Ancestors of Eastern Neandertals admixed with modern humans 100 thousand years ago

If true, this is very hard to reconcile with late (60kya) out of Africa and may be a smoking gun for pre-100kya presence of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia. From the paper:

The inferred demographic model confirms and provides quantitative estimates of previously inferred gene flow events among modern and archaic humans2, 3 (Extended Data Fig. 1). These include Neanderthal gene flow into modern humans outside Africa (3.3–5.8%) and gene flow from an unknown archaic hominin into the ancestors of Denisovans (0.0–0.5%). Interestingly, we also detect a signal of gene flow from modern humans into the ancestors of the Altai Neanderthal (1.0–7.1%). The precise source of this gene flow is unclear, but it appears to come from a population that either split from the ancestors of all present-day Africans or from one of the early African lineages, as significant admixture rates are estimated from San as well as Yoruba individuals. This introgression thus occurred in the opposite direction from the previously reported gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans outside Africa

And:

However, it is clear that the source of the gene flow is a population equally related to present-day Africans and non-Africans (Extended Data Fig. 3). We conclude that the introgressing population diverged from other modern human populations before or shortly after the split between the ancestors of San and other Africans (Fig. 3a), which occurred approximately 200,000 years ago11.

The implications of this inference (if correct) for modern human origins are potentially monumental as they suggest a Eurasian modern human lineage (only detected in the Altai Neandertal) that diverges from other modern humans as early (if not earlier) than any two African ones.

If the new discovery checks out, it will no longer be possible to assert that the deepest split in our species, H. sapiens, involves African populations. A modest interpretation of these results would assert an earlier (pre-100kya) exodus of our species from Africa, and a more bold one would seek to re-examine the geographical origin of H. sapiens itself. I don't know if anyone is working on getting DNA from the progressive Neandertals of the Near East, but they should.

Things are bound to get more interesting.

Nature (2016) doi:10.1038/nature16544

Ancient gene flow from early modern humans into Eastern Neanderthals

Martin Kuhlwilm, Ilan Gronau, Melissa J. Hubisz, Cesare de Filippo, Javier Prado-Martinez, Martin Kircher, Qiaomei Fu, Hernán A. Burbano, Carles Lalueza-Fox, Marco de la Rasilla, Antonio Rosas, Pavao Rudan, Dejana Brajkovic, Željko Kucan, Ivan Gušic, Tomas Marques-Bonet, Aida M. Andrés, Bence Viola, Svante Pääbo, Matthias Meyer, Adam Siepel & Sergi Castellano

It has been shown that Neanderthals contributed genetically to modern humans outside Africa 47,000–65,000 years ago. Here we analyse the genomes of a Neanderthal and a Denisovan from the Altai Mountains in Siberia together with the sequences of chromosome 21 of two Neanderthals from Spain and Croatia. We find that a population that diverged early from other modern humans in Africa contributed genetically to the ancestors of Neanderthals from the Altai Mountains roughly 100,000 years ago. By contrast, we do not detect such a genetic contribution in the Denisovan or the two European Neanderthals. We conclude that in addition to later interbreeding events, the ancestors of Neanderthals from the Altai Mountains and early modern humans met and interbred, possibly in the Near East, many thousands of years earlier than previously thought.

Link

mtDNA haplogroup A10 in Bronze Age West Siberia

PLoS ONE 10(5): e0127182. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127182

MtDNA Haplogroup A10 Lineages in Bronze Age Samples Suggest That Ancient Autochthonous Human Groups Contributed to the Specificity of the Indigenous West Siberian Population

Aleksandr S. Pilipenko et al.

Abstract

Background

The craniometric specificity of the indigenous West Siberian human populations cannot be completely explained by the genetic interactions of the western and eastern Eurasian groups recorded in the archaeology of the area from the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. Anthropologists have proposed another probable explanation: contribution to the genetic structure of West Siberian indigenous populations by ancient human groups, which separated from western and eastern Eurasian populations before the final formation of their phenotypic and genetic features and evolved independently in the region over a long period of time. This hypothesis remains untested. From the genetic point of view, it could be confirmed by the presence in the gene pool of indigenous populations of autochthonous components that evolved in the region over long time periods. The detection of such components, particularly in the mtDNA gene pool, is crucial for further clarification of early regional genetic history.

Results and Conclusion

We present the results of analysis of mtDNA samples (n = 10) belonging to the A10 haplogroup, from Bronze Age populations of West Siberian forest-steppe (V—I millennium BC), that were identified in a screening study of a large diachronic sample (n = 96). A10 lineages, which are very rare in modern Eurasian populations, were found in all the Bronze Age groups under study. Data on the A10 lineages’ phylogeny and phylogeography in ancient West Siberian and modern Eurasian populations suggest that A10 haplogroup underwent a long-term evolution in West Siberia or arose there autochthonously; thus, the presence of A10 lineages indicates the possible contribution of early autochthonous human groups to the genetic specificity of modern populations, in addition to contributions of later interactions of western and eastern Eurasian populations.

Link

Southern origins and recent admixture of Siberian populations

bioRxiv http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/018770

The complex admixture history and recent southern origins of Siberian populations

Irina Pugach , Rostislav Matveev , Viktor Spitsyn , Sergey Makarov , Innokentiy Novgorodov , Vladimir Osakovsky , Mark Stoneking , Brigitte Pakendorf

Although Siberia was inhabited by modern humans at an early stage, there is still debate over whether this area remained habitable during the extremely cold period of the Last Glacial Maximum or whether it was subsequently repopulated by peoples with a recent shared ancestry. Previous studies of the genetic history of Siberian populations were hampered by the extensive admixture that appears to have taken place among these populations, since commonly used methods assume a tree-like population history and at most single admixture events. We therefore developed a new method based on the covariance of ancestry components, which we validated with simulated data, in order to investigate this potentially complex admixture history and to distinguish the effects of shared ancestry from prehistoric migrations and contact. We furthermore adapted a previously devised method of admixture dating for use with multiple events of gene flow, and applied these methods to whole-genome genotype data from over 500 individuals belonging to 20 different Siberian ethnolinguistic groups. The results of these analyses indicate that there have indeed been multiple layers of admixture detectable in most of the Siberian populations, with considerable differences in the admixture histories of individual populations, and with the earliest events dated to not more than 4500 years ago. Furthermore, most of the populations of Siberia included here, even those settled far to the north, can be shown to have a southern origin. These results provide support for a recent population replacement in this region, with the northward expansions of different populations possibly being driven partly by the advent of pastoralism, especially reindeer domestication. These newly developed methods to analyse multiple admixture events should aid in the investigation of similarly complex population histories elsewhere.

Link

Afanasievo, Okunev, Andronovo, Sintashta DNA?

A reader alerts me to this article in Russian, but you can use Google Translate to get the gist of it. Some interesting bits (note that "pit"=Yamna):

I can not ignore the question I now have is particularly exciting - the origin of the Indo-Europeans. Community Indo-Europeists animatedly discussing just appeared as a preprint work of David Raika and his colleagues discovered by studying the genomes of people Neolithic and Bronze Age that a decisive influence on the genetic landscape of Europe has had a migration of people pit culture to the north and west in the middle of the III millennium. BC .e. As a result, according to geneticists, there was a population associated with the Corded Ware culture, and from it are the origin of the later Indo-European. By the same conclusions about the same time came the other team's leading geneticists led by Eske Villerslevom.
...

A steppe, we thought had long been a special world, and differs sharply from the Middle East, and from the European. Migration from there - so it seemed - were mainly directed not to the west and to the east, along the steppes, in the direction of Central Asia, which the ancient Indo-Europeans, Afanasiev media culture (descendants of the people of the pit culture or their ancestors steppe) reached no later turn IV- III millennium BC. It is now confirmed and the group Villersleva.
...

By the way, it also happens that paleoanthropologists prompted geneticists way of research - and turned out to be right. As it happens, for example, with native Okunevskaya culture of South Siberia. When 20 years ago, we found that craniologically (by a combination of traditional measurement and we proposed new informative features of the structure of the cranial sutures and holes) okunevtsy - "cousins" of American Indians, few believed us. Firstly, in okunevtsah ever seen Caucasoid-Mongoloid Métis like the Kazakhs, and secondly, the ancestors of the Indians withdrew from Siberia to the New World at least 10 thousand. Before the Yenisey there Okunevskaya culture.

Eske Willerslev Now and his colleagues have fully confirmed our conclusion. They confirmed the close relationship between the carriers and the pit Afanasiev cultures and migration ancestors sintashtintsev and Andronov from Europe in the Urals and further to Siberia - but this is already a long time, few archaeologists and anthropologists doubted.

I hope more details will appear soon on what promises to be a very interesting new study. The author seems to be referring to his theory of a relationship between Okunev and Amerindians, and I'm wondering if this is simply "Ancient North Eurasian" ancestry or an even more specific link. Any Russian readers who can dig up more information are invited to post in the comments.

Ancient mtDNA from cis-Baikal area

Russian Journal of Genetics: Applied Research January 2015, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 26-32

Mitochondrial DNA diversity in the gene pool of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Cisbaikalian human population R. O. Trapezov, A. S. Pilipenko, V. I. Molodin

This paper presents the results of a study of a mitochondrial DNA sample (N = 15) from the remains of representatives of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (VI–III millennia BC) Cisbaikalian human population. It was found that the mitochondrial gene pool of the ancient population under study contains lineages of East Eurasian haplogroups D, G2a C, Z, and F1b. The results of the comparative analysis of the group under study with ancient and modern Eurasian populations suggest that the development of autochtonous East Eurasian genetic components was the main mechanism of the formation of the population of the Baikal region. Genetic contacts with populations of neighboring regions of Central Asia also contributed to the formation of the gene pool of the Cisbaikalian population.

Link

Western Eurasian mtDNA in modern Siberians

The eastern European mtDNA discussed in this article might be a remnant of the population of Proto-Europeoids that occupied Siberia even in Upper Paleolithic times (as the genome of the Mal'ta Upper Paleolithic Siberian has shown). However, the authors write:

Overall, the phylogeographic analysis strongly implies that the western Eurasian founders, giving rise to Siberian specific subclades, trace their ancestry only to the early and mid-Holocene, though some of genetic lineages may trace their ancestry back to the end of LGM. Importantly, we have not found the modern northern Asians to have western Eurasian genetic components of sufficient antiquity to indicate traces of pre-LGM expansions, that originated from the Upper Paleolithic industries present both in the southern Siberia and Siberian Arctic, and that date back to ~30 kya, well before the LGM [43]–[45].

If this is true, then probably the mysterious Mal'ta-like population did not have a lasting impact in Siberia.

The western Asia/Caucasus migration can't be attributed to farming expansions (because Siberia didn't have those), so it may very well be a genetic signature of the Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages (assuming it did not go there with occasional trade and intermarriage with later Eastern Europeans and Central Asians).

BMC Evolutionary Biology 2014, 14:217 doi:10.1186/s12862-014-0217-9

Western Eurasian ancestry in modern Siberians based on mitogenomic data

Miroslava Derenko et al.

Abstract

Background

Although the genetic heritage of aboriginal Siberians is mostly of eastern Asian ancestry, a substantial western Eurasian component is observed in the majority of northern Asian populations. Traces of at least two migrations into southern Siberia, one from eastern Europe and the other from western Asia/the Caucasus have been detected previously in mitochondrial gene pools of modern Siberians.

Results

We report here 166 new complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences that allow us to expand and re-analyze the available data sets of western Eurasian lineages found in northern Asian populations, define the phylogenetic status of Siberian-specific subclades and search for links between mtDNA haplotypes/subclades and events of human migrations. From a survey of 158 western Eurasian mtDNA genomes found in Siberia we estimate that nearly 40% of them most likely have western Asian and another 29% European ancestry. It is striking that 65 of northern Asian mitogenomes, i.e. ~41%, fall into 19 branches and subclades which can be considered as Siberian-specific being found so far only in Siberian populations. From the coalescence analysis it is evident that the sequence divergence of Siberian-specific subclades was relatively small, corresponding to only 0.6-9.5 kya (using the complete mtDNA rate) and 1–6 kya (coding region rate).

Conclusions

The phylogeographic analysis implies that the western Eurasian founders, giving rise to Siberian specific subclades, may trace their ancestry only to the early and mid-Holocene, though some of genetic lineages may trace their ancestry back to the end of Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). We have not found the modern northern Asians to have western Eurasian genetic components of sufficient antiquity to indicate traces of pre-LGM expansions.

Link

Genome of Kostenki-14, an Upper Paleolithic European (Seguin-Orlando, Korneliussen, Sikora, et al. 2014)

A new paper in Science reports on the genome of Kostenki-14 (K14), an Upper Paleolithic European from Russia. This is now the third oldest Homo sapiens for which we have genetic data, after Ust'-Ishim (Siberia, 45 thousand years), Tianyuan (China, 40 thousand years), and now Kostenki (European part of Russia, 37 thousand years). Of these three genomes, the Ust'-Ishim is both the highest coverage and earliest (Siberia is the gift that keeps on givin'), Tianyuan only has its chromosome 21 known, and K14, a complete 2.42x coverage sequence (and, apparently, good teeth, after all these years; left).

The publication of the Tianyuan genome showed that populations related to East Asians and Oceanians existed in the world 40 thousand years ago. So, models based on modern humans that put the split of East Asians from Europeans to a much more recent time period were basically wrong (more on this a little below). The Ust'-Ishim genome showed that populations basal to both East Asians and Europeans existed in the world 45 thousand years ago. So, either East Asians and Europeans hadn't gone along their different paths yet, or, if they had, Ust'-Ishim happened to be a side branch and not the major East Asian and European lineages.

K14 may not be the older Upper Paleolithic human, but as of this writing it is the only Upper Paleolithic European that has been published so far, the next ones being the Loschbour, Motala, and La Brana Mesolithic Europeans who who have about 1/5 of its age. The new paper shows that K14 was definitely European (or more correctly West Eurasian or Caucasoid), as it was more similar to modern Europeans than to East Asians or other non-West Eurasian populations. Thus, the morphological description of the sample as "Australoid" by some early anthropologists did not reflect its ancestral makeup. Also, this proves that Caucasoids existed 37,000 years ago, which most physical anthropologists would believe, but it is nice to have direct confirmation. This pushes the lower bound from 24,000 years ago (because MA-1 was West Eurasian according to the results of Raghavan et al.). It will be nice to push the lower bound further to the past as there are much older bones (and plenty of teeth) from earlier Upper Paleolithic Europeans.

But there is a slight kink in the story, as K14 also belonged to Y-haplogroup C which is predominantly East Asian/Ocenian/Native American today. So, maybe there is some distant link to these populations in its ancestry. But, there is definitely a link to much more recent Europeans: the tiny percentage of living Europeans who have preserved K14's Y-chromosomal type (some of which were doubtlessly told a few years back that they were descendants of Genghis Khan, before the phylogenetic structure of C was known), the La Brana hunter-gatherer from Mesolithic Spain, as well as Neolithic Europeans from Hungary.

The authors of the current paper also date the date of Neandertal admixture to 54 thousand years. This seems very compatible with the finding of between 50 and 60 thousand years by Fu et al. (2014) based on the Ust'-Ishim genome (which is both earlier and better, so the chunks of Neandertal ancestry in it are probably be longer and more well-defined).

The authors propose the following model for how various populations are related to each other:

This model is not formally tested, but at least it seems to derive Europeans as a 3-way mixture that is basically identical to that of Lazaridis et al., with some relabeling of populations (MHG=WHG and NEOL=EEF).

The model also includes Yeniseian Siberians as a mixture of MHG and East Asians (although it does not include actual East Asians). It's strange that Yeniseians apparently are given no ANE ancestry but only WHG/MHG. Both Raghavan et al. and Lazaridis et al. mentioned that ancestry related to MA-1 in living Siberians is diminished, but none at all?

The major new finding of this paper, however, is that K14 had Basal Eurasian ancestry, which was first proposed for EEF from Germany 7,000 years ago, so now it postulated for Russian hunter-gatherers 37,000 years ago. I don't think many archaeologists would derive European farmers from Russia (Russia is actually one of the last places in Europe that became agricultural). So, maybe the hunter-gatherers from Russia had Basal Eurasian ancestry and this wasn't limited to the ancestors of the EEF? If they did, it's strange that Loschbour, La Brana, MA-1, Ust'-Ishim, Swedish Mesolithic (and maybe KO1?) didn't have it. So, either Kostenki was very unique or there is an alternative explanation for its strangeness.


The evidence for the Basal Eurasian ancestry in K14 is summarized in the figure above in bullet point (b).

• The statistic D(Mbuti, East Asia; HG, K14) is less than 0. So, there's some link between HG and East Asians. Is this because of Basal Eurasian admixture in K14 or due to some admixture between Caucasoids and Mongoloids after the time of K14? (this might cause the lower dates of European-East Asian splits alluded to above).
• The statistic D(Mbuti, East Asia; NEOL, K14) is 0. So, East Asians don't "prefer" either Neolithic Europeans (NEOL) or K14. I guess the value of this statistic depends on how much Basal Eurasian the different populations have and what's the relationship between East Asians, K14, and the non-Basal Eurasian part in K14.
• Finally, "NEOL component for K14 in ADMIXTURE". I think they are referring to the "Middle East" component (right). This may be Basal Eurasian ancestry, or maybe because K14 is so old, it pre-dates the European/Middle Eastern divide and its ancestry isn't attracted to either Europe or the Middle East, so it gets ancestry from both (and many other colors besides).

It is fascinating how many new questions are both answered and raised each time a new genome gets published (and there has been a constant stream of these over the last couple of years).

Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa0114

Genomic structure in Europeans dating back at least 36,200 years

Andaine Seguin-Orlando1,*, Thorfinn S. Korneliussen1,*, Martin Sikora1, et al.

The origin of contemporary Europeans remains contentious. We obtain a genome sequence from Kostenki 14 in European Russia dating to 38,700 to 36,200 years ago, one of the oldest fossils of Anatomically Modern Humans from Europe. We find that K14 shares a close ancestry with the 24,000-year-old Mal’ta boy from central Siberia, European Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, some contemporary western Siberians, and many Europeans, but not eastern Asians. Additionally, the Kostenki 14 genome shows evidence of shared ancestry with a population basal to all Eurasians that also relates to later European Neolithic farmers. We find that Kostenki 14 contains more Neandertal DNA that is contained in longer tracts than present Europeans. Our findings reveal the timing of divergence of western Eurasians and East Asians to be more than 36,200 years ago and that European genomic structure today dates back to the Upper Paleolithic and derives from a meta-population that at times stretched from Europe to central Asia.

Link

High coverage genome from 45,000-year old Siberian (Ust'-Ishim)

This is the oldest full genome of a modern human published to date and it also comes from a time (45 thousand years ago) that coincides with the Upper Paleolithic revolution in Eurasia.

45 thousand years ago is probably close to when Eurasians started diverging from each other as they spread in all directions. So, we expect that a human from that time would be "undifferentiated Eurasian" and indeed this seems to be the case.

First the Y-chromosome:

The Y chromosome sequence of the Ust’-Ishim individual is similarly inferred to be ancestral to a group of related Y chromosomes (haplogroup K(xLT)) that occurs across Eurasia today6 (Supplementary Information section 9).

and mtDNA:

The Ust’-Ishim mtDNA sequence falls at the root of a large group of related mtDNAs (the ‘R haplogroup’), which occurs today across Eurasia (Supplementary Information section 8).

It is clear that this was a Eurasian individual:

Based on genotyping data for 87 African and 108 non-African individuals (Supplementary Information section 11), the Ust’-Ishim genome shares more alleles with non-Africans than with sub-Saharan Africans (|Z| = 41–89), consistent with the principal component analysis, mtDNA and Y chromosome results.

It was also more like East Asians than Europeans:

Among the non-Africans, the Ust’-Ishim genome shares more derived alleles with present-day people from East Asia than with present-day Europeans (|Z| = 2.1–6.4).

But, when they compared East Asians with La Brana and MA-1 they didn't see a difference:

However, when an ~8,000-year-old genome from western Europe (La Braña)9 or a 24,000-year-old genome from Siberia (Mal’ta 1)10 were analysed, there is no evidence that the Ust’-Ishim genome shares more derived alleles with present-day East Asians than with these prehistoric individuals (|Z| < 2). This suggests that the population to which the Ust’-Ishim individual belonged diverged from the ancestors of present-day West Eurasian and East Eurasian populations before—or simultaneously with—their divergence from each other. The finding that the Ust’-Ishim individual is equally closely related to present-day Asians and to 8,000- to 24,000-year-old individuals from western Eurasia, but not to present-day Europeans, is compatible with the hypothesis that present-day Europeans derive some of their ancestry from a population that did not participate in the initial dispersals of modern humans into Europe and Asia11.

So it seems that the Ust'-Ishim individual belonged to the same branch as Asians and WHG/ANE and modern Europeans are less like it because they also have "Basal Eurasian" admixture which they inherited via the EEF in the model of Lazaridis et al.

The authors could also get estimates of the mutation rate because this is a 45,000 year old individual that hasn't experienced 45,000 years worth of mutations:

Assuming that this corresponds to the number of mutations that have accumulated over around 45,000 years, we estimate a mutation rate of 0.43 × 10−9 per site per year (95% CI 0.38 × 10−9 to 0.49 × 10−9) that is consistent across all non-African genomes regardless of their coverage (Supplementary Information section 14). This overall rate, as well as the relative rates inferred for different mutational classes (transversions, non-CpG transitions, and CpG transitions), is similar to the rate observed for de novo estimates from human pedigrees (~0.5 × 10−9 per site per year14, 15) and to the direct estimate of branch shortening (Supplementary Information section 10). As discussed elsewhere14, 16, 17, these rates are slower than those estimated using calibrations based on the fossil record and thus suggest older dates for the splits of modern human and archaic populations.

This is a very direct confirmation of the "slow" autosomal rate of ~1.2x10-8 mutations/generation/bp using a technology much different than those used before to estimate this. The slower mutation rate implies that major splits in human history (such as the Out-of-Africa event) took place much earlier than the Upper Paleolithic revolution and the spread of humans across Eurasia. Modern humans probably established an early presence in the Levant/Arabia (consistent with Out-of-Arabia), and invented the Upper Paleolithic-related tools/behaviors there much later, and only then spread across Eurasia.

The authors write:

we estimate that the admixture between the ancestors of the Ust’-Ishim individual and Neanderthals occurred approximately 50,000 to 60,000 years BP, which is close to the time of the major expansion of modern humans out of Africa and the Middle East.

This clinches the hypothesis of Neandertal introgression in Eurasians, as Ust'-Ishim has longer Neandertal segments than modern humans, as one might expect from an individual who experienced this admixture more recently in its evolutionary past than modern humans did. It's probably in the Middle East that the Levantine/Arabian modern humans that expanded Out-of-Africa more than 100 thousand years ago came into contact with Neandertals, admixed with them and later carried this ancestry to the rest of Eurasia. I tend to think that the AMH "colony" was first limited to Arabia and only later (post-70kya) expanded north as the climate deteriorated there. The authors estimate the common ancestor of non-African Y-chromosomes (including E, which is probably a back-migration to Africa) to around 70 thousand years ago which may coincide with the Arabian Exodus event.

Nature 514, 445–449 (23 October 2014) doi:10.1038/nature13810

Genome sequence of a 45,000-year-old modern human from western Siberia

Qiaomei Fu et al.

We present the high-quality genome sequence of a ~45,000-year-old modern human male from Siberia. This individual derives from a population that lived before—or simultaneously with—the separation of the populations in western and eastern Eurasia and carries a similar amount of Neanderthal ancestry as present-day Eurasians. However, the genomic segments of Neanderthal ancestry are substantially longer than those observed in present-day individuals, indicating that Neanderthal gene flow into the ancestors of this individual occurred 7,000–13,000 years before he lived. We estimate an autosomal mutation rate of 0.4 × 10−9 to 0.6 × 10−9 per site per year, a Y chromosomal mutation rate of 0.7 × 10−9 to 0.9 × 10−9 per site per year based on the additional substitutions that have occurred in present-day non-Africans compared to this genome, and a mitochondrial mutation rate of 1.8 × 10−8 to 3.2 × 10−8 per site per year based on the age of the bone.

Link

A limited genetic link between Mansi and Hungarians

Mol Genet Genomics. 2014 Sep 26. [Epub ahead of print]

Y-SNP L1034: limited genetic link between Mansi and Hungarian-speaking populations.

Fehér T1, Németh E, Vándor A, Kornienko IV, Csáji LK, Pamjav H.

Abstract

Genetic studies noted that the Hungarian Y-chromosomal gene pool significantly differs from other Uralic-speaking populations. Hungarians show very limited or no presence of haplogroup N-Tat, which is frequent among other Uralic-speaking populations. We proposed that some genetic links need to be observed between the linguistically related Hungarian and Mansi populations.This is the first attempt to divide haplogroup N-Tat into subhaplogroups by testing new downstream SNP markers L708 and L1034. Sixty Northern Mansi samples were collected in Western Siberia and genotyped for Y-chromosomal haplotypes and haplogroups. We found 14 Mansi and 92 N-Tat samples from 7 populations. Comparative results showed that all N-Tat samples carried the N-L708 mutation. Some Hungarian, Sekler, and Uzbek samples were L1034 SNP positive, while all Mongolians, Buryats, Khanty, Finnish, and Roma samples yielded a negative result for this marker. Based on the above, L1034 marker seems to be a subgroup of N-Tat, which is typical for Mansi and Hungarian-speaking ethnic groups so far. Based on our time to most recent common ancestor data, the L1034 marker arose 2,500 years before present. The overall frequency of the L1034 is very low among the analyzed populations, thus it does not necessarily mean that proto-Hungarians and Mansi descend from common ancestors. It does provide, however, a limited genetic link supporting language contact. Both Hungarians and Mansi have much more complex genetic population history than the traditional tree-based linguistic model would suggest.

Link

The prehistory of New World Arctic (Raghavan et al. 2014)

Science 29 August 2014: Vol. 345 no. 6200 DOI: 10.1126/science.1255832

The genetic prehistory of the New World Arctic

Maanasa Raghavan et al.

The New World Arctic, the last region of the Americas to be populated by humans, has a relatively well-researched archaeology, but an understanding of its genetic history is lacking. We present genome-wide sequence data from ancient and present-day humans from Greenland, Arctic Canada, Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Siberia. We show that Paleo-Eskimos (~3000 BCE to 1300 CE) represent a migration pulse into the Americas independent of both Native American and Inuit expansions. Furthermore, the genetic continuity characterizing the Paleo-Eskimo period was interrupted by the arrival of a new population, representing the ancestors of present-day Inuit, with evidence of past gene flow between these lineages. Despite periodic abandonment of major Arctic regions, a single Paleo-Eskimo metapopulation likely survived in near-isolation for more than 4000 years, only to vanish around 700 years ago.

Link

Oldest modern human genome from Siberia ~45 thousand years ago

Just a teaser from Ann Gibbons in Science:

In 2008, Siberian ivory carver Nikolay Peristov was searching for ancient mammoth tusks eroding from the banks of the Irtysh River in western Siberia, when he found fossilized bones instead. Back in his workshop in Omsk, he showed the bones to local paleontologist Aleksey Bondarev, who recognized a human thighbone. Bondarev in turn showed it to an anthropologist friend, and it was passed on up the chain to some of the world's top experts in human evolution. They dated it to 45,000 years ago, making it one of the oldest known modern humans in northern Asia and Europe.

Now, the bone has opened a window on the genetics of our species at a crucial moment: soon after their arrival in northern Eurasia. At a meeting* here last week, paleogeneticist Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, announced that his team has sequenced the thighbone's entire nuclear genome to high accuracy—an astonishing 42x coverage. "This is by far the oldest sequenced genome of a modern human," he said.

Because all living people in Europe and Asia carry roughly the same amount of Neandertal DNA, Pääbo's team thought that the interbreeding probably took place in the Middle East, as moderns first made their way out of Africa. Middle Eastern Neandertal sites are close to Skhul and Qafzeh, so some researchers suspected that those populations were the ones that mingled. But the team's analysis favors a more recent rendezvous. The femur belonged to an H. sapiens man who had slightly more Neandertal DNA, distributed in different parts of his genome, than do living Europeans and Asians. His Neandertal DNA is also concentrated into longer chunks than in living people, Pääbo reported. That indicates that the sequences were recently introduced: With each passing generation, any new segment of DNA gets broken up into shorter chunks as chromosomes from each parent cross over and exchange DNA. Both features of the Neandertal DNA in the femur suggest that the Ust-Ishim man lived soon after the interbreeding, which Pääbo estimated at 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.

The higher Neandertal DNA in the Ust-Ishim sample might be explainable by the negative selection against Neandertal material recently documented.  At 45kya, this sample is right around the time of the Early Upper Paleolithic at Kara-Bom in Siberia (and indeed anywhere), so this will be a hugely interesting sample when it is finally published.

Here is the program of the symposium on which this was apparently discussed (pdf). There seem to be quite a few interesting titles (but no abstracts).

Back-migration of Yeniseian into Asia from Beringia

PLOS One DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091722

Linguistic Phylogenies Support Back-Migration from Beringia to Asia

Mark A. Sicoli, Gary Holton

Recent arguments connecting Na-Dene languages of North America with Yeniseian languages of Siberia have been used to assert proof for the origin of Native Americans in central or western Asia. We apply phylogenetic methods to test support for this hypothesis against an alternative hypothesis that Yeniseian represents a back-migration to Asia from a Beringian ancestral population. We coded a linguistic dataset of typological features and used neighbor-joining network algorithms and Bayesian model comparison based on Bayes factors to test the fit between the data and the linguistic phylogenies modeling two dispersal hypotheses. Our results support that a Dene-Yeniseian connection more likely represents radiation out of Beringia with back-migration into central Asia than a migration from central or western Asia to North America.

Link

mtDNA of Okladnikov Neandertal

PNAS February 11, 2014 vol. 111 no. 6

Separating endogenous ancient DNA from modern day contamination in a Siberian Neandertal

Pontus Skoglund et al.

One of the main impediments for obtaining DNA sequences from ancient human skeletons is the presence of contaminating modern human DNA molecules in many fossil samples and laboratory reagents. However, DNA fragments isolated from ancient specimens show a characteristic DNA damage pattern caused by miscoding lesions that differs from present day DNA sequences. Here, we develop a framework for evaluating the likelihood of a sequence originating from a model with postmortem degradation—summarized in a postmortem degradation score—which allows the identification of DNA fragments that are unlikely to originate from present day sources. We apply this approach to a contaminated Neandertal specimen from Okladnikov Cave in Siberia to isolate its endogenous DNA from modern human contaminants and show that the reconstructed mitochondrial genome sequence is more closely related to the variation of Western Neandertals than what was discernible from previous analyses. Our method opens up the potential for genomic analysis of contaminated fossil material.

Link

Europeans = Neolithic farmers, Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and "Ancient North Eurasians" (etc.)

A new preprint on the bioRxiv reports ancient DNA from a Mesolithic European hunter-gatherer from Luxembourg whose mtDNA was published a few years ago and a Neolithic European LBK farmer from Germany, as well as several Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Sweden.

The Luxembourg sample is similar to the Iberian La Brana samples and the Swedish Mesolithic samples are similar to Swedish Neolithic hunter-gatherers. The LBK farmer is similar to Oetzi and a Swedish TRB farmer and to Sardinians. The authors also study the recently published Mal'ta Upper Paleolithic sample from Lake Baikal and find that it is part of an "Ancient North Eurasian" population that also admixed into West Eurasians on top of the Neolithic/Mesolithic mix.

The authors' proposed model and admixture estimates:

It seems that the estimates go all the way to "almost pure" Early European farmer ancestry but "West European Hunter-Gatherer" and "Ancient North Eurasian" ancestry isn't found unmixed in any modern populations. The model seems to agree with Raghavan et al. that Karitiana are "Mal'ta"-admixed but also finds the most basal Eurasian ancestry in the European Neolithic farmer. The authors write:

The successful model (Fig. 2A) also suggests 44 ± 10% “Basal Eurasian” admixture into the ancestors of Stuttgart: gene flow into their Near Eastern ancestors from a lineage that diverged prior to the separation of the ancestors of Loschbour and Onge. Such a scenario, while never suggested previously, is plausible given the early presence of modern humans in the Levant25, African-related tools made by modern humans in Arabia26, 27, and the geographic opportunity for continuous gene flow between the Near East and Africa28

The Swedish/Luxembourg Mesolithic hunter-gatherers are all mtDNA-haplogroup U and Y-chromosome haplogroup I, so again no R1a/R1b in early European samples.

An interesting finding is that the Luxembourg hunter-gatherer probably had blue eyes (like a Mesolithic La Brana Iberian, a paper on which seems to be in the works) but darker skin than the LBK farmer who had brown eyes but lighter skin. Raghavan et al. did not find light pigmentation in Mal'ta (but that was a very old sample), so with the exception of light eyes that seem established for Western European hunter-gatherers (and may have been "darker" in European steppe populations, but "lighter" in Bronze Age South Siberians?), the origin of depigmentation of many recent Europeans remains a mystery. Ancient DNA continues to surprise at every turn.

UPDATE (4/4/2014): a new version of the preprint.

bioRxiv doi: 10.1101/001552

Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans

Iosif Lazaridis et al.

Analysis of ancient DNA can reveal historical events that are difficult to discern through study of present-day individuals. To investigate European population history around the time of the agricultural transition, we sequenced complete genomes from a ~7,500 year old early farmer from the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture from Stuttgart in Germany and an ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherer from the Loschbour rock shelter in Luxembourg. We also generated data from seven ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherers from Motala in Sweden. We compared these genomes and published ancient DNA to new data from 2,196 samples from 185 diverse populations to show that at least three ancestral groups contributed to present-day Europeans. The first are Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), who are more closely related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians than to any present-day population. The second are West European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), related to the Loschbour individual, who contributed to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners. The third are Early European Farmers (EEF), related to the Stuttgart individual, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harbored WHG-related ancestry. We model the deep relationships of these populations and show that about ~44% of the ancestry of EEF derived from a basal Eurasian lineage that split prior to the separation of other non-Africans.

Link

mtDNA and Y chromosomes of Tungus

PLoS ONE 8(12): e83570. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083570

Investigating the Prehistory of Tungusic Peoples of Siberia and the Amur-Ussuri Region with Complete mtDNA Genome Sequences and Y-chromosomal Markers

Ana T. Duggan et al.

Evenks and Evens, Tungusic-speaking reindeer herders and hunter-gatherers, are spread over a wide area of northern Asia, whereas their linguistic relatives the Udegey, sedentary fishermen and hunter-gatherers, are settled to the south of the lower Amur River. The prehistory and relationships of these Tungusic peoples are as yet poorly investigated, especially with respect to their interactions with neighbouring populations. In this study, we analyse over 500 complete mtDNA genome sequences from nine different Evenk and even subgroups as well as their geographic neighbours from Siberia and their linguistic relatives the Udegey from the Amur-Ussuri region in order to investigate the prehistory of the Tungusic populations. These data are supplemented with analyses of Y-chromosomal haplogroups and STR haplotypes in the Evenks, Evens, and neighbouring Siberian populations. We demonstrate that whereas the North Tungusic Evenks and Evens show evidence of shared ancestry both in the maternal and in the paternal line, this signal has been attenuated by genetic drift and differential gene flow with neighbouring populations, with isolation by distance further shaping the maternal genepool of the Evens. The Udegey, in contrast, appear quite divergent from their linguistic relatives in the maternal line, with a mtDNA haplogroup composition characteristic of populations of the Amur-Ussuri region. Nevertheless, they show affinities with the Evenks, indicating that they might be the result of admixture between local Amur-Ussuri populations and Tungusic populations from the north.

Link

Ancient DNA from Upper Paleolithic Lake Baikal (Mal'ta and Afontova Gora)

The study I mentioned in a previous post has now been made available in Nature. Two Upper Paleolithic Siberians (24-17kya) have been sequenced at low coverage. The better quality (and older) Mal'ta (MA-1) sample belongs to Y-haplogroup R and mtDNA haplogroup U, and the younger (but poorer quality) Afontova Gora (AG-2) sample appears to be related to it.

Most interestingly, there is evidence for gene flow between the MA-1 sample and Native Americans, which makes sense as these are Siberians of the period leading up to the initial colonization of the Americas. The interesting thing is that MA-1 does not appear to be East Eurasian, as proven by the test D(Papuan, Han; Sardinian, MA-1) which is non-significant, so MA-1 is not more closely related to Han than to Papuans (which is true for modern native Americans). So, it seems that the gene flow between MA-1 and Native Americans was towards Native Americans from MA-1 and not vice versa.

It is fascinating that such a sample could be found so far east at so early a time. Both Y-chromosome R and mtDNA haplogroup U are very rare east of Lake Baikal which has been considered a limit of west Eurasian influence into east Eurasia. And, indeed, both these haplogroups are absent in Native Americans, so it is not yet clear how Native Americans (who belong to Y-chromosome haplogroups Q and C and mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C, D, X) are related to these Paleolithic Siberians. The obvious candidate for this relationship is Y-chromosome haplogroup P (the ancestor of Q and R). So, perhaps Q-bearing relatives of the R-bearing Mal'ta population settled the Americas.

In any case, this is an extremely important sample, as its position in "no man's land" in the PCA plot (left) demonstrates, between Europeans and native Americans but close to no modern population.

Its closest present-day relatives are indicated in (c), with Native Americans (red) being the closest, and a scattering of boreal populations from the Atlantic to the Pacific (but not in the vicinity of Lake Baikal) next in line (yellow).

This distribution clearly related to the evidence for admixture in Europe adduced in two other recent papers, although the question of who went where and when remains to be resolved. Was MA-1 part of an intrusive western population encroaching  on east Eurasians? Or did MA-1 lookalikes arrive as first settlers in empty territory, later ceding this space to east Eurasians from, perhaps, China? Did the two mix in Siberia or did they arrive in the Americas in separate migrations and mix there? And, how does this all relate to events in Europe in the far west?

UPDATE: Razib makes an excellent point:

Also, can we now finally bury the debate when east and west Eurasians diverged? Obviously it can’t have been that recent if a >20,000 year old individual had closer affinity to western populations.

We already knew that Tianyuan was more Asian than European, so I think west Eurasians diverged from the rest >40 thousand years ago. But, Tianyuan was so early that its precise relationships to different Asian groups could not be determined. So, I'd say it's a good guess that east-west split off before 40 thousand years in Eurasia.

Nature (2013) doi:10.1038/nature12736

Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans

Maanasa Raghavan, Pontus Skoglund et al.

The origins of the First Americans remain contentious. Although Native Americans seem to be genetically most closely related to east Asians1, 2, 3, there is no consensus with regard to which specific Old World populations they are closest to4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Here we sequence the draft genome of an approximately 24,000-year-old individual (MA-1), from Mal’ta in south-central Siberia9, to an average depth of 1×. To our knowledge this is the oldest anatomically modern human genome reported to date. The MA-1 mitochondrial genome belongs to haplogroup U, which has also been found at high frequency among Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers10, 11, 12, and the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages5. Similarly, we find autosomal evidence that MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Native Americans, with no close affinity to east Asians. This suggests that populations related to contemporary western Eurasians had a more north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought. Furthermore, we estimate that 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from this ancient population. This is likely to have occurred after the divergence of Native American ancestors from east Asian ancestors, but before the diversification of Native American populations in the New World. Gene flow from the MA-1 lineage into Native American ancestors could explain why several crania from the First Americans have been reported as bearing morphological characteristics that do not resemble those of east Asians2, 13. Sequencing of another south-central Siberian, Afontova Gora-2 dating to approximately 17,000 years ago14, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures as MA-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum. Our findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans.

Link

#paleoamericanodyssey tweets on 24,000-year old Mal'ta Siberian

I had blogged about this conference a year ago, and a few people seem to be tweeting from it.

Here is one intriguing tweet:

Wllierslev: 24,000-yr-old Siberian Mal'ta  person geneticall similar to native amer and west eurasians. No east asian #paleoamericanodyssey

and another:

Willerslev: Native Americans formed by an admixture of east Asian ancestors and the ancestors of western Eurasians #paleoamericanodyssey

and another:

Willerslev: Based on genomes, "the Mal'ta is much darker if you want than the iceman (Otzi)" #paleoamericanodyssey

I'll be occasionally looking at the #paleoamericanodyssey tag, but feel free to point to any other interesting tweets from the conference in the comments.

UPDATE:

From the Met:

The Mal'ta tradition is known from a vast area spanning west of Lake Baikal and the Yenisey River. The site of Mal'ta, for which the culture is named, is composed of a series of subterranean houses made of large animal bones and reindeer antler which had likely been covered with animal skins and sod to protect inhabitants from the severe, prevailing northerly winds. Among the artistic accomplishments evident at Mal'ta are remains of expertly carved bone, ivory, and antler objects. Figurines of birds and human females are the most commonly found items. 

 From a review article:

Debetz (1946) identified the remains of “nothern Asian Mongoloids” at the site of
Afontova Gora 2; they included a fragment of the frontal bone. Mongoloid features had
been originally acknowledged in the skeletal remains of a child found at the site of
Malta. Alexeev (1998, 323) in his later publication was more cautious, stating that this
area was “inhabited by a population of Mongoloid appearance.” 

UPDATE (Oct 26):

Michael Balter has an article on this topic in Science:

Yet the child's Y chromosome belongs to a genetic group called Y haplogroup R, and its mitochondrial DNA to a haplogroup U. Today, those haplogroups are found almost exclusively in people living in Europe and regions of Asia west of the Altai Mountains, which are near the borders of Russia, China, and Mongolia.

This suggests that the Mal'ta boy was not ancestral to Native Americans (since Native Americans don't possess Y-haplogroup R and mt-haplogroup U), although obviously is in some way related to them based on the autosomal evidence. It's hard to read between the lines, but I guess a paper in Nature will come out soon enough as it is currently "in press".

Ancient mtDNA from Ukraine (Newton 2011)

I had seen this before, and it appears to have become downloadable.

Ancient Mitochondrial DNA From Pre-historic Southeastern Europe: The Presence of East Eurasian Haplogroups Provides Evidence of Interactions with South Siberians Across the Central Asian Steppe Belt
Jeremy R. Newton, Grand Valley State University

Studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) polymorphism have provided valuable insights for understanding patterns of human migration and interaction. The ability to recover ancient mtDNA sequence data from post-mortem bone and tissue samples allows us to view snapshots of historic gene pools firsthand, provided that great care is taken to prevent sample contamination. In this study, we analyzed the DNA sequence of the first hypervariable segment (HVSI) of the mtDNA control region, as well as a portion of the coding region, in 14 individuals from three collective burials from the Neolithic Dnieper-Donetz culture and three individuals from Bronze Age Kurgan burials, all located in modern-day Ukraine on the northern shores of the Black Sea (the North Pontic Region, or NPR). While most of our samples possessed mtDNA haplotypes that can be linked to European and Near Eastern populations, three Neolithic and all three Bronze Age individuals belonged to mtDNA haplogroup C, which is common in East Eurasian, particularly South Siberian, populations but exceedingly rare in Europe. Phylogeographic network analysis revealed that our samples are located at or near the ancestral node for haplogroup C and that derived lineages branching from the Neolithic samples were present in Bronze Age Kurgans. In light of the numerous examples of mtDNA admixture that can be found in both Europe and Siberia, it appears that the NPR and South Siberia are located at opposite ends of a genetic continuum established at some point prior to the Neolithic. This migration corridor may have been established during the Last Glacial Maximum due to extensive glaciation in northern Eurasia and a consequent aridization of western Asia. This implies the demographic history for the European gene pool is more complex than previously considered and also has significant implications regarding the origin of Kurgan populations.

ESHE 2013 abstracts

219 pages worth of abstracts from the upcoming meeting of the European Society for the study of Human Evolution (pdf).

I will post some excerpts:

Evolutionary History And Biological Diversity Of Homo Sapiens In Southeast Asia: Contour Shape Analysis Of Modern Human Upper Molars:

The evolutionary history and the pattern of biological diversity of modern humans in Southeast Asia has long been regarded as resulting of two major migrations waves. In this hypothesis it is generally considered that a first wave of migration (generally referred as “Australo-Melanesians”) reached Australia around 60000 BP while the second wave (often referred as “Mongoloids”) is correlated to a demic diffusion of the Neolithic from a Southeast China homeland which started around mid-Holocene. ... Our results also bring very interesting perspectives concerning the detection of the signature of a possible Denisovan admixture in the phenotype of modern human populations. Indeed, past and recent modern human groups which are hypothetically sharing Denisovan ancestry have closer phenetic affinities with each other than with other populations.

Podium Presentation: Session 9, Sa (14:20) A fine scale survey of the worldwide similarity between humans and archaic hominids and its implication on the proposed admixture scenario 

Since the publications of Green et al. 2010 and Reich et al. 2010, several investigations have followed suit addressing the question regarding anatomically modern human and archaic hominin admixture. The genetic analyses of the Neanderthal draft genome and the Denisova genome concluded that these archaic hominins made a 1-4% contribution to non-African populations and 4-6% contribution to Melanesian populations, respectively. The argument of whether the observed genetic similarity is consistent with admixture or ancient substructure is still under debate. While observations have been consistent with an admixture scenario of Neanderthals and the ancestors of non-Africans coming into contact 50 – 80 kya in the Middle East, the lack of power in these experiments falter in providing reliable results. Here we look at the relationship between AMH and these archaic hominins on a fine-scale level by using several methods (including revised D-statistic) on the Neanderthal draft genome, Denisova high-coverage genome, and a collection of published and unpublished genotype and sequence data. We use our findings to clarify the proposed admixture scenario as well as discuss new findings in newly analyzed comparisons of African, South Asian and American populations with archaic hominins, Neanderthal and Denisova. Our results shed light on understanding the observed genetic similarity within and between humans (African and non-African) and archaic hominins, particularly in relevance to the admixture versus ancient substructure scenarios. 

How ‘modern’ are the earliest Homo sapiens? 

Previous research (reviewed in Trinkaus, 2005) has suggested that the African and western Asian contemporaries of Neandertals, generally considered to be the earliest Homo sapiens, are not particularly ‘modern’ looking in their cranial anatomy. Here we test whether the dental morphological ‘signal’ agrees with this assessment. We examined and recorded dental morphological variation in the earliest H. sapiens and asked: how ‘modern’ are they dentally? We used a Bayesian statistical approach to classifying individuals into two possible groups based on dental non-metric traits. e classification was based on dental trait frequencies and sample sizes for two ’known’ samples of 120 Neandertals and 106 Upper Paleolithic H. sapiens individuals. A cross- validation test of these individuals resulted in a correct classification rate of 95%, which is even better than the results of a previous study using the same method based on fewer individuals (Bailey et al 2009). Our early H. sapiens sample included 41 individuals from Southern Africa (Die Kelders, Klasies River Mouth and Equus Cave), Northern Africa (Temara, El Harhoura, Dar es Soltan) and the Levant (Qafzeh, Skhul). We treated our early H. sapiens individuals as ‘unknown’ and calculated the probability that each belonged to either the Upper Paleolithic or Neandertal sample. While understanding that technically these individuals did not belong to either group, we hypothesized that if the earliest H. sapiens were already dentally modern then, when forced into a group, they should fall into the Upper Paleolithic H. sapiens group. We also hypothesized that if there had been significant admixture in the Levant during the initial dispersal out of Africa - as has been sometimes proposed based on paleontological - and more recently on genetic - evidence (Green et al 2010) that these samples would have the largest proportion of individuals classified as Neandertal. Our results indicated that this was not the case. While a surprising number (27%) of early H. sapiens did classify as Neandertal, the smallest proportion of these came from the Levant (7% - one out of 14 individuals). The African sample was more of a ‘mixed bag’. None of the individuals from Die Kelders or Klaises River Mouth classified as Neandertal, while four out of five of the individuals from Equus Cave did. Moreover, 6 out of 13 (46%) of the Northern African individuals were classified as Neandertal. An inspection of the individual specimens that classified as Neandertals revealed that in most cases it is the predominance of primitive features, rather than derived Neandertal traits, that is driving the classification. We conclude (1) by the time the earliest H. sapiens dispersed from Africa they had already attained a more-or-less ‘modern’ dental pattern; (2) in the past, as is the case today, Late Pleistocene Africans were not a homogeneous group, some retained primitive dental traits in higher proportions than others. Furthermore, we acknowledge that while our method is an excellent tool for discriminating between Upper Paleolithic H. sapiens and Neandertals, it may not be appropriate for testing Neandertal – H. sapiens admixture because all traits (primitive and derived) are weighed equally. 

The potential for catastrophic impact of the Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) tephra on human evolution: new data from the Lower Danube loess steppe:

Here we investigate an unexpectedly thick CI tephra deposit at Urluia in the southeast Romanian loess steppe, 1200 km from the super-eruption vent in Italy. Existing models suggest that the CI tephra thickness might reach a maximum 5-10 cm in Eastern Europe; the Urluia ash deposit is up to 100 cm thick. Additional, recently discovered Lower Danube sites also reveal substantially thicker than modelled CI ash beds. 

Radiocarbon dating the extinction of European Neanderthals

The transitional industries and their makers:

The demonstration of modern settlements pre-dating the earliest Aurignacian in Europe has important implications (Hublin 2012). It is consistent with a patchy pattern of modern colonization, with some significant chronological overlap between Neandertals and modern humans on a continental scale. In this model innovations observed in the Neandertal world around or after 50 ka cal BP may have resulted from cultural diffusion triggered by these influxes of populations into western Eurasia.

The Upper Paleolithic of the Ikh Tulberin Gol (Northern Mongolia): new excavations at the Tolbor 16 open-air site:

Numerous questions remain regarding the timing and the context of Upper Paleolithic emergence in Northeast Asia. Available data allow the recognition of a form of Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) (Brantingham et al, 2001) documented in the Altai circa 45-40 ka uncal BP (Goebel et al., 1993, Derevianko et al, 2000, Zwyns et al., 2012), in the Cis- and Transbaikal around 40 ka uncal BP (Lbova, 2008) ...

New data on the radiocarbon chronology of the Stretleskayan at Kostenki (Voronezh, Central Russia) :

It concerns cultural layer III at Kostenki 12 and cultural layer V at Kostenki I, respectively previously dated 36,280±360 and 34,900 ±350 BP in Groningen (Damblon et al., 1996). ... Remaining material of the charcoal sample from cultural layer III at Kostenki 12, previously dated 36,280 ±250 BP, was also submitted for dating to Oxford with ABOx-SC pretreatment. the results show that the two Groningen dates and the three Oxford dates are in good agreement and fit within a time interval of 1 millennium, but provide ages several millennia older than the ages obtained previously. Taking into account this new chronology, the appearance of the Stretleskayan at Kostenki will be compared with the chronological background of the Early Aurignacian, Szeletian and Bohunician occurrences in the MiddleDanube sequence, also based on ABA and ABOx-SC cross-dating (Haesaerts et al., 2013). 

Two Waves of Paleolithic Settlers Migrations to North West Beringia in Pleistocene End (End of Karginsky Interstadial) :

Way of 1st wave is marked by sites Afontova Gora V, Ust-Kova on Angara, than along Lena river up to Central Ykut plain, turn Aldan (Ikhine I etc), than round Kolyma plain to Chukotka, where they left abt 30 Ka Orlovka II site in North of West and Kymyneykey site in North of East Chukotka. In Aldan basin migration slowly down. Its reason could be glaciation of Verkhoyansk and Chersky ranges. During this delay “technical re-equipment” happened of migrations. Orlovka II and Kymyney artefacts are clear Aldan. 2nd wave migration was abt 29-28 Ka during final karginsky (middle: würm, wisconsin) warming, when paleoclimate along all northern outskirts of Asia was like to recent or more warm (Drozdov and Laukhin, 2010). Migrants of 2nd wave went to Yana mouth and left here site. Artifacts of this site don’t have Aldanian traditions, but are very close to Yeniseisk. There were little of favorable niches to North of South Mountain Belt; and their demographic capacity were nor big. 

Modern human dispersal into Eurasia: Preliminary results of the multi-disciplinary project on the replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans (RNMH)

Both the chronometric dating and the geographic distribution of archaeological entities indicate that modern human populations equipped themselves with blade products based on the Levallois method, a technology that emerged in North Africa (Taramsan) around 60 ka and then dispersed into the Eastern Mediterranean Levant (Emiran) between 49 and 48 ka. Blade technology further expanded into Eastern and Central Europe (Bachokirian and Bohunician) between 48 and 45 ka and into Southern Siberia (Kara-Bom horizons 6 and 5) at around 47 ka. The rapid expansion of modern humans into Western and Eastern Eurasia followed by the demise of archaic populations in these regions may imply technological and cognitive advantages of modern humans. 

Y-chromosome haplogroup Q and Native Americans

PLoS ONE 8(8): e71390. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071390

The First Peopling of South America: New Evidence from Y-Chromosome Haplogroup Q

Vincenza Battaglia et al.

Recent progress in the phylogenetic resolution of the Y-chromosome phylogeny permits the male demographic dynamics and migratory events that occurred in Central and Southern America after the initial human spread into the Americas to be investigated at the regional level. To delve further into this issue, we examined more than 400 Native American Y chromosomes (collected in the region ranging from Mexico to South America) belonging to haplogroup Q – virtually the only branch of the Y phylogeny observed in modern-day Amerindians of Central and South America – together with 27 from Mongolia and Kamchatka. Two main founding lineages, Q1a3a1a-M3 and Q1a3a1-L54(xM3), were detected along with novel sub-clades of younger age and more restricted geographic distributions. The first was also observed in Far East Asia while no Q1a3a1-L54(xM3) Y chromosome was found in Asia except the southern Siberian-specific sub-clade Q1a3a1c-L330. Our data not only confirm a southern Siberian origin of ancestral populations that gave rise to Paleo-Indians and the differentiation of both Native American Q founding lineages in Beringia, but support their concomitant arrival in Mesoamerica, where Mexico acted as recipient for the first wave of migration, followed by a rapid southward migration, along the Pacific coast, into the Andean region. Although Q1a3a1a-M3 and Q1a3a1-L54(xM3) display overlapping general distributions, they show different patterns of evolution in the Mexican plateau and the Andean area, which can be explained by local differentiations due to demographic events triggered by the introduction of agriculture and associated with the flourishing of the Great Empires.

Link