June 06, 2014

Ancient DNA from Bronze Age Altai

UPDATE:

Two observations: it seems that West/East Eurasian Y chromosomes were sometimes associated with East/West mtDNA and vice versa, so these samples don't appear to be two disjoint West/East Eurasian populations, but some mixing took place. Also, the pigmentation estimates are mainly brown eyes (one blue-eyed individual) and black/dark brown hair (although both brown/dark blond were present).

The STRUCTURE results (which should be interpreted with great caution because of the small number of autosomal loci used) do suggest that this was a population that was more West than East Eurasian autosomally.

Forensic Science International: Genetics Received 2 January 2014; received in revised form 21 May 2014; accepted 25 May 2014. published online 04 June 2014.

Strong genetic admixture in the Altai at the Middle Bronze Age revealed by uniparental and ancestry informative markers

Clémence Hollard et al.

The Altai Mountains have been a long term boundary zone between the Eurasian Steppe populations and South and East Asian populations. To disentangle some of the historical population movements in this area, 14 ancient human specimens excavated in the westernmost part of the Mongolian Altai were studied. Thirteen of them were dated from the Middle to the End of the Bronze Age and one of them to the Eneolithic period. The environmental conditions encountered in this region led to the good preservation of DNA in the human remains. Therefore, a multi-markers approach was adopted for the genetic analysis of identity, ancestry and phenotype markers. Mitochondrial DNA analyses revealed that the ancient Altaians studied carried both Western (H, U, T) and Eastern (A, C, D) Eurasian lineages. In the same way, the patrilineal gene pool revealed the presence of different haplogroups (Q1a2a1-L54, R1a1a1b2-Z93 and C), probably marking different origins for the male paternal lineages. To go further in the search of the origin of these ancient specimens, phenotypical characters (ie: hair and eye colour) were determined. For this purpose, we adapted the HIrisPlex assay recently described to MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. In addition, some ancestry informative markers were analyzed with this assay. The results revealed mixed phenotypes among this group confirming the probable admixed ancestry of the studied Altaian population at the Middle Bronze Age. The good results obtained from ancient DNA samples suggest that this approach might be relevant for forensic casework too.

Link

28 comments:

aniasi said...

Instead of seeing this as admixture, would it be possible to interpret this as the survival of a pre-divergent population indigenous to the region?

Later admixture events would lead to modern populations looking more 'east' or 'west' Eurasian, but I am inclined to see this as the survival of an original central asian population that would later vanish due to heavy mixing cause by late bronze-age and iron age migrations.

Dr Rob said...

4 samples were R1a here, and all were Z-93. It would be lovely to see / re-analyze samples from further west (south Siberia, Kazakhstan) done by the same team to see whether they were Z-93 or 280 derived.

dreamsatlantis said...

This is very strange. Usually anything involving r1a blows up to 100+ comments quickly. Anyone know why this isn't the case now?

Does anyone know if these people were the ones involved in the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon?

Daniel Szelkey said...

If haplogroup R1a is western Eurasian so is haplogroup Q. Haplogroup Q is rarer in east asia than haplogroup R is. It is most common in Turkmenistan in the west and is closely related to R.Placed Q and C in a branch distinct from R is pseudoscience, Q's distribution is common in America but in the old world it is centered in the Center and the west and not the east.

Hector said...

@Szelkey

LOL. 15 million ~ 50 million Chinese men are of haplogroup Q.
In terms of percentage Kets etc. have the highest incidence of Q in the old world. Oh so you now want to claim them as "West Eurasian"?

And according to your "logic", N is also West-Eurasian.

Hamar Fox said...

aniasi,

Instead of seeing this as admixture, would it be possible to interpret this as the survival of a pre-divergent population indigenous to the region?

They're too recent to be pre-divergent. We know from much older genomes from the region that W/E Eurasian divergence was well underway by 23,000 years ago, and that East Asians are relative late-comers to much, if not all, of Siberia.

I can't access the STRUCTURE results, so I can't interpret them, but if this population has unambiguous West Eurasian and E. Asian (proper) links, then it's likely the result of admixture.

Hector,

LOL. 15 million ~ 50 million Chinese men are of haplogroup Q.
In terms of percentage Kets etc. have the highest incidence of Q in the old world. Oh so you now want to claim them as "West Eurasian"?


I don't want to jeopardise our beautiful friendship, but Q is clearly W. Eurasian. AG-1 is Q, and is more saliently 'western' than MA-1. AG-1 shows every sign in PCA of merely being 17,000 years of drift away from modern Europeans (or at least ~10,000 years of drift away from European HGs).

Kets are 27% 'European' according to Dodecad globe4. All Siberians have some W. Eurasian admixture, but Kets are far above average in this respect. Why do all Siberians have W. Eurasian admixture? Because they all absorbed the original ANE population to varying degrees.

And according to your "logic", N is also West-Eurasian.

The 'logic' is that we looked at the genome of a Q-bearing individual and found that he was not Eastern.

eurologist said...

"Anyone know why this isn't the case now?"

dreamsatlantis,

Probably because R1a is expected in the region?

We know that haplogroup P has SE Asian origin, and from its current distribution and the ancient and current distribution of R an Q it appears extremely likely that the latter two took the same path from the NW of the subcontinent, first north, and then east through Siberia. Q might have actually formed from P on this path. Ancient and Native American autosomal DNA support this scenario, as well, showing links to Europe and West Asia that likely originated in the Gravettian migrations to both the West and the East - perhaps even with an earlier Aurignacian movement that also populated both Europe and Siberia.

Shaikorth said...

Re. West Eurasian Kets, who knows?

After all, some call MA-1 pure West Eurasian and those Kets are the closest Eurasian people to him.

Unless you count the Eskimo-Aleuts in Chukotka, that is. :)

Daniel Szelkey said...

@Hector
1. The kets have very much mtdna U(4) (50% U total), because of this U mtdna they are mostly or at least largely caucasiod. This U4 is not recent. Unless you want to argue that U4 is Eastern Eurasian? http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226651658_Mitochondrial_DNA_Variation_in_the_Kets_and_Nganasans_and_Its_Implications_for_the_Initial_Peopling_of_Northern_Eurasia
2.The Turkmen have 40% Q and are dominated by western mtdna.
3. East Asians have 0.3% Q y-dna and 1.8% R y-dna http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2014106a.html read the chart on antrogenetica. The Chinese have more R than Q.
4.India has more Q than China.
5. R is a brother to Q beyond P they both are part of P1, with P2 being found in the Aeta http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2014106a.html.
6. Natives americans always appear to have some Caucasian linking blood (MALTA). X2a is one candidate but it is rare and localized, Q is closer to R, than X2a is to old world X and it is widespread.
7. Q3 is not Caucasian PER SE it is Ancestral north Eurasian just like R. It is not East Eurasian and is closer to West Asia than east asia. N on the other had is part of K2a (NOX) which is entirely east asia. Q3 and R are part of K2b which appears to be Ancestral North Eurasian with Melanesian and Caucasian links.
8. A long time ago I predicted that Caucasians were Closer to Melanesians on the male side than they are to East Asians. I was right.
9. A population existed, Eurasian not east or West (K2) , it split probably into South East asia. One branch split into (part of) the Eastern Eurasian people(k2A). The other into most Melanesians+ Ancestral North Eurasian (k2B). The 3rd branch split into Ancestral North Eurasian and some Aeta (P or K2b1) while the other stayed Melanesian (K2b2 like M Y-DNa and S-YDNA). This happened in a short amount of time. So I am probably only slightly closer related to a Papuan than a Korean.
10. According to this logic N is Eastern Eurasian while R and Q are not they are Ancestral North Eurasian. This is consistent with geography.
11. The only way that Q is Eastern Eurasian is if R is also eastern Eurasian. You could argue that, but arguing that Q is East Eurasian while R is West Eurasian is pseudoscience. Even is you only care about geography because R is more common in central and North asia while being rare in East asia, while the Americas are not part of Asia.
12. Natives americans were dominated by ancestral north Eurasian y-dna while also being dominated by East Asian mtdna with some exceptions (y-dna C3, MTDNA X2a and possibly B) .

Dr Rob said...

@ Eurologist "We know that haplogroup P has SE Asian origin"

Possible, but we do not *know** this for a fact. Still could have arisen , further west, in Sth Asia/ northern INdia

Davidski said...

eurologist,

You have no understanding of the phylogeography of R1a, so I'm not sure why you feel you can comment on this issue?

All of the R1a in this paper is R1a-Z93, which is less than 4,000 years old based on estimates from full Y-chromosomes sequences. The map here shows where it comes from, and that sure as hell is not anywhere much further east than the Urals.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/

Hector said...

Thus saythe the butt-hurt amateur "The 'logic' is that we looked at the genome of a Q-bearing individual and found that he was not Eastern."

hmmm? Do you guys call that logic? We usually call it something else.

I don't know whether I should even respond to it as it is clearly non-sense. There are ancient native American remains that bear Q and have clear East Eurasian affinity.

aniasi said...

@Hamar Fox

Thank you for explaining. However, I must clarify what I meant. I do not mean to say that this was a pre-divergent population, but rather a survival of one.

While E & W Eurasian populations diverged by 25,000 years ago, is it possible that some of them remained where they were, and formed a sort of 'Central Eurasian' population? Such a population was later swamped by late bronze age & iron age admixture.

Lathdrinor said...

From the Neolithic studies I have seen, Q is a later, rather than earlier, arrival in East Asia. I recall seeing Q in Bronze Age sites associated with nomadic peoples in and around China, but never in the Neolithic sites in the same regions. I have a difficult time imagining Q as having first risen in East Eurasia. But it is also incorrect to simply designate it as West Eurasian, given that it is not known where R and Q split off from P exactly, though I do not believe it is East Eurasia.

eurologist said...

"You have no understanding of the phylogeography of R1a, so I'm not sure why you feel you can comment on this issue?"


Davidski,

As you probably are aware of, ad hominem attempts are a reason to be banned from this and many other forums.

I have no idea where your ad hominem originates from or who you wrongly think I am.

With that, you continue to discredit yourself from anything resembling adhering to a consensus scientific process.

Hamar Fox said...

aniasi,

Thank you for explaining. However, I must clarify what I meant. I do not mean to say that this was a pre-divergent population, but rather a survival of one.

While E & W Eurasian populations diverged by 25,000 years ago, is it possible that some of them remained where they were, and formed a sort of 'Central Eurasian' population? Such a population was later swamped by late bronze age & iron age admixture.


Yeah, I considered that might have been what you meant after I posted. The Ust-Ishim genome is due to be published shortly, so this might give us more insight into what a pre-divergent individual might look like (although the word is that he's slightly more East-Asian).

Like I said, I've not seen the STRUCTURE analysis yet, but East Asians (e.g. Han) and West Eurasians represent opposite extremes of Eurasian variation, so if there's a clear Han-related component and a clear, let's say, European-related component in this Bronze Age population, rather than a general mix of populations throughout Eurasia, then I'd conclude that it's still more likely to be admixture, especially considering the admixture would have involved too fairly divergent populations (within a Eurasian context): East Asians and Ancestral North Asians.

Hector,

Thus saythe the butt-hurt amateur "The 'logic' is that we looked at the genome of a Q-bearing individual and found that he was not Eastern."

hmmm? Do you guys call that logic? We usually call it something else.

I don't know whether I should even respond to it as it is clearly non-sense. There are ancient native American remains that bear Q and have clear East Eurasian affinity.


I appreciate your predictably obnoxious response.

Q exists in two populations: one a population with an Eastern and Western affinity, and one with a Western and no Eastern affinity. Hence, Q is likely to be on the Western side of the W/E Eurasian split.

Thus saythe the butt-hurt amateur

Nobody older than 13 would ever use the phrase 'butt-hurt'. And your being 13 would neatly explain your likeability, which is non-existent.

Hamar Fox said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hector said...

If one traces back the ancestry of Q1a lineage, it started off in Southeast Asia(further back, you cannot really talk about East-West Eurasians in any meaningful sense), it was incubated in South Asia and entered Central Asia via Pakistan or Afghanistan. In that brief moment or sometime after that in Central Asia, it may have lost Southeast Asian/South Asian DNA and gained West Eurasian MtDNA and autosomal DNA.(its brother clade Q1b largely retains this to this day)

Q1a is quite overwhelmingly East Eurasian both by numbers and diversity. Most Northern East Eurasians have Q1a at polymorphic frequencies.(Chukchi etc. have their own private Q1a lineages.) It is certainly not a recent introduction as many of you amateurs would like to believe.

Is being West Eurasian like being marine? Once even for a moment West Eurasian, forever condemned(or glorified in your value system) as one for eternity?

You guys spend way too much time with the puerile fantasy of "White men mating with Oriental women".

Instead you should properly meditate on the unthinkable inequity of Southeast Asian men, probably negrito-like in appearance, having their way with "Caucasoid women" and having a good time in historically and monumentally meaningful way, joy of sex that resulted in the majority of Europeans.

Hamar Fox said...

Hector,

Q1a is quite overwhelmingly East Eurasian both by numbers and diversity. Most Northern East Eurasians have Q1a at polymorphic frequencies.(Chukchi etc. have their own private Q1a lineages.) It is certainly not a recent introduction as many of you amateurs would like to believe.

Where did I say it was recent? I'm fairly sure I said 'relatively recent', which simply means later than the original ANE population, in which the Q mutation occurred. ANE R was successful to the West, while ANE Q was successful to the East. Neither haplogroup is native to the majority (autosomal) ancestry of the modern populations that either haplogroup dominates/thrives in.

I'm mildly embarrassed for you that you don't know that populations like the Chukchi are highly admixed. In fact, in another thread you embarrassingly thought that Finns are 'close to 100% European'. I get the impression you don't really know anything about autosomal genetics at all. You almost seem...amateurish. You also lack any positive personality traits to compensate for this. You may indeed be a man complete devoid of any conceivable merit.

You guys spend way too much time with the puerile fantasy of "White men mating with Oriental women".

Instead you should properly meditate on the unthinkable inequity of Southeast Asian men, probably negrito-like in appearance, having their way with "Caucasoid women" and having a good time in historically and monumentally meaningful way, joy of sex that resulted in the majority of Europeans.


*stifles yawn*

I like how 90% of your average comment is attempt after sleep-inducing attempt at 'incisiveness', and the other 10% is equally irrelevant and boring nonlogic. If you have nothing more interesting to say in your next comment, I won't reply.

Daniel Szelkey said...

"Instead you should properly meditate on the unthinkable inequity of Southeast Asian men, probably negrito-like in appearance, having their way with "Caucasoid women" and having a good time in historically and monumentally meaningful way, joy of sex that resulted in the majority of Europeans." Eastern Eurasian lineages are quite rare, and restricted to y-dna haplogroup C. Most Chinese men have K2a, which began in se asia, but is a decendent of IJK which has origins in Iran, and HIJK which has origins in India/Iran followed by GHIJK (F) which has origins in the Caucasus seemingly.
So most Chinese guys are decendents of Caucasians (marrying Asians), while most Mongolians and the Buryats are true Orientals. LOL. But seriously the only scientific way to divide it is C as Eastern and F as Western. Unless the split was latter, and Eastern Eurasians have something really weird in the.

Daniel Szelkey said...

"Instead you should properly meditate on the unthinkable inequity of Southeast Asian men, probably negrito-like in appearance, having their way with "Caucasoid women" and having a good time in historically and monumentally meaningful way, joy of sex that resulted in the majority of Europeans." Eastern Eurasian lineages are quite rare, and restricted to y-dna haplogroup C. Most Chinese men have K2a, which began in se asia, but is a decendent of IJK which has origins in Iran, and HIJK which has origins in India/Iran followed by GHIJK (F) which has origins in the Caucasus seemingly.
So most Chinese guys are decendents of Caucasians (marrying Asians), while most Mongolians and the Buryats are true Orientals. LOL. But seriously the only scientific way to divide it is C as Eastern and F as Western. (THIS IS PROBABLY NOT THE CASE BUT IT IS A HYPOTHESIS)

Daniel Szelkey said...

Even if NO is Eastern Eurasian and C is something highly exotic, the statement ''Q1a is quite overwhelmingly East Eurasian both by numbers and diversity'' is false.
1. By the numbers. More men have Q in south (12,000,000) and Central Asia (3,000,000) than east Asia (8,000,000), and its frequency is higher their. On diversity I wish I could see a good post 2010 study on the diversity of Q, do you have one?
2."Most Northern East Eurasians" are you kidding me they are like 100,000 people, and what makes you think they are closer to you than they are to me, they are not Eastern Eurasian , they are a mix of northern Eurasian and Eastern Eurasian(I assume you are east Eurasian) .
3."White men mating with Oriental women". This I wish did not happen so much.
4. ''Southeast Asian men, probably negrito-like in appearance, having their way with "Caucasoid women" Look at this chart it suggests that R0 mtdna closest relatives are P and B, http://snag.gy/l5907.jpg. I think it is likely that both some European mtdna and y-dna have origins in SE asia, but we need better mtdna phylogeny, which may not be possible cause mtdna only has 16,570 base pairs.
5. Three possibilities.
a. Q and R are both eastern Eurasian and belong to the same family.
b. Q and R are both Western Eurasian and belong to the same family.
c. Q and R are not Eastern Eurasian or western Eurasian and belong to the same family.
d. This is because the Q, and R split happened after the split of western Eurasians and Eastern Eurasians (45kya ago), while the K2a and K2b split most likely happened before (this contradicts my above post which is just a hypothesis a posted as your very worst scenario) R and Q belong to the same family and have SOMEWHAT recent ancestry (about the same age as mtdna hg H)
6. Scenario 1. Q and R are both Eastern Eurasian and belong to the same family that occurred after the west/east split do you agree with this or the other 2 scenarios? You probably think that R is western and Q is eastern and them being related does not count because one got unrelated because he went to America.
7. I never said that Q is Western Eurasian (I said QR is ancestral North Eurasian and that Q is in no way shape or form Eastern Eurasian). Q cannot be eastern Eurasian, while R is western Eurasian. This is because they are too closely related. Saying that Q is eastern and R is western is like saying the L2 mtdna in Syria is not MODERN African but Syrian because it is found in Syria, and has been since at least Neolithic times. I attempt to divide genes, by phlogenies not by locations.

Daniel Szelkey said...

This is my hypothesis. The ancient Altai population from Mongolia was a mix with 3 populations.
1. A Population with R1a-z93 y=dna,R1b1+H ,T mtdna and possibly U2 mtdna(not found here) from Europe most likely. These ancient samples provide evidence of Indo-Iranian languages coming from Europe because they have European-specific mtdna and R1a-z93 .However, support for the Indian origin of R1a comes from R1b (India Specific) mtdna being present here (ANE+EEF ). How, in the world did both R1b (south Asian) and H and T (Early European farmer) get here? West Eurasian mtdna in india is truly ancient, and R1a-z93 did not bring their EEF+WHG+ANE mtdna to India, U2 mtdna in India is connected to R2 Y-DNA or H Y-DNA, and is associated with ANE but not R1a-z93.
2. A population with U4 mtdna and also A mtdna and Q1a2 y-dna (this population was admixed before) the kets have bountiful U4 higher than anyone in the world (find a population with more U4). This population came from the North Altai region of Russia and the Yenisei river (ANE+EASTERN EURASIAN+ WHG).
3. A population with C-YDNA and C and D mtdna from Mongolia(PURE EASTERN EURASIAN).
-------------------------
(sidenote) Modern Shors of Russia are very closely related to these ancient samples, its almost scary

Davidski said...

eurologist,

Stating the fact that you're obviously not familiar with the topology of R1a (and as a result, shouldn't comment on anything linked to the subject until you do become familiar with it) can hardly be an ad hominem, although I can see how it might be embarrassing for you to be called out in such a way here.

In any case, it's pretty simple to work out what this study is all about, even without having access to the full paper.

Since all of the R1a samples belong to R1a-Z93, and R1a-Z93 is a subclade no older than the Copper Age, and in fact a sister clade of the European R1a-Z282 and, more distantly, Northwest European R1a-CTS4385, then it's no wonder that these R1a-Z93 sequences show up amongst the mixed, but mostly western, Middle Bronze Age Kurgan samples, along with European mtDNA sequences belonging to haplogroups H1, H7 and U4, as well as traces of light pigmentation.

It's also not a coincidence that the single Copper Age sample belongs to Y-HG Q and mtDNA R1b1, because it most likely represents the survival of ANE-derived populations in Siberia that persisted there until the early metal ages, rather than the later migrations from Europe to the east during the early Kurgan period, like those R1a-Z93 samples, or the westward movement of East Asian derived groups from beyond the Altai, like the samples here belonging to Y-HG C and the classic East Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups. By the way, interestingly Ust-Ishim also belongs to mtDNA R.

So, to sum up, the results in this study actually suggest that three different populations mixed around the Altai during the Bronze Age - one from Europe, another from Siberia (related to ANE-proxy Mal'ta boy, and now extinct), and a third one from East Asia.

There, too easy.

terryt said...

"Most Chinese men have K2a, which began in se asia, but is a decendent of IJK which has origins in Iran, and HIJK which has origins in India/Iran followed by GHIJK (F) which has origins in the Caucasus seemingly".

I think that is a pretty good summary.

"the only scientific way to divide it is C as Eastern and F as Western. (THIS IS PROBABLY NOT THE CASE BUT IT IS A HYPOTHESIS)"

I think it probably is the case. C and F were separated as climate in Central Eurasia cooled leaving the two haplogroups isolated at either end.

"R and Q belong to the same family and have SOMEWHAT recent ancestry (about the same age as mtdna hg H)"

That is what the data indicates it the case as far as I see it.

"the results in this study actually suggest that three different populations mixed around the Altai during the Bronze Age - one from Europe, another from Siberia (related to ANE-proxy Mal'ta boy, and now extinct), and a third one from East Asia". Makes complete sense. Backwards and forwards, to and fro.

eurologist said...

Davidski,

To dreamsatlantis' question:

"This is very strange. Usually anything involving r1a blows up to 100+ comments quickly. Anyone know why this isn't the case now?"

I answered:

"Probably because R1a is expected in the region?"

To which you responded:

"You have no understanding of the phylogeography of R1a, so I'm not sure why you feel you can comment on this issue?"

But next you wrote:

"it's no wonder that these R1a-Z93 sequences show up amongst the mixed, but mostly western, Middle Bronze Age Kurgan samples"

And thus agreeing with me. So, you called me out without reason nor reasoning.

Writing:

"You have no understanding of the phylogeography of R1a, so I'm not sure why you feel you can comment on this issue?"

without providing profuse evidence indeed is an ad hominem, there's no question about it, even if you have no grasp of the scientific process. And arguing:

"Stating the fact that you're obviously not familiar with the topology of R1a (and as a result, shouldn't comment on anything linked to the subject until you do become familiar with it) can hardly be an ad hominem"

should only remind you of this: an opinion (and an isolated one, at that, namely solely yours) is not a fact. And it never will be.

And your credibility once again has sunk to zero.

Hamar Fox said...

Just some further thoughts:

Is being West Eurasian like being marine? Once even for a moment West Eurasian, forever condemned(or glorified in your value system) as one for eternity?

'West Eurasian' is simply one half of the model that best characterises modern Eurasian autosomal diversity. The fact that it encompasses various disparate haplogroups (as does 'East Eurasian') does not mean that the concept is invalid: it simply means that it comprises various earlier populations that presumably at some point pooled together and 'averaged out' their autosomal material, before diverging together in a singular direction. It's possible that in this way vestiges of earlier populations are obscured because no 'West Eurasian' haplogroup (or, rather, a population dominated by that haplogroup), regardless of its absolute origin, any longer corresponds with any short of genetic pull or shift in any direction relative to other West Eurasians with a haplogroup of a wildly different origin. Only haplogroups originating in non-Western populations after the East-West split have that effect.

Alternatively, you may have a West-East division developing fairly early in Eurasian history, and perhaps these populations 'mopped up' 'neutral' lineages whose descendants ultimately fell wholly within the range of West Eurasian diversity (R1, maybe R completely, and Q) or wholly within the range of East Eurasian diversity (N, O).

The only reasonable way to designate a haplogroup in terms of East-West variation is to identify the autosomal make-up of the population in which the mutation occurred.

If one traces back the ancestry of Q1a lineage, it started off in Southeast Asia(further back, you cannot really talk about East-West Eurasians in any meaningful sense), it was incubated in South Asia and entered Central Asia via Pakistan or Afghanistan.

To tie this in with your points about genetics assumes two things: 1) That W. Eurasians existed at this time (and that SE Eurasians existed outside of that variation), and 2) that SE Asians at that time were as distinctly 'Eastern' in terms of Eurasian variation as at present, and were not genetically 'neutral'.

In that brief moment or sometime after that in Central Asia, it may have lost Southeast Asian/South Asian DNA and gained West Eurasian MtDNA and autosomal DNA.

In which case MA-1 would appear as a clear case of East-West admixture -- maternally West Eurasian, and paternally Eastern. He doesn't.

(its brother clade Q1b largely retains this to this day)

I've no idea why so many self-professed 'professionals' seem to think Y-DNA and mtDNA are glued to each other.

Q1a is quite overwhelmingly East Eurasian both by numbers and diversity. Most Northern East Eurasians have Q1a at polymorphic frequencies.(Chukchi etc. have their own private Q1a lineages.) It is certainly not a recent introduction as many of you amateurs would like to believe.

ANEs no longer exist. All of their genes that survive, survive in other populations. If you invest all your money in a bank, and it accrues interest in that bank, does that mean the money was always in the bank? Where there's Q, you'll find ANE autosomal admixture. It may be small. There's no guarantee (or even likelihood) that haplogroups will be proportionate to autosomal make-up, but it's there, just as East Asian autosomal contributions are everywhere that you find Y-DNA N (though in wildly disproportionate amounts).

Hamar Fox said...

Just some further thoughts:

Is being West Eurasian like being marine? Once even for a moment West Eurasian, forever condemned(or glorified in your value system) as one for eternity?

'West Eurasian' is simply one half of the model that best characterises modern Eurasian autosomal diversity. The fact that it encompasses various disparate haplogroups (as does 'East Eurasian') does not mean that the concept is invalid: it simply means that it comprises various earlier populations that presumably at some point pooled together and 'averaged out' their autosomal material, before diverging together in a singular direction. It's possible that in this way vestiges of earlier populations are obscured because no 'West Eurasian' haplogroup (or, rather, a population dominated by that haplogroup), regardless of its absolute origin, any longer corresponds with any short of genetic pull or shift in any direction relative to other West Eurasians with a haplogroup of a wildly different origin. Only haplogroups originating in non-Western populations after the East-West split have that effect.

Alternatively, you may have a West-East division developing fairly early in Eurasian history, and perhaps these populations 'mopped up' 'neutral' lineages whose descendants ultimately fell wholly within the range of West Eurasian diversity (R1, maybe R completely, and Q) or wholly within the range of East Eurasian diversity (N, O).

The only reasonable way to designate a haplogroup in terms of East-West variation is to identify the autosomal make-up of the population in which the mutation occurred.

If one traces back the ancestry of Q1a lineage, it started off in Southeast Asia(further back, you cannot really talk about East-West Eurasians in any meaningful sense), it was incubated in South Asia and entered Central Asia via Pakistan or Afghanistan.

To tie this in with your points about genetics assumes two things: 1) That W. Eurasians existed at this time (and that SE Eurasians existed outside of that variation), and 2) that SE Asians at that time were as distinctly 'Eastern' in terms of Eurasian variation as at present, and were not genetically 'neutral'.

In that brief moment or sometime after that in Central Asia, it may have lost Southeast Asian/South Asian DNA and gained West Eurasian MtDNA and autosomal DNA.

In which case MA-1 would appear as a clear case of East-West admixture -- maternally West Eurasian, and paternally Eastern. He doesn't.

(its brother clade Q1b largely retains this to this day)

I've no idea why so many self-professed 'professionals' seem to think Y-DNA and mtDNA are glued to each other.

Q1a is quite overwhelmingly East Eurasian both by numbers and diversity. Most Northern East Eurasians have Q1a at polymorphic frequencies.(Chukchi etc. have their own private Q1a lineages.) It is certainly not a recent introduction as many of you amateurs would like to believe.

ANEs no longer exist. All of their genes that survive, survive in other populations. If you invest all your money in a bank, and it accrues interest in that bank, does that mean the money was always in the bank? Where there's Q, you'll find ANE autosomal admixture. It may be small. There's no guarantee (or even likelihood) that haplogroups will be proportionate to autosomal make-up, but it's there, just as East Asian autosomal contributions are everywhere that you find Y-DNA N (though in wildly disproportionate amounts).