November 26, 2013

One to three men fathered most western Europeans?

It may sound far-fetched but it's certainly possible. After all, no R1b has been found in Europe before a Bell Beaker site from the 3rd millennium BC and today many Europeans (most in western Europe) belong to this haplogroup. As more Y chromosomes are sampled from ancient Europe, it will become clear if the R1b frequency actually shot from non-existence to ubiquity over a short span of time, and the Y chromosomes after the transition will be practically clones of each other.

Investigative Genetics 2013, 4:25 doi:10.1186/2041-2223-4-25

Modeling the contrasting Neolithic male lineage expansions in Europe and Africa

Michael J Sikora et al.

Abstract (provisional)

Background

Patterns of genetic variation in a population carry information about the prehistory of the population, and for the human Y chromosome an especially informative phylogenetic tree has previously been constructed from fully-sequenced chromosomes. This revealed contrasting bifurcating and starlike phylogenies for the major lineages associated with the Neolithic expansions in sub-Saharan Africa and Western Europe, respectively.

Results

We used coalescent simulations to investigate the range of demographic models most likely to produce the phylogenetic structures observed in Africa and Europe, assessing the starting and ending genetic effective population sizes, duration of the expansion, and time when expansion ended. The best-fitting models in Africa and Europe are very different. In Africa, the expansion took about 12 thousand years, ending very recently; it started from approximately 40 men and numbers expanded approximately 50-fold. In Europe, the expansion was much more rapid, taking only a few generations and occurring as soon as the major R1b lineage entered Europe; it started from just one to three men, whose numbers expanded more than a thousandfold.

Conclusions

Although highly simplified, the demographic model we have used captures key elements of the differences between the male Neolithic expansions in Africa and Europe, and is consistent with archaeological findings.

Link

52 comments:

Gary Moore said...

The authors write: "We constrained the parameter values so
that R1b could not expand before the estimated TMRCA of the sampled R1b chromosomes [18], and the model favored an immediate expansion of the lineage, hence the expansion at approximately 12 KYA."

It should be noted that this expansion occurred around the time that North America was being settled. Given the time frame, the small numbers of founders, the apparent affinity of the Basque language with the Na Dene language family (and possibly other North American languages), and the distribution centered on the Atlantic Coast, the possibility that R1b in Europe originated in North America and arrived with an accidental migration cannot be excluded.

The advanced seafaring abilities of early Americans is well attested in the archeological record. Excavations in the Channel Islands of California reveal a thriving maritime culture dating from 12,200 to 11,400 years. If the equivalent was true on the east coast as well and R1b was a founding population of North America, then it is entirely plausible that the R1b population of Europe originated with a single boatload of castaways from the east coast of America that rode the North Atlantic Gyre to the northwest coast of Europe.

Joakim said...

Gary Moore, Why do suggest R1b population came from North east america and emigrated to Europe...why coudlnt the basque ancestors have been emigrated from the western shores of Europe to North America?

Kawam family's maternal grandma said...

Is my grandfather's R1b sequence Armenian, ancient Anatolian, S. Italian or Greek?
Is my mom's dad an Armenian sequence? It's R1b1b2 12 24 14 10 11-14 11 12 12 13 14 29 18 9-10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15-15-15-16 11 10 19-23 16 16 18 19 38-39 12 12

andrew said...

The core finding is "In Europe, the expansion in size was extreme, from a starting size of
just two men (range one to three; numbers are given as the median and 95% interval from the
data in Figure 4, rounded appropriately) to an ending size of approximately 9,500 (5,000 to
12,500), while in Africa it was extensive but less extreme, from a starting size of approximately 40 (1 to 80) to an ending size of approximately 2,000 (500 to 5,500). In Europe, the expansion was very rapid, taking only approximately 325 (50 to 600) years and ending approximately 12 (6 to 14) KYA, while in Africa it was considerably less rapid, taking approximately 12 (2 to 24) KY and ending more recently, approximately 2 (0 to 12) KYA."

If true, in the European case, this implies about 2.16 surviving and reproducing male children per father per generation for eleven generations, an unprecedented bit of prosperity, but not impossible. Assuming a birth rate fitting of typical third world country pattern of 5-8 children born per woman per lifetime, one only needs a survival to reproductive age percentage in the vicinity of 54%-86% for male children. This could be consistent with any prolonged period in which Malthusian limits don't apply, either due to sustained expansion into virgin territory (post-LGM repopulation of Europe) or to profoundly expanding carrying capacity of settled areas due to one or more Neolithic developments in food production technology.

The time frames are so vague as to be incoherent with respect to distinctions that anyone would care about. While the paper is titled "Neolithic", neither paper rules out Mesolithic dates long before local adoption of agriculture. Also, all of the figures pertain solely to the core expansion itself and seem to assume near stasis afterwards.

Fanty said...

Similiar stuff was already claimed for eastern Europe. (One man like 10K-15K years ago fathering all European R1a. (including autosomal DNA "proof" that the Slavic population bases on a tiny number of people that exploded into a multitude of men in very short time. (more extreme than Western Europe)

Similair claim about Finland. ONly that its claimed that the that 1-3 men fathered all of them only rencently ago effect is the strongest on all European countries.

Or I1.... all of them beeeing fathered by a single 5K-10K year old man.

So what does all this mean? Does it mean ALL of Europe was found 10K years ago by 10-15 males?

Or had it rathern been that there had been a lot more than 10-15 males but only these 10-15 males have living male offsping while all their comrades lineages ended childless or in girl-only offspring. The good old "drift effect" = all lineages but a very few vannish over time. So higher the base population was at the start, so more time does it take, but eventually, only one linage survives. Only a matter of time.

eurologist said...

The time frames are so vague as to be incoherent with respect to distinctions that anyone would care about. While the paper is titled "Neolithic", neither paper rules out Mesolithic dates long before local adoption of agriculture.

Andrew, I agree. In fact, their fig. 4a suggests that the R1b expansion started before 14kys -- which they then are trying to argue away with that their TMRCA is way earlier than the rho-statistic (of who's data?).

But we know, on the other hand, that using more and more widely dispersed and diverse data always gives a yet older dates: they only used 6 samples (!), far too few from Spain and diverse Italy, none from Germany or central Europe, and none for the hugely diverse Balkans to be even vaguely useful.

barakobama said...

It is that about 50% of west European men trace their direct paternal line to one to three men who lived about 5,000 years ago right?

There was a huge expansion of R1b1a2a1a L11 in western Europe I think from mainly 5,000-3,000 years ago. The two 4,600 year old R1b's from Bell Beaker culture is from probably the early stage of the spread and at one of the starting points. I have said this like one million times that the spread of Indo European speaking Germans, Celts, and Italians are most likely the source. No matter how you put it there was a massive spread of related cultures and ethnic groups in west Europe. Wouldn't it make perfect sense since we know in at least the begging of the iron age, West Europe was dominated by Indo European Celts, Germans, and Italians that they are the source.

barakobama said...

"It should be noted that this expansion occurred around the time that North America was being settled. Given the time frame, the small numbers of founders, the apparent affinity of the Basque language with the Na Dene language family (and possibly other North American languages), and the distribution centered on the Atlantic Coast, the possibility that R1b in Europe originated in North America and arrived with an accidental migration cannot be excluded."

the problem I think with this idea is Basque ancient ancestors the aquitaine where surrounded by Celts. Basque are almost completely under subclade R1b P312 like all Celts. It is definitely possible that Celts adopted native languages. How do you explain British and Irish Celts who have as much or more R1b P312 than Basque.

barakobama said...

"Is my grandfather's R1b sequence Armenian, ancient Anatolian, S. Italian or Greek?
Is my mom's dad an Armenian sequence? It's R1b1b2 12 24 14 10 11-14 11 12 12 13 14 29 18 9-10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15-15-15-16 11 10 19-23 16 16 18 19 38-39 12 12"

You should go to Eupedia.com genetics' section or FTDNA R1b history. If your direct paternal line is Armenian you probably have R1b1a2a L23.

barakobama said...

"The time frames are so vague as to be incoherent with respect to distinctions that anyone would care about. While the paper is titled "Neolithic", neither paper rules out Mesolithic dates long before local adoption of agriculture.

Andrew, I agree. In fact, their fig. 4a suggests that the R1b expansion started before 14kys -- which they then are trying to argue away with that their TMRCA is way earlier than the rho-statistic (of who's data?).

But we know, on the other hand, that using more and more widely dispersed and diverse data always gives a yet older dates: they only used 6 samples (!), far too few from Spain and diverse Italy, none from Germany or central Europe, and none for the hugely diverse Balkans to be even vaguely useful."

If it is west Europe we are not talking in big picture R1b.We are talking specifically about young subclade R1b1a2a1a L11. It is estimated according to FTDNA to only be 5,000-6,000 years old. Out of 31 Y DNA samples from Neolithic farming west Europeans even in R1b hotspots today not one had R1b. We also have to remember R1b is not only west European.

barakobama said...

"So what does all this mean? Does it mean ALL of Europe was found 10K years ago by 10-15 males?"

All it would mean is that a lot of modern DIRECT PATERNAL lineages go back to 10-15 men who lived 10,000ybp. Full ancestry is another story.

barakobama said...

Why isn't anyone considering conquest by the R1b1a2a1a L11 in west Europe. Indo European Corded ware culture spread in central and east Europe about 4,500-5,000ybp. Their haplogroup R1a1a1b1 Z283 now takes up almost 50% of people in former Corded ware culture. The people who spread Indo Iranian and Tocherian languages in Asia belonged mainly to Y DNA R1a1a1b2 Z93. It is now very popular in Indo Iranian speakers in former Indo Iranian speaking areas.


If a certain people dominate they can cause their paternal lineages to dominate. We cant assume it was just chance. I think it is pretty obvious the (Indo European?) R1b L11 people conquered west Europe. Through killing native men in battle and being the high ranking people in society their paternal lineages survived much better. There are also many other reasons.

Gary Moore said...

Joachim - Before Europeans developed techniques to sail against the wind, it was a lot easier to get to Europe from North America than to said west from Europe across the North Atlantic. It has been suggested that Native Americans may have reached Europe as a result of following the migrations of the Great Auk. Bird migrations likewise may have informed the migrations of both West Cost North Americans and Polynesians.

Furthermore, there seems to be little doubt that the Basque language is related to the Na Dena language family. The nearest known Na Dene language in Eurasia is Ket, which is in eastern Siberia. It is difficult to imagine how this language could have survived relatively intact after such a long cross country migration. Basque seems to have borrowed vocabulary from no fewer than three different NA language families, all of which exhibit elevated levels of hg R1, and probably constitute components of Greenberg's "second wave" of settlement from Siberia.

For instance, take the Basque third-person pronoun, hura, bera . Compare with Na Dena languages Dena'ina be- and Tlingit . What is surprising is the apparent addition (retention?) of the equivalent Iroquoian pronoun particle ra- . The Basque word for "they", haiek , looks close to it's equivalent in Eyak, another Yenisean language ʔǝ-yǝq . As I remarked in an earlier blog, the Basque first person pronoun ("I") is the same as in modern Lenape (an Algonquian language), ni .

Fanty said...

"Before Europeans developed techniques to sail against the wind, it was a lot easier to get to Europe from North America than to said west from Europe across the North Atlantic."

Yeah. I heard that too.
In a TV documentation about Columbus is was claimed that many of the sailors were scared about the winds, that either blow not at all or in a way that is perfect for East to West passage, but never ever in the whole passage blew in a way good for returnage to Europe.

And that, if they dont fall of the end of the world, they at least would get stuck and will never return ever, because of the wind directions are never right for this.

Tobus said...

@Gary: there seems to be little doubt that the Basque language is related to the Na Dena language family

That's just not true, the idea of a Dene-Caucasian language family is just a theory and fringe theory at that. It doesn't have wide acceptance in the scientific community - contrary to what you say there is a lot of doubt (and very little acceptance) that the Basque and Na Dene languages have any connection.

In terms of your wider theory:
- Americans have much more in common genetically with East Asians than Europeans, the opposite of what we'd expect if most Europeans are descended from a handful of Americans just 12k ago.
- The main language family in Europe today is Indo-European - if R1b carriers spoke a "Basque"-family language then we'd expect this to be the main the language family of Europe today.
- All the R1b in American can be attributed to post-Columbian admixure, if Europe was settled by Americans 12kya it wouldn't be R1b that we'd be seeing.

eurologist said...

If it is west Europe we are not talking in big picture R1b.We are talking specifically about young subclade R1b1a2a1a L11. It is estimated according to FTDNA to only be 5,000-6,000 years old. Out of 31 Y DNA samples from Neolithic farming west Europeans even in R1b hotspots today not one had R1b. We also have to remember R1b is not only west European.

Barak,

But you can't have it both ways. In this case, the R1b coverage is somewhat pan-European, but does not include Germany, Central Europe, nor the Balkans or beyond. And the authors never did claim that they were restricting this to W Europe. Which would be useless even if anyone was biased towards one particular time slice.

Gary Moore said...

Tobus - I've posted earlier on these blogs that Iroquoian appears to also be related to IE. The Proto-Iroquoian word for water ahwa , for instance, bears a striking resemblance to PIE akwa . There are a lot of other close resemblances in pronoun systems and numbers, if you'd like me to post them. In all, the Iroquoian languages resemble Western Iranian languages and even Tocharian more than Western European IE languages, which clearly contradicts any suggestion that these similarities came about because of prehistoric transatlantic contacts and lends credence to their arrival with migrants from Siberia via the Bering Strait route.

As for the theory that Basque and Na Dene are related is "fringe", just look at the word lists. There are too many parallels with North American languages, particularly in pronouns and the words for "water" (ur in Basque, ul in Ket, which can be explained by a simple and common phonetic shift) to be accidental. Basque appears to be a mixed language, which seems to incorporate elements of two or more North American languages with a possibly a substratum of earlier Western European languages.

Jim said...

Gary Moore,
"the apparent affinity of the Basque language with the Na Dene language family"

No one has come close to demonstrating that connection. It is a view so marginal, for now at least, that it is not even controversial. Time will tell though. Edward Vajda succeeded in showing the link between Na-Dene and Yeneseian to the satisfcation of experts on both groups, and if anyone can every show a link betwen Basque and North caucasian, and Yeniseian and Norht caucasian, that will change. The data may be lost by now though. Language changes a lot faster and leaves fewer traces than DNA.

" (and possibly other North American languages),"

Na-Dene has no connection with any other American family and this has been obvious from the very first studies recognizing the group. So either Basque is related to Na-Dene or to these other groups, but it cannot be related to both.

In any case the first and likeliest explanation, pending closer identification of the actual sub-group, for any R1b in the Americas would have to be the intermarriage (or whatever the hok-up was) between Basque cod fishermen, wh were in the northwest Atlantic for centuries, and coastal Algonkian and maybe iroquoian populations. Where is all this R1B in America? Among the Athapaskans or among Algonkian ans Iroquoian speakers?

The other explanation is the extensive intermarriage in the South between Englsih settlers and local people, which went on for centuries, with gene flow back into all those ciommunities.

So we will never know, given the compromised state of the sample.

Jim said...

Gary Moore,

"The nearest known Na Dene language in Eurasia is Ket,"

Key is Yeneseian, not Na-Dene. they are related, but the distance of the relationship to Na-Dene matters when it comes to the forms you will be comparing.

"which is in eastern Siberia. It is difficult to imagine how this language could have survived relatively intact after such a long cross country migration."

No one posits any cross country migration across Eurasia. The historical records point to northward migration to escape pressure from Turkic and Mongolic speakers. There is evidence that Yeneseian speakers lead the Xiong Nu confederation.

"Basque seems to have borrowed vocabulary from no fewer than three different NA language families, all of which exhibit elevated levels of hg R1, and probably constitute components of Greenberg's "second wave" of settlement from Siberia. "

If they have borowed from three sub-groups rather than the entire group, that means the borrowing came after the proto-language broke up. And the proto-language broke up in Alaska and norhtern canada, so that's where Basque speakers would have had to have been to do this borrowing. Also borrowing is an argument against rather than for shared ancestry, (although related langauges do of course borrow from each other. BUt they have to be in contact, in this case extreme northern North America)

"For instance, take the Basque third-person pronoun, hura, bera . Compare with Na Dena languages Dena'ina be- and Tlingit hú . What is surprising is the apparent addition (retention?) of the equivalent Iroquoian pronoun particle ra- . The Basque word for "they", haiek , looks close to it's equivalent in Eyak, another Yenisean language ʔǝ-yǝq . As I remarked in an earlier blog, the Basque first person pronoun ("I") is the same as in modern Lenape (an Algonquian language), ni .

Ironically the close similarities in these forms argue against them being actually related. If they were derived from a common ancestoro there is no way they would retain these forms after soe many thousands of years (and it is clear Na-Dene and Yeneseian have been separate for thousands of years, not to mention Basque if it actually is related.) Compare the forms you list there with the way pronouns have changed in Germanic, a much younger and completely uncontroversial grouping.

"in Eyak, another Yenisean language ʔǝ-yǝq ."

Eyak is not Yeneseian, it is - was; it's recently extinct - Na-Dene.

And this matters because it gores to the time depth of the splits we are talking about and the time distance between comparanda.

Also as I said, Basque can either be realted to Na-Dene or to Irioquoian, but it cannot possibly be related to both. Iroquoian and Na-Dene are as unrelated as Na-Dene and indo-European, and probably more so.

Grognard said...

It probably just means all these age estimates are wrong.

The hunter gatherer guy at mal'ta was 24k years ago, soon to be breaking news is that his clade is r1a1. Whoops!

I guess that calls into question similar results in asia, too.

Joakim said...

Gary Moore, Thank you for your somment, but I must say it seems a bit far fetched. The solutrean hypothesis, that is in my mind more likely, is based on clear evidence that shat shows HablogrupX is more prevailing in Lebanon/Israel/Syria border amongst the druze people and reaching all through western Europe. HablogroupX then turns up in the east coast of north america and the further west one gets in nort america less native americans are Hablorup X. This correlates exactly where the ice sheet was around 26,000-19,000 when ancients europeans migrated from the ice sheet that stretched from northern France over to what today is the canadian/usa border on the east coast. Then we have the distintict blades that is exactly the same in the Basque country and on the east coast of USA...and the furter west one gets in USA, less of these distinct blades on founds.

terryt said...

"Or had it rathern been that there had been a lot more than 10-15 males but only these 10-15 males have living male offsping while all their comrades lineages ended childless or in girl-only offspring. The good old 'drift effect' = all lineages but a very few vannish over time. So higher the base population was at the start, so more time does it take, but eventually, only one linage survives. Only a matter of time".

Hit the nail right on the head.

"It has been suggested that Native Americans may have reached Europe as a result of following the migrations of the Great Auk".

For what its worth: I agree with Tobus.

andrew said...

One more point of comparison. The replacement rate of births in modern societies is about 2.1 which implies a 95% rate of survival to reproduction. So, the European expansion could have been sustained with non-survival rates three to eleven times worse than modern values.

Pre-modern infant mortality until about two hundred years ago was in the vicinity of 15%-20%, and pre-modern child mortality prior to reproduction was also significant in most time periods. So, a 80% survival to reproduction rate is probably close to the realistic levels of survival to reproduction rate that could be sustained for eleven generations in even an exceedingly prosperous pre-modern population like the R1b founder population, implying a minimum lifetime fertility per woman of 5.4 children on average.

There is slight archaeological evidence of increasing fertility in connection with the adoption of agriculture.

A good example of efforts to estimate fertility and mortality parameters for a rapidly expanding population from archaeology rather than genetics can be found in a study of the expansion of the initial Maori population of New Zealand.

ZeGrammarNazi said...

@Grognard The Mal'ta boy's Y-DNA has already been published and it was not R1a1.

Daniel Szelkey said...

The hunter gatherer guy at mal'ta was 24k years ago, soon to be breaking news is that his clade is r1a1. Whoops!? @gronard
I have R1a1, but in a certain way I hope this is not the case unless they were absolutely certain that mal'ta was not contaminated by even a neolithic person.
I looked at the supplementary data, and it said specifically he had r1xr2. I didnt believe he had R when I heard of it in the first place, but if he looks like he has R1a1 it would be really neat.

barakobama said...

Gary Moore you are probably right it was easier to get to Europe from America than the other way around 5,000 years ago. You may be right that Basque and Na Dene language are related. I still don't think it is possibly R1b1a2a1a L11 and all other R1b in west Europe was brought over from north America.

The reason is there is 0% or a tiny pit of evidence. Of any Na Dene like or Native American type ancestry in western Europeans autosomal DNA. I am pretty sure there is no evidence of original Na Dene or Native American R1b or even R1. The R1 in north America actually from what I have heard is probably all from European inter marriage as a result of European colonization.

Instead it would make a lot more sense that R1b1a2a1a L11 and all R1b1a2 M269 in Europe originally came out of the Near east. The grandfather subclade to R1b1a2a1a L11 R1b1a2a L23 and uncle R1b1a2a2 Z2103. Are very popular around Anatolia, Iraq, Caucasus, and Iran. It is also somewhat popular in the Balkans.

Overall R1b subclades are most diverse in the Near east. There is a good chance that R1b it self originated in the Near east. All that I have heard of experst on R1b. Is that at somepoint all R1b in Europe and all R1b in the world came out of the Near east.

eurologist said...

Or had it rathern been that there had been a lot more than 10-15 males but only these 10-15 males have living male offsping while all their comrades lineages ended childless or in girl-only offspring. The good old "drift effect" = all lineages but a very few vannish over time.

Fanty,

But you still need to explain why W Europe is almost exclusively R1b, while C Europe has about equal amounts of I and R1a, with also (depending on where you look) not insignificant contributions of G, J, E, and some "exotics."

The hunter gatherer guy at mal'ta was 24k years ago, soon to be breaking news is that his clade is r1a1.

Grognard,

Not quite - it is a sister clade to just before the R1/R2 split, but it is somewhat derived from that point, so its relation to R1 and R2 goes way back in time before (!) 24kya. So, I agree with your general sentiment.

Gary Moore said...

I found this paper on Siberian genetics. Please note that not only is R1b present in Siberia, but there are serious genetics researchers who feel that it is relevant to the peopling of the Americas:

“Although the presence of haplogroups R-M207 and Q-M242 in South Siberia and neighboring regions has been reported earlier, there has not been detailed examination of their substructure in Siberians, although this might be very important for providing new insights into the early migrations into the Americas.”

Note that the coalescence age estimate for R1b1b1 in South Siberia is 20.4
± 13.45 Ka.

Ancient links between Siberians and Native Americans revealed by subtyping the Y chromosome haplogroup Q1a

Boris Malyarchuk, Miroslava Derenko, Galina Denisova,, Arkady Maksimov, Marcin Wozniak, Tomasz Grzybowski, Irina Dambueva, and Ilya Zakharov

http://www.sjdimond.us/M3%20ancient%20links.pdf

Wim Penninx said...

The essential claim of this article (rapid increase of R1b) is based on the 6 datapoints of the SNP's of 6 R1b's. Three have one SNP that the others don't have. In percentage this is a short timescale. I was not yet able to deduce the data of these six from the originating article.

I can't see whether they are six branches out of R1-L11.

I did a different analysis and presentation in 2012. Results are described in http://bit.ly/17RhlCg. Don't be confused on the title. R1b is discussed on page 7. A stronger increase (then previously modelled) was required. At that moment, the extreme increase was not yet required. The new sequence L11 results of fullgenomes.com should confirm or deny the 1 SNP timescale of the L11.


Onur said...

The hunter gatherer guy at mal'ta was 24k years ago, soon to be breaking news is that his clade is r1a1. Whoops!

I guess that calls into question similar results in asia, too.


You got the news wrong. R1a1 was newly found in the Afontova Gora sample, not in the Mal'ta sample. The Mal'ta sample belongs to a previously-undetected major hg R branch, not R1 or R2.

AdygheChabadi said...

I have to inject on the Yeniseian and Na-Dene discussion.

It is not proven that they are actually related as of yet.
There are some real problems with many of Mr. Vajda etymological proposals. Many of them pointed out by other lingusists which Mr. Vajda actually admits to. While Mr. Vajda's work is a great opus it is by no means without flaws.

Tobus said...

@Gary:
Note that the coalescence age estimate for R1b1b1 outside South Siberia is 39.6 ± 21.25 Ka, leading the authors to conclude that it "''probably migrated into North Asia and northern
East Asia from the west''".

The paper investigates both R1b and haplogroup Q and only finds Q in Americans, no Rb1. They estimate the divergence age for the 2 founder haplogroup in America (Q1a3a-M3 and C3b-P39) at 13.87 and 13.9 ky respectively. So a) no Rb1 in America and b) no Americans till ~14kya... making it impossible for Rb1 to have migrated to Europe from America 24kya.

The authors conclude with: "our study demonstrates ancient genetic links between modern Siberians and Native Americans and supports a single migration model, with a common genetic source for Native Americans in the Altai-Sayan region of South Siberia."

terryt said...

"A good example of efforts to estimate fertility and mortality parameters for a rapidly expanding population from archaeology rather than genetics can be found in a study of the expansion of the initial Maori population of New Zealand".

Quote:

"3) there was very rapid populatin growth in the earliest part of the sequence up to 1150 A.D., from which no skeletal evidence currently is available; or 4) the prehistoric sequence of New Zealand may have been longer than the generally accepted 1,000–1,200 years. These alternative are examined, and a combination of the last two is found to be the most probable".

Number 4 has more recently been ruled out, leaving the rapid original expansion the most likely. That makes complete sense. When a population enters virgin territory or adopts some new technology we would expansion to be most rapid while resources were at their greatest. As resources became more scarce population growth would slow. Or numbers might even drop. Some research suggest the Maori population was greatest at around 1600 BCE. and shrank after that.

Tobus said...

Ooops.. got my dates mixed up, scrap the b) bit, just a) No Rb1 in America, so it's impossible for them to have brought it to Europe 12kya

Gary Moore said...

Tobus said: "No Rb1 in America, so it's impossible for them to have brought it to Europe 12kya"

Some established geneticists challenge that assertion. Not that long ago, people were saying that R1b was absent in Siberia, and we now know that that assertion is false. As pointed out in an earlier post, not only are R1b and R1A present in South Siberia, but Russian researchers consider it a candidate contributing to the early peopling of the Americas. From the paper Ancient links between Siberians and Native Americans revealed by subtyping the Y chromosome haplogroup Q1a:


"To investigate the structure of Y chromosome haplogroups R-M207 and Q-M242 in human populations of North Asia, we have performed high-resolution genotyping using both single nucleotide polymorphisms and short tandem repeat (STR)-based approaches of 121 M207- and M242-derived samples from 885 males of 16 ethnic groups of Siberia and East Asia. As a result, the following Y chromosome haplogroups were revealed: R1b1b1-M73 (2.0%), R1b1b2-M269 (0.7%), R2-M124 (1.1%), Q1a*-MEH2 (0.5%), Q1a2-M25 (0.1%), Q1a3*-M346 (9.2%) and Q1a3a-M3 (0.2%)."

Looking at the map for the distribution of YHG M173, note that the frequency plot appears to show backflow from North America to eastern Siberia across the Bering Straits, similar to what has been seen for Native American-specific YHG Q lineages. This pattern argues that M173 has considerable time depth in North America. (See below)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haplogroup_R_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG

As noted in a paper titled Genetic Variation and Population Structure in Native Americans by Wang, Lewis, Jr., [...], and Ruiz-Linares:

“Genetic similarity to Siberia is greatest for the Chipewyan population from northern Canada and for the more southerly Cree and Ojibwa populations.”

(See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082466/?report=reader#!po=7.14286)

These are populations which have also been cited as having a high incidence of YHG R as well as mtHG X.

The cause of the high rate of male lineage replacement in the eastern United States is well understood and is related to the high loss rate of Native American men who fought in the American Civil War, which exceeded even the loss rate of men of the Soviet Union in the Second World War. The native Canadian populations did not experience a similar demographic catastrophe, so the high rate of asymmetric admixture there cannot be as readily explained. I think that researchers have made an error of interpretation by projecting observations of admixture of Native American populations in the United States on to Canadian populations which are more northerly and more isolated.

I don't claim to know for certain if R1 is one of the founding Y haplogroups of Native Americans, but I am concerned about the possibility is being dismissed out of hand despite contradictory indications.

As for the issue of accidental voyages from North America to Europe, we have an excellent source: Christopher Columbus. It is known that he was aware of at least two cases of apparent Native America castaways in his lifetime before his voyages to the Americas. In both incdients, none of occupants of the boats were not alive when found, but the lack of decomposition of the remains suggests that they may have come within days of surviving the voyage. This suggests that potentially dozens of individuals may have survived passage across the Atlantic this way each century, possibly contributing to Europe's gene pool. Obviously, the potential impact would have been much greater in prehistoric Europe when population densities were much lower.

Maybe Dinekes could help answer this question: Do the Basques share some specific X-DNA variation with Native Americans?

terryt said...

"the following Y chromosome haplogroups were revealed: R1b1b1-M73 (2.0%), R1b1b2-M269 (0.7%)"

The difficulty in using that as evidence of prehistoric contact between North America and Europe is that most European R1b is R1b1a. I have no difficulty at all accepting that R1b of various sorts reached Siberia and some could well have reached America. But that is completely separate from any ancient contact between Europe and America.

Tobus said...

@Gary: "not only are R1b and R1A present in South Siberia, but Russian researchers consider it a candidate contributing to the early peopling of the Americas.

Not in that paper they don't, as I already pointed out (and you should probably read it for yourself) that paper says haplogroup Q, NOT R1b, is connected to the early peopling of the Americas. The authors don't metion Siberian R1b in any connection with America. Please stop saying they do.

The wikipedia map cites 3 sources for American Rb1, here's what they say:
1) Distribution of Y chromosomes among Native North Americans: A study of Athapaskan population history: "The influence of European admixture is evidenced by the strong gradient of haplogroup R from northeastern to southwestern North America." and "the frequency of haplogroup R, the presence of which is attributed to European admixture, reaches its maximum in Northeastern North America"
2) High-Resolution SNPs and Microsatellite Haplotypes Point to a Single,
Recent Entry of Native American Y Chromosomes into the Americas
: "... our evidence supports the admixture
hypothesis for the presence of R-P25 individuals in Native
American populations and concurs with the recent findings
of Bosch et al. (2003), who concluded that all 18 of their
haplogroup R Greenlandic Inuit (
n=69) are the result of
European admixture."
3. Y-Chromosome Evidence for Differing Ancient Demographic Histories in the Americas: Does not report any halogroup R.

None of these sources suggest anything other than Rb1 arriving in America via post-Columbian European admixture. Your suggestion that "M173 has considerable time depth in North America" appears to be your own conjecture with no basis in fact.

In regards to your original theory that Rb1 came to Europe by accidental migration from America, the two pieces of "evidence" you were basing it on are wrong: there is no established linguistic connection between Basque and Na-Dene, and there is no evidence of Haplogroup R in America prior to European admixture.

andrew said...

"Number 4 has more recently been ruled out, leaving the rapid original expansion the most likely. That makes complete sense. When a population enters virgin territory or adopts some new technology we would expansion to be most rapid while resources were at their greatest. As resources became more scarce population growth would slow."

Agreed. This would tend to suggest that the population growth model in both the African and European cases may be defective and that one should be modeling a sudden spike in growth rate followed by a gradual decline in growth rate. In the European case, however, the growth rate is so high that to achieve that kind of pattern, the front end growth rate must be high indeed. Some of this could come from shortened generations (the long term historical norm is having half of one's children by age 29) and, at least, serial polygamy, but it couldn't have gotten much higher in a pure monogamy model due to the unavoidable infant and child and childbirth mortality even for well off families that continued to be the norm even in affluent families as late as the Revolutionary War era USA that limit both maximum number of average children per woman per lifetime and survival to reproduction percentages in premodern periods.

It would be very interesting to see what kind of anthropological data there are out there to support polygamy or serial polygamy in pre-Iron Age Western Europe.

Gary Moore said...

Tobus quoted Wikipedia: ""The influence of European admixture is evidenced by the strong gradient of haplogroup R from northeastern to southwestern North America." and "the frequency of haplogroup R, the presence of which is attributed to European admixture, reaches its maximum in Northeastern North America"

The quote is nothing more than the author's conclusion. The map shows something quite different: the frequency of R1-M173 peaks around the Great Lakes region and extends far north into Canada. The region of highest concentration of R1-M173 coincides with territories where Algonquian and Iroquoian languages were spoken, plus some of the Na Dene language family. Overlay a map of blood group frequency and it is apparent that high frequencies of R-M173 often coincide with high frequencies of typical Native American type O and low frequencies of type A, B, or AB.

I have analyzed Y DNA results for men of the United States from a paper titled Population structure of Y chromosome SNP haplogroups in the United States and forensic implications for constructing Y chromosome STR databases by Hammer et al. Statistics are broken out by race/ethnicity. Comparing the results, a discrepancy emerges in the ratios of haplogroups by race for Native Americans and European Americans. If R1b in Native Americans is solely the result of admixture, then we should see the same proportions for R1b and YHG I in European men and NA men. The actual ratios are as follows:

Y Haplogroup European Native American US Ratio Eur/NA

R-P25 0.60% 0.30% 0.60% 2.00
R1b1b2-M269 58.30% 21.90% 37.90% 2.66

R1-M17 7.20% 1.50% 3.38% 4.80
G-P15 3.60% 0.30% 2.43% 12.00
I-P19 4.90% 1.00% 2.62% 4.90
I-P30 11.70% 2.80% 6.13% 4.18
I-P37.2 2.70% 0.80% 1.59% 3.38

As can be seen, the ratio of European to NA R1b and R-P25 is much lower than the other haplogroups. This finding strongly implies that the occurrence of both R1b(M269) and R-P25 in Native American populations is higher than would be expected from random admixture and that R1b may have already been present in North American populations. Note that these statistics apply only to the population of Native Americans in the lower 48 states and do not include populations in Canada above the Great Lakes that exhibit high rates of YHG R. (Apologies to Dr. Schurr, but the data - at least for the flower 48 United States - do not support the theory that R1-M17 is a founding lineage of Native Americans.)

Some of the authors have claimed that there was a high rate of Y-DNA replacement in Native American populations of North America due to wholesale slaughter of the men and the sexual enslavement of the women. This picture relates mainly to South and Meso-America and is highly inaccurate when applied to eastern North America. Canadian history does not support this scenario - European expansion across Canada was peaceful compared to the United States. For an alternative view, I recommend reading Stephen Oppenheimer's pointed observations about the myths of British ancestry and contemplate how they might apply here:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry/#.UpmhO425eHk

eurologist said...

Gary Moore,

You forget that the first soldiers and settlers who interacted with Native Americans were primarily British, French, and Spanish - who are all high in R1b. Groups like Scandinavians and Germans who are high in I and R1a came much later, as did people from the Balkans or West Asia, who are high in G. By that time admixture with NA had become almost non-existent.

Tobus said...

@Gary: Tobus quoted Wikipedia

No I didn't, I quoted the studies that the map (which *you* quoted from Wikipedia) was based on. Yes these are the authors' conclusions, but the authors are highly respected researchers and these quotes/conclusions are published in reputable, 3rd party, peer-reviewed publications. It's the map that is the wikipedia editor's personal interpretation, not the quotes I gave.

Your conclusion that there was R1b in America before Europeans arrived is based on your own interpretation of a wikipedia editor's interpretation of 3 papers that say the exact opposite of what you have concluded. I hope you'll understand if I value the opinions of the published sources over yours.

Gary Moore said...

Andrew remarked: "It would be very interesting to see what kind of anthropological data there are out there to support polygamy or serial polygamy in pre-Iron Age Western Europe."

One potential factor would be the introduction of a new game-changing technology, such as the bow and arrow, which would have increased the productivity of individual hunters and enabled them to support multiple families by different wives. Early adopters of the bow and arrow would have had a decisive advantage, both in hunting and warfare, that would have enabled them to out-compete other populations armed with older spear-throw technology.

Gary Moore said...

eurologist commented:

"You forget that the first soldiers and settlers who interacted with Native Americans were primarily British, French, and Spanish - who are all high in R1b. Groups like Scandinavians and Germans who are high in I and R1a came much later, as did people from the Balkans or West Asia, who are high in G. By that time admixture with NA had become almost non-existent."


The problem with this logic is that the two Sioux populations who live on remote reservations are shown as having some of the highest rates of "European" haplogroups in this study. These populations underwent underwent little admixture until the reservation era following the US Civil War. If you are familiar with demographics of the United States, you are no doubt aware that the European populations of the northern plains state where the Sioux mainly reside are mostly of German and Scandinavian origins. As you can see from the table below, the German population is relatively low in YHG R1b and higher in YHG I.

Population YHG I YHG R1b
US 19.3 58.3 3.02
English 21 67 3.19
French 15 58.5 3.90
German 22 44.5 2.02
Avg. 3.03

The assumed rate of admixture does not seem plausible because the Sioux, as Plains Indians, were confined to reservations about the same time and share a similar history to the Cheyenne, who do not appear to be as nearly as admixed. However, the Sioux formerly resided in Minnesota in the Great Lakes region which is a hot spot of the YHG H1b distribution in North America.

If you look at the distribution of R1b in North America, it can be seen that it parallels YHG C to a great extent. The distribution suggests an Arctic entry point, like YHG C, followed by a southerly expansion to the Great Lakes area and then eastward to the Atlantic seaboard.

eurologist said...

Gary Moore,

The Sioux had the earliest and most prolonged contact with the French.

By the time Scandinavian and German settlers arrived, contacts were either extremely aggressive or non-existent.

Simon_W said...

I'm still not convinced that R1b was initially brought to central/western Europe by IE speakers. In southwestern Europe it attains its highest frequencies (>80%) in the Basque and in the formerly Aquitanian and Iberian areas. Aquitanian was related with Basque, and Iberian was non-IE too. R1b is less common (50 - >60%) in the old IE parts of the Iberian peninsula, where the Lusitanians and Celtiberians where found. Similarly reduced frequencies are found in the old Tartessian area, whose Celticity has been suggested for in the recent past. In northwestern Europe R1b-frequencies of similar number as in the Basque country are mostly restricted to the very fringe. Now they are Celtic speaking, or at least they have been until recently. But we don't know when they started doing so. And they haven't been the only Celtic speakers around, notably there were also the Gauls in France, these were not extensively replaced by Romans or Franks, and yet their R1b frequency is lower than on the western fringe. Also it has to be noted that the Italics apparently didn't belong to the S116-branch that dominates among the Celts and Basques, but to older clades from the Balkans. So we cannot call S116 an Italo-Celtic branch of R1b. Of course, everyone wants to be a PIE (except for the Basques), so there is a natural prejudice among IE bearers of R1b in favour of its attribution to (preferably warlike) IE invaders. But if Italo-Celtic has expanded from the Balkans, it may have been originally brought about by West Asian J2 bearers, maybe together with some additional R1b, or even by North European R1a bearers. The whole S116 in central and western Europe may be nothing more than a numerous substrate. Actually R1b may have reached western Europe, and even Iberia, peacefully and well before the IEs with some rather Sardinian-like and Gedrosia admixed central European farmers. Possibly the Iberian Bell Beaker groups later re-exported nothing more than the Iberian subvariant DF-27.

Simon_W said...

And I forgot: Some seem to think that both R1a and R1b are from the earliest IE, because they are related, after all. But the common ancestor between them, R1*, predated the time of PIE by millennia.

Gary Moore said...

Eurologist -

Historical evidence indicates the greatest extent of admixing of Native American and European populations occurred in the post Civil War/reservation era - that is, within the last 150 years. By that point, the relative proportions of YHG R1b and I in Euro-American populations had achieved their current values. I would have to conclude therefore that the observed excess of R1b over I in Native Americans of the lower 48 states is due to previous existence of R1b in the NA Y-DNA pool. Likewise, the heavy prevalence of R1b in Canadian NA populations in the absence of any evidence of catastrophic loss of male lineages as well as the blood type observed frequencies point to an ancient founder effect like the one described for western Europe in this paper rather than recent European admixture alone.

Santos, Reich and others erred in assuming that R1b could not be a founding NA lineage due to the supposed absence of R1b in Siberian populations. We now know that this is simply wrong and R1b can be found in significant levels in several Siberian populations, including Selkups and North Altaians. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_Central_and_North_Asian_populations)

The best fit for the data collected by Hammer et al is a post glacial introduction of R1b into North America accompanied by a rapid expansion along the inland immigration corridor (consistent with mtDNA evidence), followed by admixture with Europeans in the modern era. This would account for the imbalance among R1b to I in observed distributions as well as the elevated levels of microsatellite diversity in NA R1b. This also parallels the model of British Y DNA described by Oppenheimer in which invading groups mostly added to rather than replaced indigenous Y DNA.

BTW - I also made a fallacious assumption in analyzing Hammer's data that no one caught: I assumed that YHG I was absent from Siberia and could not have contributed to the indigenous Native American Y DNA pool. This is not entirely correct, as can be seen from the following map of the distribution of YHG I: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haplogroup_I_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG

Grey said...

"And I forgot: Some seem to think that both R1a and R1b are from the earliest IE, because they are related, after all. But the common ancestor between them, R1*, predated the time of PIE by millennia."

I'm wondering if the Hyperboreans were the proto-R and they were split into separate pockets and pushed south by the ice, re-expanding to the north again afterwards.

terryt said...

"I'm still not convinced that R1b was initially brought to central/western Europe by IE speakers. In southwestern Europe it attains its highest frequencies (>80%) in the Basque and in the formerly Aquitanian and Iberian areas. Aquitanian was related with Basque, and Iberian was non-IE too".

Yes. I've always seen that as a barrier to considering R1b as Indo-European.

"Some seem to think that both R1a and R1b are from the earliest IE, because they are related, after all. But the common ancestor between them, R1*, predated the time of PIE by millennia".

I have long suspected that IE was introduced to Europe by R1a but the language spread beyond the haplogroup.

"In northwestern Europe R1b-frequencies of similar number as in the Basque country are mostly restricted to the very fringe. Now they are Celtic speaking, or at least they have been until recently".

As we all know, languages change readily.

"Historical evidence indicates the greatest extent of admixing of Native American and European populations occurred in the post Civil War/reservation era - that is, within the last 150 years".

I'd be very surprised if those early trappers and traders who mixed with, and in many cases lived with, Indians didn't leave some genes behind.

Gary Moore said...

terryt wrote: "I'd be very surprised if those early trappers and traders who mixed with, and in many cases lived with, Indians didn't leave some genes behind."

Being a descendant of one of those Scottish traders, I don't doubt that this is true, but geneticists overestimate how much genetic influence they had on native populations because they tended to marry into politically prominent members of tribes.

One source of introduction of European DNA into NA populations is through war captives. After the shock of initial contact with Europeans, Native Americans of northeastern North America regrouped and waged a highly effective campaign of resistance that included taking large numbers of European captives, both male and female - and incorporating them into their tribal structures. Here's an example from the Rice family history:

"Two other members, 13364 and 24143, have a rather unconventional link in addition to the DNA evidence. In 1704, four Rice boys descended from Edmund were captured by Mohawks at Marlborough (later Westborough), Massachusetts, and carried off to Canada. One was ransomed, but the other three remained and were adopted into the Mohawk tribe. Many years later, one returned to visit Westborough, but he no longer spoke English and had to talk to his relatives through an interpreter. The contact was not maintained, and so there is no collected record of the descendants of these expatriates. Nonetheless, Rice remains a relatively common surname among the Mohawks to this day, and both of these participants are Mohawk Rices. The two match each other 25/25 and match 24/25 with Group 1. 24143 traces back in the male line to one of the Rice captives and thus in turn to Edmund."

Note that although the Mohawks are a matrilineal tribe, evidently the Rice brothers retained their surnames, even though they were so assimilated into Mohawk society they had forgotten English.

I think that some of the resistance to accepting R1b as a founding North American haplogroup may be cultural and political. Even though the theory that R1b originated in Europe has been largely discredited and the YHG has a pan-Eurasian distribution, there are a lot of people who still think of it as being "European". In relation to ancient DNA, it ahs been written: "In North America, claims that Native Americans were not the first settlers of the continent are based on both the purported Caucasoid features of Kennewick Man and genetic evidence from other sites that some have interpreted as including a European presence. New genetic information from archaeological remains is thus not simply a matter of intellectual debate, but (to some) a direct challenge to the very identity of Aboriginal peoples of the Americas." I believe that this concern also applies to the finding of YHG R1b in Native American populations, which would suggest to some uninformed individuals that Europeans preceded the Native Americans in the Americas. In this case, the idea that R1b was the result of recent admixture rather than a long-established feature of American populations might be palatable in some quarters. (BTW - the Mohawk word for "ice" is ó:wise and it's owis in another Iroquoian language, Nottoway. Think there might be an IE link?)

eurologist said...

Gary,

Show us representative samples of Native American R1b that sit higher on the R-tree than the (two) typical West Eurasian ones. Or whatever time frame BCE you suggest for this mysterious travel.

My advice is: be patient, and/or stop promoting hypotheses that cannot currently be tested.

Gary Moore said...

Eurologist wrote: "Show us representative samples of Native American R1b that sit higher on the R-tree than the (two) typical West Eurasian ones. Or whatever time frame BCE you suggest for this mysterious travel."

The "mysterious travel" problem is the same as for mtDNA HG X in North America. More recent thinking places the origin of R1b and R1b1b2-M269 in south or central Asia, not in Europe as some others have suggested. YHG R1b1b2-M269 is present at low levels in several Siberian populations. Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect highly cohesive hunter-gatherer moving through virgin territory to leave behind "generic tails" to the same extent as movements of populations in Neolithic farming or herding communities do.

My analysis of the Hammer data shows that not only is R1b1b2-M269 overrepresented among the Native American sample above what would be expected from the pure admixture model, but possibly more relevant to the issue you raise with the R-tree is that R-P25 is perhaps even more so. The ratio of R1b1b2-M269 in European/American vs Native Americans is only 2.66/1 versus 2/1 for R-P25. Contrast this to the ratio of 4.9/1 for YHG I-P19 or 4.18/1 for YHD I-P30, which are more indisputably "European". Note that the data in this study only includes US NA populations and only a few of them, and no Canadian NA groups, which are known to more closely resemble Siberian populations. There are big gaps in the North American NA data, as noted by Reich and others, and other observational biases could result if DNA test participants are more acculturated and more likely to be admixed. clearly, more research and in-depth analysis is needed to resolve this issue.


A big problem for this type of research is that many Native America groups reject DNA testing on moral and philosophical grounds. To quote one Native American spokesman: Ray Apodaca of the National Congress of American Indians knows Indians don’t think this pure science research will reveal the history of human migration: “We know where we came from, we know who we are, we think we know where we are going. Why do we need to know anything else? I mean, is this for their benefit? It’s certainly isn’t for ours.” Native Americans long ago severed the link between ethnic identity and "blood". The liberal immigration policy of the United States no doubt owes a lot to this native philosophy, and perhaps they are right to maintain that ignoring historical baggage in the form of genetic histories is a way for societies to move forward.