchers belonging to 16 institutions had moved forward the theory of the fall of several comets to explain the glacial period of 1300 years obviously responsible for the redemption of several animal kinds among which mammoths as well as division of the prehistoric culture said about Clovis, one of the most ancient having populated the American continent .......__
.....One of the coats of sediments rich in nano-diamonds of cosmic origin recuperated Clovis directly with relics of culture on the archeological site very rich in Murray Springs in Arizona (southwest).

These nano-diamonds form in very high temperatures and under very strong pressures created by a cosmic impact. They find it in meteorites. Nano-diamonds can be produced on the Earth but only by a very strong explosion or by chemical vaporization......_

----------


## martiko

> Although I'm not a fan of the Solutrean theory, I'm curious as to how you know that R1 has only been in Europe for about 5-6000 years. If you have a lot of YDNA samples for remains that date prior to that period and that were found in those areas that currently are very high in R (Wales, Ireland and the Basque country), please tell me where this data has been published. Also, if there are scientific studies that show that all of the R1 YDNA tested in the Native American samples are from European subclades, please tell me where this data has been published (and no, a statement like "it is assumed" is not scientific proof). I'm sure some of the R1 results that have been found in Native Americans are as a result of European contact (the Cherokee are fairly mixed, for example) but I'm particularly interested in the results that people like Bortolini and Malhi found among Dene people such as the Chippewyan (62.5 R1 and zero other "European" Y haplotypes) and the Dogrib (40% R1 and zero other European haplotypes). If these results weren't tested any further than R1, we have to say that we have no data on that particular question.


R1 is not an european but a Siberian, and first porter R1b has only 14000 years the first R1a old and only 12000 years old, therefore it participants do not belong to Clovis. 
Ancient European from the west the only ones did not belong to maitriser the techniques of size of the obsidian or flint
better aspiring two seem to be Q3 and R1 compared with the Indian tribes of lowlands, but anything is proved and every rest theory, and everything remains to prove. And how to explain Mt DNA X and Y DNA R1?

----------


## sparkey

> Although I'm not a fan of the Solutrean theory, I'm curious as to how you know that R1 has only been in Europe for about 5-6000 years. If you have a lot of YDNA samples for remains that date prior to that period and that were found in those areas that currently are very high in R (Wales, Ireland and the Basque country), please tell me where this data has been published.


To be fair, she said "about." More importantly is her point, which can be substantiated by published data, that there is evidence against R1 being so ancient in the Solutrean region. Such evidence would include modern SNP diversity, modern STR diversity, and assorted pre-Copper Age ancient samples. Asking for much more at this point would be asking to prove a negative. There needs to be evidence _for_ R1 in the Solutrean region during the Solutrean period before we can continue this side of the discussion.




> Also, if there are scientific studies that show that all of the R1 YDNA tested in the Native American samples are from European subclades, please tell me where this data has been published (and no, a statement like "it is assumed" is not scientific proof). I'm sure some of the R1 results that have been found in Native Americans are as a result of European contact (the Cherokee are fairly mixed, for example) but I'm particularly interested in the results that people like Bortolini and Malhi found among Dene people such as the Chippewyan (62.5 R1 and zero other "European" Y haplotypes) and the Dogrib (40% R1 and zero other European haplotypes). If these results weren't tested any further than R1, we have to say that we have no data on that particular question.


We have data on several tribes, from plenty of R1 carrying Amerindians who have joined public DNA projects, as I linked earlier in this thread. All have been apparently European lines. Sure, there are some tribes that haven't been sampled like that, and it would be worthwhile to sample them, but until that happens, "it is assumed" and it is _justified_ to be assumed based on the weight of current evidence that R1 in Amerindians is European. Asking more at this point is, again, asking to prove a negative.

----------


## JS Bach

> To be fair, he said "about." More importantly is his point, which can be substantiated by published data, that there is evidence against R1 being so ancient in the Solutrean region. Such evidence would include modern SNP diversity, modern STR diversity, and assorted pre-Copper Age ancient samples. Asking for much more at this point would be asking to prove a negative. There needs to be evidence _for_ R1 in the Solutrean region during the Solutrean period before we can continue this side of the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> We have data on several tribes, from plenty of R1 carrying Amerindians who have joined public DNA projects, as I linked earlier in this thread. All have been apparently European lines. Sure, there are some tribes that haven't been sampled like that, and it would be worthwhile to sample them, but until that happens, "it is assumed" and it is _justified_ to be assumed based on the weight of current evidence that R1 in Amerindians is European. Asking more at this point is, again, asking to prove a negative.


 With due respect, there’s another possible (if far-fetched) scenario for how R1 might have entered the Americas before 10,000 ybp. After the LGM ended around 16,000 ybp the ice sheets retreated for a few thousand years, but then the Younger Dryas came and the ice sheets would have re-expanded again until about 12,000 ybp, and they might have extended to the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland. And if it was as late as 12,000 years ago, the R1 might have even been R1b1a2 (M269) and hence be hard to distinguish from modern European R1b. There are speculations as to other ancient European cultures being descendants of the Solutreans, such as the Swiderian culture, 10,000 ybp in Poland and the surrounding areas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiderian I wonder if there’s some R1b1a2* in that region that matches some found in Amerindians?

----------


## Aberdeen

> R1 is not an european but a Siberian, and first porter R1b has only 14000 years the first R1a old and only 12000 years old, therefore it participants do not belong to Clovis. 
> Ancient European from the west the only ones did not belong to maitriser the techniques of size of the obsidian or flint
> better aspiring two seem to be Q3 and R1 compared with the Indian tribes of lowlands, but anything is proved and every rest theory, and everything remains to prove. And how to explain Mt DNA X and Y DNA R1?


I wasn't talking about Clovis. As I've said elsewhere, I suspect that mtDNA X arrived in the Americas from Siberia with the second wave of settlement, about 8,000 years ago. And I'd like to find out whether that wave of settlement included Y haplotype R1, although it could have included only Y haplotypes Q and C.

----------


## Aberdeen

> To be fair, he said "about." More importantly is his point, which can be substantiated by published data, that there is evidence against R1 being so ancient in the Solutrean region. Such evidence would include modern SNP diversity, modern STR diversity, and assorted pre-Copper Age ancient samples. Asking for much more at this point would be asking to prove a negative. There needs to be evidence _for_ R1 in the Solutrean region during the Solutrean period before we can continue this side of the discussion.
> ...........


As I've said before, if there's any evidence of a connection between the Solutreans and Clovis, I think that would date back to a common point of origin in Siberia, which seems to me to be much more probable than Solutreans journeying across the ice in the north Atlantic. And I didn't at any point say that I thought R1 had been in Solutrean territory that far back - as I've said before, I think R1b reached the Atlantic coastline during the Neolithic. I said I wasn't a fan of the Solutrean/Clovis idea, I just questioned the statement that R1 has only been in Europe for about 5-6000 years, and asked for evidence. Even if I'm wrong about R1b being in western Europe prior to the Copper Age, there's good reason to believe that R1a might have been in eastern Europe for a fairly long time. But I did ask specifically about evidence that R1 wasn't in those areas where R1b is now most common (Wales, Ireland and the Basque country). If you know of a lot of Y haplotype samples from those areas from the Neolithic, which show a lack of R1 (specifically R1b) please tell me where this information has been published. Because I believe there are only a few Neolithic Y haplotype samples so far, and none of them are from Wales, Ireland or the Basque country. No, it's not reasonable to ask someone to prove a negative, but it's also not reasonable to assume that a lack of data is evidence of anything.

----------


## Nanda gikendaan

> I just questioned the statement that R1 has only been in Europe for about 5-6000 years, and asked for evidence. Even if I'm wrong about R1b being in western Europe prior to the Copper Age, there's good reason to believe that R1a might have been in eastern Europe for a fairly long time. But I did ask specifically about evidence that R1 wasn't in those areas where R1b is now most common (Wales, Ireland and the Basque country). If you know of a lot of Y haplotype samples from those areas from the Neolithic, which show a lack of R1 (specifically R1b) please tell me where this information has been published. Because I believe there are only a few Neolithic Y haplotype samples so far, and none of them are from Wales, Ireland or the Basque country. No, it's not reasonable to ask someone to prove a negative, but it's also not reasonable to assume that a lack of data is evidence of anything.


 
*R1b in Europe
R1b-S21 => 3,000 years ago (in Frisia or Central Europe)
R1b-S28 => 3,500 years ago (around the Alps)
R1b-L21 => 4,000 years ago (in Central or Eastern Europe)*
R1b1b2 => 10,000 years ago (north or south of the Caucasus)
R1a => 17,000 years ago (in southern Russia)
R1b => 18,000 years ago (around the Caspian Sea or Central Asia)
R => 28,000 years ago (in the Central Asia)

eupedia. com / europe / origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml

*History of R1a* - The Germanic branch
The first major expansion of R1a took place with the westward propagation of the Corded Ware (or Battle Axe) culture (*2800-1800 BCE*) from the northern forest-steppe in the Yamna homeland. This was the first wave of R1a into Europe, the one that brought the Z283 subclade to Germany and the Netherlands, and Z284 to Scandinavia.

eupedia. com / europe / Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml

As a new member I'm not allowed to link, so this is all I can provide.

----------


## Nanda gikendaan

> Can you back this up with a reference. It got my curiosity..


His DNA indicated he had, brown hair and eyes; and freckled skin. He was likely similar to people from Oceania, Southeast Asia or Native Americans.

----------


## Aberdeen

> *R1b in Europe
> R1b-S21 => 3,000 years ago (in Frisia or Central Europe)
> R1b-S28 => 3,500 years ago (around the Alps)
> R1b-L21 => 4,000 years ago (in Central or Eastern Europe)*
> R1b1b2 => 10,000 years ago (north or south of the Caucasus)
> R1a => 17,000 years ago (in southern Russia)
> R1b => 18,000 years ago (around the Caspian Sea or Central Asia)
> R => 28,000 years ago (in the Central Asia)
> 
> ...


I'm aware of those opinions, which were created by a very knowledgeable person, based on the data we have available at this time. Nevertheless, I repeat: we don't have data for any of the areas where R1b is most common today, and we don't have a lot of Neolithic Y DNA data for any part of Europe. I don't think we can make definitive conclusions in the absence of sufficient data.

----------


## JS Bach

I found this table of _HVR-I sequences_ found in modern-day populations of Eurasia possibly belonging to mtdna C1: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQ FjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plosgenetics.org%2Fartic le%2FfetchSingleRepresentation.action%3Furi%3Dinfo %3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003296.s004&ei=q1 zwUruIKKiIyAHlwIGgBA&usg=AFQjCNH4DOx_NCUiWp0LFrX2i cc8eToTYg&bvm=bv.60444564,d.aWc

 

They have three “Icelander” samples, which I gather are the C1e clade ones. They also have a “German” sample that matches the set of mutations of the Icelanders, and is the only one on the list that matches them completely. So perhaps it’s another C1e. 



Then there’s another one on the list called “Canary Islander” who matches that set of mutations except for one missing – a 311C – and who has no exact matches on the table. The Canary Islands are off the coast of Morocco, not that far from Spain, which led me to think Solutreans.



Then I found if you google “Blonde mummies Canary Islands” lots of interesting things come up. For instance, this guy: http://www.atlan.org/images/articles.../zoom/fig1.gif Apparently, on the Encyclopedia Britannica it says under *Guanche and Canario*: “... Both aboriginal groups had brown complexion, blue or gray eyes, and blondish hair, and these characteristics still persist in a large number of present inhabitants of the islands, but otherwise they are scarcely distinguishable in appearance or culture from the people of Spain.”: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...he-and-Canario I don’t know if the picture of the guy has merit, though.


Edit: These samples in the first link I provided just display the HVR-I sequences, so are not full displays of the haplogroup membership criteria. And it is possible that the Canary Islander and the German sample don't meet the full criteria for belonging to mtdna haplogroup C1.

----------


## kamani

> His DNA indicated he had, brown hair and eyes; and freckled skin. He was likely similar to people from Oceania, Southeast Asia or Native Americans.


brown hair and eyes and freckled skin sounds more like South European. I have not seen a full Chinese person with freckled skin or brown hair. Do you have a source or just assuming?

----------


## ElHorsto

> I have not seen a full Chinese person with freckled skin or brown hair.


Freckling is quite common among east asians.

----------


## Nanda gikendaan

> brown hair and eyes and freckled skin sounds more like South European. I have not seen a full Chinese person with freckled skin or brown hair. Do you have a source or just assuming?


 This description is in the reports. (I can’t link to anything); but if you Google the articles you will eventually fine the articles that give that description.

*Figure 2: Admixture graph for MA-1 and 16 complete genomes,* places the the Mal’ta boy between the Mari and Indian (India) populations.
.nature. com /nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature12736_F2.html

----------


## kamani

> This description is in the reports. (I can’t link to anything); but if you Google the articles you will eventually fine the articles that give that description.
> 
> *Figure 2: Admixture graph for MA-1 and 16 complete genomes,* places the the Mal’ta boy between the Mari and Indian (India) populations.
> .nature. com /nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature12736_F2.html


I found some stuff on it: http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2013/2013...ive_americans/. But you might have misread something. Here is what it says:

_Instead, both the mitochondrial and nuclear genomes of MA-1 indicate that he was related to modern-day western Eurasians. This result paints a picture of Eurasia 24,000 years ago which is quite different from the present-day context. The genome of MA-1 indicates that prehistoric populations related to modern western Eurasians occupied a wider geographical range into northeast Eurasia than they do today.
......
_
_The most significant finding that the MA-1 genome reveals is its relation to modern Native Americans. This relative of present-day western Eurasians shows close affinity to modern Native Americans, but surprisingly not to East Asians who are regarded as being genetically closely related to Native Americans._

So he represents a European component in the Native Americans genome.

----------


## LeBrok

> I found some stuff on it: http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2013/2013...ive_americans/. But you might have misread something. Here is what it says:
> 
> _Instead, both the mitochondrial and nuclear genomes of MA-1 indicate that he was related to modern-day western Eurasians. This result paints a picture of Eurasia 24,000 years ago which is quite different from the present-day context. The genome of MA-1 indicates that prehistoric populations related to modern western Eurasians occupied a wider geographical range into northeast Eurasia than they do today.
> ......
> _
> _The most significant finding that the MA-1 genome reveals is its relation to modern Native Americans. This relative of present-day western Eurasians shows close affinity to modern Native Americans, but surprisingly not to East Asians who are regarded as being genetically closely related to Native Americans._
> 
> So he represents a European component in the Native Americans genome.


He represents Ancient Western Eurasian component found in European and Native American genome.

----------


## Nanda gikendaan

> But you might have misread something. Here is what it says:
> 
> _Instead, both the mitochondrial and nuclear genomes of MA-1 indicate that he was related to modern-day western Eurasians. This result paints a picture of Eurasia 24,000 years ago which is quite different from the present-day context. The genome of MA-1 indicates that prehistoric populations related to modern western Eurasians occupied a wider geographical range into northeast Eurasia than they do today.
> ......
> _
> _The most significant finding that the MA-1 genome reveals is its relation to modern Native Americans. This relative of present-day western Eurasians shows close affinity to modern Native Americans, but surprisingly not to East Asians who are regarded as being genetically closely related to Native Americans._
> 
> So he represents a European component in the Native Americans genome.


 Native Americans have NO European genetic connection. On the other hand European have a genetic connection to a Siberian/East Asian population that had genes that are only found in Native Americans today.

The Mal’ta boy’s had “autosomal DNA” markers which are only found in Native Americans. His uniparental markers (Y-DNA R and mtDNA U) were Siberian/East Asian. All though those markers are found in Europe/West Eurasia today, those markers were not European/West Eurasian 24,000 years ago.

The DNA found in the Mal’ta boy is of “Pre-LGM” Northeast Asian origin. The presence of Native American “autosomal markers” in the Mal’ta boy indicates the Native American genetic signature originates from this period.

All other variants of East/Northeast Asian DNA stem from post-glacial re-colonization of northern Asia and the reason Native Americans and East Asians are not more closely related.

*Since the facts don’t fit as originally reported*, they have since developed a *New Theory*.

Europeans descend from 3 ancestral populations, and Native Americans descend from 2 different populations. But 1 Native American ancestral population mixed into the European population. 

If you look at the diagram you can see Native Americans (Karitiana) DO NOT have a European genetic connection.

This NEW theory explains why Native American DNA is found in Europeans and European DNA is NOT found in Native Americans. 

(The blue in the diagram represents modern populations and the pink represent ancient populations.)

img14.imageshack.us/img14/8418/55h9.png

Past the link into search, then go to Images. (The diagram should be the first image)

----------


## kamani

So to make a long story short: Native Americans descend from a mix of 2 populations:
1. 20000+ years old Siberian population that is more closely related to modern Caucasian Europeans. 
2. A mystery population that is closer to modern East-Asians. 

The mix probably happened in America since the paleolithic Siberian samples are not related to modern East-Asians.

----------


## Nanda gikendaan

> So to make a long story short: Native Americans descend from a mix of 2 populations:
> 1. 20000+ years old Siberian population that is more closely related to modern Caucasian Europeans. 
> 2. A mystery population that is closer to modern East-Asians. 
> 
> The mix probably happened in America since the paleolithic Siberian samples are not related to modern East-Asians.


No, the mystery population are modern East-Asians

----------


## Nanda gikendaan

The diagram, is not all inclusive

1. The East Asian populations absorbed remnants or the ANE/Native American populations as they re-colonized the northern areas.

2. There was gene flow from the Americas into the re-colonizing populations.

So, Native Americans did not descend from East Asians (as the diagram indicates) but admixed into them. That’s why Native Americans and East Asians share some haplotypes, but are not closely related.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Native Americans have NO European genetic connection. On the other hand European have a genetic connection to a Siberian/East Asian population that had genes that are only found in Native Americans today.
> 
> The Mal’ta boy’s had “autosomal DNA” markers which are only found in Native Americans. His uniparental markers (Y-DNA R and mtDNA U) were Siberian/East Asian. All though those markers are found in Europe/West Eurasia today, those markers were not European/West Eurasian 24,000 years ago.
> 
> The DNA found in the Mal’ta boy is of “Pre-LGM” Northeast Asian origin. The presence of Native American “autosomal markers” in the Mal’ta boy indicates the Native American genetic signature originates from this period.
> 
> All other variants of East/Northeast Asian DNA stem from post-glacial re-colonization of northern Asia and the reason Native Americans and East Asians are not more closely related.
> 
> *Since the facts don’t fit as originally reported*, they have since developed a *New Theory*.
> ...


I notice you've chosen to list your mtDNA haplogroup but not your YDNA haplogroup.

----------


## martiko

> I'm aware of those opinions, which were created by a very knowledgeable person, based on the data we have available at this time. Nevertheless, I repeat: we don't have data for any of the areas where R1b is most common today, and we don't have a lot of Neolithic Y DNA data for any part of Europe. I don't think we can make definitive conclusions in the absence of sufficient data.


R1a => 17,000 years for generations of 35 years and also the women 
R1b => 18,000 years for generations of 35 years and also the women
R1a => 12,000 years for generations of 25 years and also the women Volga / tray can be north-Iranian
R1b => 14,000 years for generations of 25 years and also the women can be: Alta /Region sea of Ob/Central Asia

But attention it is about the first mutation on an indivdu and yet about a group and therefore it will be necessary to rely much less than age for appearance of R1-a / b

it is noted that in Europe R1 or R1b do not exist in this epoch but that other very different groups are found and it proves the not existence of R1b.

most known example mummy in Europe old of 5500 years: Otz with G2a2b / K2
oetzi-2-dabb7.jpg
but they find the old markers for:
R1 among amrindiens and central Asia and R1b among siberian / ouralian Tshuvash and R1a among tocharian and indians for not much moved away epochs.

----------


## Aberdeen

[QUOTE=martiko;426039]
............

it is noted that in Europe R1 or R1b do not exist in this epoch but that other very different groups are found and it proves the not existence of R1b.
...........
/QUOTE]

No, not having sufficient data doesn't actually prove anything, IMO. But, given that techniques for extracting YDNA are rapidly improving, I think we should soon start to get more data about Y haplogroups in Atlantic Europe. Then perhaps those who believe that R1b only arrived in Atlantic Europe during the Bronze Age will be proven to be correct, but I think it's also possible that those of us who think that R1b arrived in Atlantic Europe during the Neolithic could be the ones who are correct. I think we will have real answers soon.

----------


## Nanda gikendaan

> I notice you've chosen to list your mtDNA haplogroup but not your YDNA haplogroup.


That's because I'm female, and I use my mtDNA to track the geographical distribution of my tribe/linguistic group.

I started a mtDNA database to see if I could track tribal relationships (in the Americas). But, very few studies break down the haplogroups into subclade and, for much of the subclade which are identified they don't know the tribes who the mtDNA belongs to.

It's not important for them to know about the tribes as individual populations. They simply see the populations as a single population who are all the same.

I don't think that will change any time soon. because, most studies focus on "Who colonized the Americas?"

Was it the East Asian, the Siberians, the _Oceanian_ or the Europeans, on and on.

----------


## Aberdeen

> That's because I'm female, and I use my mtDNA to track the geographical distribution of my tribe/linguistic group.
> 
> I started a mtDNA database to see if I could track tribal relationships (in the Americas). But, very few studies break down the haplogroups into subclade and, for much of the subclade which are identified they don't know the tribes who the mtDNA belongs to.
> 
> It's not important for them to know about the tribes as individual populations. They simply see the populations as a single population who are all the same.
> 
> I don't think that will change any time soon. because, most studies focus on "Who colonized the Americas?"
> 
> Was it the East Asian, the Siberians, the _Oceanian_ or the Europeans, on and on.


Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'd really like to see a deeper analysis of subclades etc., so that we could know what ideas are worth pursuing and which ones aren't. But I don't think we'll get the information we need from individuals who get their personal DNA analysed, because many of them are of mixed origins. I know that many Native Americans, particularly the more traditional ones, refuse to participate in those kind of studies because they mistrust what the data will be used for. And who can blame them?

----------


## Nanda gikendaan

> I know that many Native Americans, particularly the more traditional ones, refuse to participate in those kind of studies because they mistrust what the data will be used for. And who can blame them?


That's a misconception, many tribes have been tested

For the US alone, I could list maybe 15-20 studies. Here are a few, so you can see the number of tribes that were tested in these studies.

Lorenz and Smith (1996) - Washo (38), Yokut (17), Havasupai (18), Quechan (23), Kumeyaay (16), Hopi (4), Hokan (6), Bella Coola (36), CA Uto-Aztecan (14), Chumash (21)

Malhi, (2001) – Pima (43), Sioux (45), Cheyenne/Arapaho (35) Apache (38) Navajo (64). Chippewa (28), Pawnee (5), Cherokee (37), Zuni (26), Jemez (36) Micmac (6) Kiliwa (7) Wishram (20)

Zegura, Stephen L. (2004) - 588 Native Americans from 18 populations. Tanana (12), Apache (96), Navajo (78) Cheyenne (44), Sioux (44), Pima (24), Pueblo (18), Southwest Amerind (10)

Bolnick, Deborah A. (2006) - Chippewa (51), Chippewa (37), Cheyenne/Arapaho (53), Chippewa (9) Shawnee (1), Micmac (1), Kickapoo (2) Fox (1), Sioux (27), Omaha (1), Cherokee (27), Cherokee (35), Chickasaw (6), Choctaw (12), Creek (15), Seminole (3)

----------


## JS Bach

Yesterday a new paper was published on the mtdna C1f clade found in the 7,500 year old Mesolithic site of Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov, Western Russia: http://www.eurogenes.blogspot.ca/201...ogroup-c1.html In the study, they sequenced the complete mtDNA genome of one of the three samples.

They say, “In Europe, the dense and extensive sampling of the HVR-I diversity has revealed extremely low frequencies of hg C1, with very few haplotypes found in Germans [14], Canarians [15], Icelanders [16]–[17] and Bashkirs [18] (Figure 2).”

They also estimate a divergence time of C1f from C1a, C1b, and C1c at around 17,100 yBP (95% Confidence Interval: 12,000–22,500 yBP).

There’s a paper on the mtdna C1e clade from four years ago here: http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946/45...tgerdSunna.pdf They say there's a possibility that the C1e clade may turn out to be distantly related to the Native American C1b or C1c clades once more of the C1b and C1c samples have their mtdna genomes sequenced at a higher resolution – but only that it’s possible. 

I think it’s still unclear when C1e and C1f came to Europe and where they came from, but I’m hopeful that as more ancient and contemporary dna is analyzed we’ll have a better picture of that within the next 5 or 10 years.

----------


## Aberdeen

The comments in the paper about DNA damage and the absence of any discussion of Y DNA make me think the authors didn't expect to be able to extract Y DNA. Too bad - the results would have been interesting.

----------


## JS Bach

A paper recently came out on haplogroup R-M269 (R1b1b2): http://www.dienekes.blogspot.ca/2014...-males-in.html where they say “...it is not possible to predict the subhaplogroup within R-M269 to which an individual belongs based on his YSTR haplotype, in contrast to the situation with higher level haplogroups for which haplotypes do have predictive power(Athey, 2005; Schlecht et al., 2008).” Maybe R-M269 is older than most estimates suggest (i.e. older than 10,000 ybp).

In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jTAueCy4O0 from about 3:20 to 3:30 Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes says he thinks that about 10,000 years ago a group of people from Europe carrying mtdna X came directly over the Atlantic to North America. My guess is that they carried R-M269 on their corresponding y-dna line. Since it’s so hard to predict the subhaplogroups of R-M269 based on their STR values, maybe that’s why it’s so elusive. If the Younger Dryas ended 11,500 years ago, maybe they could have travelled in boats across the edge of the ice around then.

In Stanford and Bradley’s book on the Solutrean hypothesis, “Across Atlantic Ice”, they say that the human archaeological trail in North America appears to go from East to West, and they also say: “The archaeological evidence suggests to us that there were at least two technological adaptations to North American climes. One was the progenitor of Clovis ...” and “The second adaptation stuck to the edge of the retreating glaciers.” Maybe y-dna Q / mtdna C were the Solutreans and pre-Clovis people and they later merged with the East Asian folk to produce the Clovis culture; while some y-dna R-M269 / mtdna X folk with some Solutrean-like stone tool technology crossed the Atlantic during the Younger Dryas, and were that second group they mention that followed the more northerly path.

There’s also been some speculation that y-dna I-M26 (I2a1a) made its way to the northern coast of South America some 8,000-or-so years ago in reed boats, via the Canary Islands. The author of this article http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/...he-white-gods/ states that: “I-M26 was found in Amerindians in exactly the same places where there were legends of White Gods, and in no others.”

Maybe these claims could be investigated further, and y-chromosome tests could be done to see if there are SNPs from these lines (R-M269 and I-M26) that are unique to Native Americans.

----------


## MOESAN

> I also wonder why Loschbourg and La Brana finds appear not Cro-Magnoid. Loschbour in particular does not even look Caucasoid to me. 10000 year old Cro-Magnid skulls have been found in north Africa, so the genetic composition of Berbers might answer some question. On the other hand it is hard to imagine that WHG should not be related to Cro-Magnon.


At the mergins of this trhead:
_have you some scholar analysis of the the La brana and Loschbour crania?_
based on my unique angle picture of their skulls (a very poor basis) La Brana could very well be a variant of 'cromagonn' or a cross of 'cromagnon-brünn' but with very very dominant 'cromagnon' features when Loschbour could very well be of typical 'brünn' phylum in its previous brutal features: the element that later influenced some of the SOM culture human elements in the between Paris/Champagne-Eiffel regions before celtic domination...
by the way, ancient scholars (not too "up-to-date") thought the these "brutal" types came with the solutrean in Europe, coming from Siberia: an old thought, it's true...
the origin of solutrean could be in a region around southern Eurasia, being the siberian sites some of the subsequent eastwards colonizations as western Europe could bethe westwards ones ?

----------


## ElHorsto

> At the mergins of this trhead:
> _have you some scholar analysis of the the La brana and Loschbour crania?_


No.




> based on my unique angle picture of their skulls (a very poor basis) La Brana could very well be a variant of 'cromagonn' or a cross of 'cromagnon-brünn' but with very very dominant 'cromagnon' features


Maybe. I'm slightly more inclined towards a brünn variant. In particular the skull does not look cro-magnoid to me but more like a brünnoid with enlarged brain cavity and slighly less prominent bizygomatic and browridges than Loschbour. I think the brain cavity of La Brana is too globular and less rectangular to be cro-magnon. The jaws might be cro-magnid though.




> when Loschbour could very well be of typical 'brünn' phylum in its previous brutal features


I completely agree. In another thread (the one with the photo collection of all ancient skulls) I mentioned that I have changed my opinion about Loschbour. I too think now that it is an unusually brutal Brünn.
In my amateurish thought model I consider La Brana 1 and probably also Motala 1 to be a variant of Brünn just with less prominent bizygomatic and eye socket edge (brow ridges as part of it), resulting in a more globular (not brachycephalic) and less brutal skull overall. The jaws seem to be broader (cro-magnoid?) than in brünn. Motala 1 seems to deviate even more in that direction, being even less brutal.
My very simplistic model: 

Loschbour : most archaic --> La Brana : less archaic --> Motala : possibly even less archaic, but hard to see

But I don't insist to be right.




> : the element that later influenced some of the SOM culture human elements in the between Paris/Champagne-Eiffel regions before celtic domination...
> by the way, ancient scholars (not too "up-to-date") thought the these "brutal" types came with the solutrean in Europe, coming from Siberia: an old thought, it's true...
> the origin of solutrean could be in a region around southern Eurasia, being the siberian sites some of the subsequent eastwards colonizations as western Europe could bethe westwards ones ?


Very speculative, but who knows. I was once speculating that it is the opposite in that old Cro-Magnon is originally more related to continental eurasia and potentially more autosomally ANE while Brünn being an adaptation to milder european climates (WHG). But I have actually no knowledge about possible origins.

----------


## JS Bach

> by the way, ancient scholars (not too "up-to-date") thought the these "brutal" types came with the solutrean in Europe, coming from Siberia: an old thought, it's true...
> the origin of solutrean could be in a region around southern Eurasia, being the siberian sites some of the subsequent eastwards colonizations as western Europe could bethe westwards ones ?


Expert flintknapper Dr. Bruce Bradley (co-author of "Across Atlantic Ice") compares these "Strletskayan points" found in Russia, southeast of Moscow to Clovis and Solutrean points here: http://www.primtech.net/info/strelets.html He says: "What amazes me most about the Streletskayan points is the advanced bifacial thinning technology that is twice as old as the Solutreen and three times older than our cherished Clovis points!"

----------


## Aberdeen

> Expert flintknapper Dr. Bruce Bradley (co-author of "Across Atlantic Ice") compares these "Strletskayan points" found in Russia, southeast of Moscow to Clovis and Solutrean points here: http://www.primtech.net/info/strelets.html He says: "What amazes me most about the Streletskayan points is the advanced bifacial thinning technology that is twice as old as the Solutreen and three times older than our cherished Clovis points!"


And there's your common source, IMO. I think it isn't that Native Americans are partly of European descent or that Europeans are partly of Native American descent. Europeans and Native Americans are partly of Siberian descent and I think that if there is any connection between Solutrean and Clovis technologies, other than people finding similar solutions to similar problems, it's a case of a Siberian technology ending up in both Europe and the Americas.

Having said that, if there is good archeological evidence of east to west settlement in the Americas, that should be looked at in more detail. But my own assumption is that any east to west movement found on the eastern half of the Americas is simply evidence of the probability that people travelled all around the edge of the Americas by sea before they penetrated very far inland. Coastal delta regions with lots of fish and migratory birds would probably provide and easier living for stone age people than hunting would, I think.

----------


## JS Bach

> Having said that, if there is good archeological evidence of east to west settlement in the Americas, that should be looked at in more detail. But my own assumption is that any east to west movement found on the eastern half of the Americas is simply evidence of the probability that people travelled all around the edge of the Americas by sea before they penetrated very far inland. Coastal delta regions with lots of fish and migratory birds would probably provide and easier living for stone age people than hunting would, I think.


Here's a density plot of fluted points in North America: http://www.anthropology.ualberta.ca/en/The-Institute-of-Prairie-Archaeology/ResearchInterests/WesternCanadianFlutedPointDatabase.aspx

There's also another plot there of "The distribution of fluted points (Clovis, Folsom, and small basally thinned) in western Canada plotted against the extent of retreating ice masses at ca. 13,000 calendar years ago."

----------


## JS Bach

Now that the _Lazaridis et al_ paper has been published, I wanted to point out some things from the paper’s graph which they’ve titled here “Extended Data Figure 3 Admixture Analysis (K = 2 to K = 20)”: http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reic...Ancestries.pdf 

Regarding the ancient dna sample _Motala12_ (at the left of the graph): For K = 19 and K = 20, it shows it as belonging to a single component, the blue North European component. For K = 9 to K = 18, it shows it as belonging to two components, with the vast majority belonging to the blue North European component, and a bit belonging to the orange Karitiana (Amerindian) component. For K = 7 and K = 8, it shows it as belonging to three components, again the large majority of it belonging to the blue North European component, a bit belonging to the orange Karitiana component, and a bit belonging to the beige Siberian component. And for K = 4 to K = 6, it belongs to two components again, with the large majority belonging to the blue North European component, and a bit belonging to the Karitiana component. The _Motala_merge_ sample is very similar, except that it has a smidgen of the beige Siberian component in a few more of the levels. In my opinion, this gives more weight to the validity of the Solutrean Hypothesis, as I think southern Sweden 8,000 ybp would be a place one would expect these Amerindian-like genes to be found if the theory were true. Also, one of the Motala samples (Motala6) tested positive for Q-L55, which is also carried by the Q-M3 and Q-Z780 Amerindians, although he tested negative for Q-L323 making the haplogroup assignment inconclusive. However, given that these Motala samples had the Karitiana component, it would make sense to me that Q-L55 would be a prime candidate for one of the samples from this burial of samples carrying this admixture. La Brana and Loschbour also have a bit of this Karitiana component from K = 4 to K = 7, and MA1 has a fair amount of it as well.

Also, over towards the right side of the graph, the _Algonquin_ component has some interesting results. For K = 20, it has some European-like admixture, but its proportions are strange. That is, the proportions of the blue North European, light blue Mediterranean, and light green West Asian components are very unlike most NorthWest Europeans of today. It has much more of the blue North European component, much less of the light blue Mediterranean component, and hardly any of the light green West Asian component, in comparison with contemporary NW Europeans. To me if anything, the proportions look more like those of present-day Lithuanians or Estonians. Could this admixture be perhaps from a Neolithic NW European population before the Corded Ware invasion? And could they have brought haplogroup X2, which apparently makes up about 25% of the Algonquin mtdna? The Ojibwa and Cree samples are similar, except the European-like admixture proportions look more like modern NW European samples – although I think more samples would be needed to test that case.

Next to them is the Mayan sample. For K = 20 its European-like admixture is different, with it having a large proportion of the light blue Mediterranean component, a small proportion of the blue North European component, and hardly any of the light green West Asian component, from what I can tell. It also has a little bit of an African component. Although it’s hard to tell from the graph, I wouldn’t rule out it possibly coming from another pre-Columbian source. There are theories of ancient Phoenicians coming over to South America in pre-Roman times, and others coming via the Canary Islands, and so forth. And in this study: http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2013/08/...nd-native.html they apparently found Y-haplogroup Q1b in South and Central America. There’s a discussion of this in the comments to the article. One of the commenters says the closest STR match to one of the South American samples is found in Morocco.

----------


## JS Bach

Sorry for the back to back posts, but I wanted to point out a few more things from the Lazaridis paper and its Admixture graph.

From one analysis result in the paper, “Motala12 fits as a mixture of 81% WHG and 19% ANE.” And from another method, which generated the Admixture graph with the number of groups (K) varying from 2 to 20, for about 13 of the 19 levels Motala12 looks like a 2-way mixture of a North European component and a Karitiana component (or an Amerindian component at lower levels). For instance, for K = 18, it looks like a mixture of about 98% North European and 2% Karitiana. So out of 18 different clusters, those are the two components the model generates for that 8,000 ybp Swedish sample. And unlike the Mal’ta boy, the Motala samples don’t have any West Asian, South Asian, or Oceanian-like components at different values of K.

Also from the graph (around the middle of the paper): http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reic...Ancestries.pdf the large majority of the contemporary European samples have a bit of the Amerindian component at low levels (K = 4 to K = 8), the Sardinians and Basques being among the few that either don’t or just have tiny amounts. Some of the European samples seem to have tiny amounts of Amerindian components at higher levels as well.

I suspect these ANE and Karitiana components from the two methods are related, and are also related to Y-haplogroup Q, specifically Q-L54 and its sub-branch Q-CTS3814, which contains the Native American Q-M3 and Q-Z780 sub-branches, as well as the Scandinavian / NorthWest European Q-L804 sub-branch: http://www.haplogroup.org/blog/2014/...-dna-lineages/ How these Y chromosomes got to dominate the American continents is a mystery, but I’ll bet they came across the North Atlantic and later mixed with the East Asian people who crossed by way of the Bering Strait. Although, how most Native Americans seem to have gotten most their autosomal dna from East Asians while so overwhelmingly carrying the Q-L54 Y-chromosomes remains a puzzle to me. Maybe there were early confrontations in the NorthWest, with the descendants of the Solutreans being the winners, at least with the males.

----------


## JS Bach

The Lazaridis et al paper now has a higher resolution version of the admixture graph available. And upon re-examination, I noticed that the Mayan sample has some Near Eastern admixture, represented by this very light cloud blue component that peaks in their “BedouinB” sample. The non-Amerind components of the Mayan sample appear to have four components: a light blue Mediterranean component; a dark blue North European component; a cloud blue Near Eastern component, and a dark brown West African component. I looked across the graph to find the population that best matched this admixture, and the sample that best matches it looks to me to be the Canary_Islanders sample. The graph is on page 11 of this paper: http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reic...Ancestries.pdf Does this connect the pyramids found in the Canary Islands off the coast of NorthWest Africa to the Mayan pyramids in Mexico? There appear to be similarities in the pyramids:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_guanches_1.htm

----------


## Angela

> The Lazaridis et al paper now has a higher resolution version of the admixture graph available. And upon re-examination, I noticed that the Mayan sample has some Near Eastern admixture, represented by this very light cloud blue component that peaks in their “BedouinB” sample. The non-Amerind components of the Mayan sample appear to have four components: a light blue Mediterranean component; a dark blue North European component; a cloud blue Near Eastern component, and a dark brown West African component. I looked across the graph to find the population that best matched this admixture, and the sample that best matches it looks to me to be the Canary_Islanders sample. The graph is on page 11 of this paper: http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reic...Ancestries.pdf Does this connect the pyramids found in the Canary Islands off the coast of NorthWest Africa to the Mayan pyramids in Mexico? There appear to be similarities in the pyramids:
> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_guanches_1.htm


I would think the most parsimonious explanation is that a Canary Islander, many of whom emigrated to the New World, left some genetic material in Mexico.

----------


## JS Bach

According to Felix's webpage, a pre-Columbian sample from Peru contains a non-Amerindian mtdna haplogroup: http://www.y-str.org/p/ancient-dna.html


It's listed as follows:

 *Sample Name*
 *Sample Location*
 *Sex*
 *Y-DNA*
 *Mt-DNA*
 *Approx. Age by authors*

 NA41
 Laguna de los Condores, Peru
 Male

 L3
 1000-1500 AD




L3 seems to be an overwhelmingly African mtdna haplogroup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L3_%28mtDNA%29

And as I mentioned in my post above, the Mayan samples in the Lazaridis et al paper have a non-Amerindian component that looks most similar to their Canary Islanders samples, and which contain a West African component.

----------


## sparkey

> According to Felix's webpage, a pre-Columbian sample from Peru contains a non-Amerindian mtdna haplogroup: http://www.y-str.org/p/ancient-dna.html
> 
> 
> It's listed as follows:
> 
>  *Sample Name*
>  *Sample Location*
>  *Sex*
>  *Y-DNA*
> ...


Well, L3 is the parent haplogroup for all mtDNA haplogroups outside of L, including all of the typical Amerindian haplogroups. Do we know for sure that this is L3*?

----------


## JS Bach

> Well, L3 is the parent haplogroup for all mtDNA haplogroups outside of L, including all of the typical Amerindian mtDNA haplogroups. Do we know for sure that this is L3*?


I just noticed that two more of those pre-Columbian Peruvian samples are listed on that page as mtDNA L3: NA47 and NA40. The rest seem to have Amerindian mtDNA haplogroups: http://www.y-str.org/p/ancient-dna.html

According to Genetiker, NA47 has 11.27% Negroid admixture, and NA41 has 12.53% Caucasoid admixture, with the rest being Amerindian admixture: http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/...f-chachapoyas/

Genetiker also gives a listing of mtDNA calls for NA41 and says he was probably B2: http://genetiker.wordpress.com/mt-sn...a-sample-na41/

----------


## JS Bach

There’s a fairly new paper out by Stanford, Bradley, and Oppenheimer called “Solutrean hypothesis: genetics, the mammoth in the room” here: http://www.academia.edu/9562579/Solu...th_in_the_room

From reading the paper, it seems pretty clear to me that few academics are willing to consider the hypothesis – or at least if they do, their publishers or peer reviewers won’t carry it further. This is evident in nearly all the sections of the paper.

They spend nearly half the article discussing and analyzing the distribution and phylogeny of mtdna haplogroup X2, and estimate the age of its North American subclade X2a as perhaps being 18,500 years old. They also provide a graph on page of 760 of the paper of the distribution of X2 minus its largest subclade, X2b. The graph shows a clear European and Middle-Eastern distribution. And to me, it seems to correlate fairly well with the variance of R1b1a2 (M269), a graph of which was recently posted in post 2 of this thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...n-R1-J2-and-G2

They also discuss Y-haplogroup R1 in Native Americans, and note that one study indicated that 97% of the Native American R1 had the M269 SNP. They go on to say:

“ ... STR (Short TandemRepeats – more rapidly mutating, but less reliable than SNPs) characterization of R1, however, indicates a substantial proportion of derived, STR-haplotypes not shared with Europeans (Bolnick, Bolnick, and Smith 2006, Fig 6b; Zegura et al. 2004, Fig. 5). This would not be expected if those R1 STR types were all recent European introductions, and could be consistent with being derived from more ancient founders. While better phylogenetic resolution is needed, these results, far from refuting the SH, are more consistent with its predictions than solely with massive recent male replacement.”

Interesting. If only we had that higher resolution.

----------


## JS Bach

So, Kennewick Man turned out to be ydna Q and mtdna X2. More specifically, Q-M3 and X2a.

From the paper's supplementary information: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...re14625-s1.pdf


"7.2 Principal component analysis

Principal component analysis was performed on a subset of individuals excluding the 
109 YRI individuals, using EIGENSOFT. The two ancient individuals were 

projected onto the components inferred from these sets of modern individuals by 
using the ‘lsqproject’ option of smartpca. Heterozygote genotypes were converted to 
homozygous prior to the analysis, by randomly sampling a single allele at each locus 
and individual. The PCA results for the subsampled Anzick-1 genome (Figure S5a) 
demonstrate that the effects of the lower coverage of the Kennewick Man are 
negligible, with only a slight shift towards European populations observed. Under the 
assumption of a higher fraction of contaminated and erroneous reads in the low 
coverage data, this suggests that the Kennewick Man’s actual PCA coordinates would 
be closer to the contemporary Northern Native Americans than observed. To provide 
a statistical argument, we also used a block bootstrap approach. We generated 100 
bootstrap data sets using blocks of length 5 MB. For each data set we reproduced the 
PCA analysis using bammds. *In 100/100 cases the closets individual in the PCA 
*
*analysis was Native American (4 Colville, 5 Cree, and 91 Ojibwa).* This illustrates 
that despite the low coverage, we can assign the sample to the Native American group 
with strong statistical confidence. However, based on this particular analysis we 

cannot assign to a single tribe."

However, on page 11 of this study: http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reic...Ancestries.pdf their admixture graph indicates that all the samples of their Ojibwa and Cree data have some North- and South-European-like admixture. I don't know if those are the same Ojibwa and Cree samples, but seeing that Kennewick Man was X2a and that X2a appears in something like 25% of those two tribes, and seeing from the graph that the European components account for about 25% of their bar graphs, I wonder if that 25% really is ancient European admixture? How they got the Southern European admixture that early (before the farmers came to Europe from the Near East about 7,000 years ago) remains a problem (especially for K=19 and K=20), but from K=12 to K=18, the Southern European component isn't that much.

----------


## Q1a2a1a2

Picard ~has~ to be Q

----------


## benmvandenberg

Hello I'm new here. I also do believe there could have been a solutrean offshoot that migrated to america by atlantic way following the ice sheets in the atlantic ocean and that they were possible descendants of perigordian-gravettian tribes, which may have spoken a kind of proto-language derived from another much earlier language group called by some scholars and linguists sino-caucasian-amerind-nostratic (scan) or according to some others nostratic-afro-asiatic-sino-caucasian-amerind (nasca), this proto-scan / nasca was spoken in the gravettian somewhere in central asia or eastern europe as an ancient north eurasian language. I'm not a scientist but this is kinda my theory.

----------


## Parafarne

If Q in scandinavia is of Hunnic and other eurasian sources then more nordics should be of hunnic ancestry because Q is found in small percentages even among eurasian turks say around 10% for groups that settled in europe.

----------


## homunculus

Is the theory that Scandinavians got their y-dna Q from either the EHG during the mesolithic or by the Steppe derived CWC peoples completely ruled out? Q seemed exist in Afontova-Gora (I guess he is classified as ANE?) at least.

----------


## PaleoRevenge

> Sorry for the back to back posts, but I wanted to point out a few more things from the Lazaridis paper and its Admixture graph.
> 
> From one analysis result in the paper, “Motala12 fits as a mixture of 81% WHG and 19% ANE.” And from another method, which generated the Admixture graph with the number of groups (K) varying from 2 to 20, for about 13 of the 19 levels Motala12 looks like a 2-way mixture of a North European component and a Karitiana component (or an Amerindian component at lower levels). For instance, for K = 18, it looks like a mixture of about 98% North European and 2% Karitiana. So out of 18 different clusters, those are the two components the model generates for that 8,000 ybp Swedish sample. And unlike the Mal’ta boy, the Motala samples don’t have any West Asian, South Asian, or Oceanian-like components at different values of K.
> 
> Also from the graph (around the middle of the paper): http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reic...Ancestries.pdf the large majority of the contemporary European samples have a bit of the Amerindian component at low levels (K = 4 to K = 8), the Sardinians and Basques being among the few that either don’t or just have tiny amounts. Some of the European samples seem to have tiny amounts of Amerindian components at higher levels as well.
> 
> I suspect these ANE and Karitiana components from the two methods are related, and are also related to Y-haplogroup Q, specifically Q-L54 and its sub-branch Q-CTS3814, which contains the Native American Q-M3 and Q-Z780 sub-branches, as well as the Scandinavian / NorthWest European Q-L804 sub-branch: http://www.haplogroup.org/blog/2014/...-dna-lineages/ How these Y chromosomes got to dominate the American continents is a mystery, but I’ll bet they came across the North Atlantic and later mixed with the East Asian people who crossed by way of the Bering Strait. Although, how most Native Americans seem to have gotten most their autosomal dna from East Asians while so overwhelmingly carrying the Q-L54 Y-chromosomes remains a puzzle to me. Maybe there were early confrontations in the NorthWest, with the descendants of the Solutreans being the winners, at least with the males.


This approach seems wrong. The only way Q has expanded to other continents is through walking, even the Eskimos simply walked and hunted on ice. Solutrean is speculated to have been was a maritime culture. Haplogroup I best fits the bill for that kind of thinking. However, Iberia is known to have harbored haplgroup C during the Paleolithic. Until we actually test a real Clovis skeleton(not the fake ones analyzed so far) or a Solutrean, we don't know to which Y-haplogroup Solutreans belonged to. Though Q is out of the question.

----------


## GRDTobin

What I do know, confidently, is that N, O, P, Q and R descend from K2 and that K2* is Australian Aboriginal.

----------


## Megalophias

> What I do know, confidently, is that N, O, P, Q and R descend from K2 and that K2* is Australian Aboriginal.


K2* just means K2 which hasn't been classified in another branch - as soon as it is classified it will no longer be K2*. So far only a few Australian Aboriginal Y chromosomes have been fully sequenced but all K2(xNO, P) has been under S1-B255, and all the K2(xNO, P) tested for P331 has been positive, hence under K2b/MPS. None of the K2* found in other studies checked these SNPs, so there is no evidence they have anything outside of MPS or even S1. Actually there are many other cases of reported K2* besides in Australia, mainly in Indonesia if we count only those with a decent number of SNPs. (I wouldn't rule out the Indonesian stuff is pre-NO.)

----------


## 64logh

It seems there is still no basis for this hypothesis...

----------


## Alulkoy

> It seems there is still no basis for this hypothesis...


True, just wishful thinking on the proponents part.

----------


## jose luis

_
​_*Genetic Evidence against a Paleolithic European Contribution to Past or Present Native Americans
*​I can't make the link work on eupedia
https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2020.1722545

----------


## jose luis

Free access for some people to the full text of this latest paper on the Solutrean hypothesis:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...tive_Americans

----------


## ratchet_fan

> K2* just means K2 which hasn't been classified in another branch - as soon as it is classified it will no longer be K2*. So far only a few Australian Aboriginal Y chromosomes have been fully sequenced but all K2(xNO, P) has been under S1-B255, and all the K2(xNO, P) tested for P331 has been positive, hence under K2b/MPS. None of the K2* found in other studies checked these SNPs, so there is no evidence they have anything outside of MPS or even S1. Actually there are many other cases of reported K2* besides in Australia, mainly in Indonesia if we count only those with a decent number of SNPs. (I wouldn't rule out the Indonesian stuff is pre-NO.)


It seems to be K2 occurred in a ENA population or a crown eurasian one at best.

----------


## ratchet_fan

> True, just wishful thinking on the proponents part.


Pretty much. There was no chance for this to be true. Razib Khan made the point that the reservoir population of Eastern Eurasian was larger than that of West Eurasian in Siberia even if the Westies might have got there first. That prevented West Eurasians from beating East Eurasians and mixed individuals to getting to the Americas first.

----------


## Daniel

Could someone please provide the similarities including the Chaine operatoire between the so called Solutrean and Clovis assemblages because it seems to me that Academia invented this Solutrean rabbit hole to distract us from all the real evidence proving that aboriginal people travel in all kinds of ways much more sophisticated than just hungry men following hungry animals.

----------


## Alulkoy

The ancestral Native Americans WERE sophisticated. No one else in the world at the time could live in the Artic at that time period. They were the most adaptable people on the planet for them to have lived there for thousands of years. There is zero proof after 20 years for this last iteration of the Solutrran hypothesis with no real evidence, but tons of proof for the “Hungry” ancestors of modern day Native Americans who were in place to be the first people to enter the two last empty continents

----------

