Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
On cluster analyses featuring ancient Primor'e samples
Topic Started: Feb 13 2017, 12:38:08 AM (219 Views)
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
I don't plan to talk about the paper by Siska et al. in detail. One reason is that we already know enough about and from similar cluster analyses. E.g., we know that northern East Asians are very likely to have certain very relevant levels of North Asian admixture. So we shouldn't act as if we didn't know this despite of those new bars which are based on information about the genomes of relatively few samples only...

Anyway, at this point it might still be of interest that the two new ancient samples appear to belong to women from a relatively isolated population which was predominately North Asian and had some minor East Asian admixture according to the "k=9", "k=10", "k=4" and "k=5" bars in the first figure of the "extended data figures" of Siska et al. 2017: while the "k=9" and "k=10" bars imply the isolation of the two ancient samples and the modern Ulchi samples, the "k=4" and "k=5" bars imply that they are predominately North Asian under the (hopefully self-evident) pre-condition that they are not considered to be a subset of present-day East Asians.

Furthermore, the "k=6", "k=7" and "k=8" bars imply that there could have been a North Asian population different from Kamchatkans in Neolithic Primor'e region. Kamchatkans or their descendants could have arrived later on mixing with the ancestors of Ulchis (and Nivkhs).

Sources and more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chertovy_Vorota_Cave
Gibbons: "Ancient women found in Russian cave were close relatives of today’s indigenous population"
Siska et al. 2017: "Genome-wide data from two early Neolithic East Asian individuals dating to 7700 years ago"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ebizur
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
If I am not mistaken, the most notable difference between Nivkhs and their Tungusic-speaking neighbors is that the Nivkhs apparently have a significantly higher frequency of Y-DNA haplogroup P-M45(xM17, M3). I suspect most of this is probably Q-F746, like the ancient remains from Saqqaq or many extant Chinese (members of the Q-M120 subclade), or some form of Q-M1107(xM3), like the ancient Anzick remains or many extant indigenes of the northern part of the American continent. The frequency of such Y-DNA among indigenous Chukotko-Kamchatkans does not seem to be much greater than among Nivkhs, however, and I am not confident about the direction of spread (a spread from the area of Nivkh inhabitation toward the extreme northeast of Siberia might be more reasonable than the reverse, especially when one considers the presence of subclades of N-M231 among all modern Northeast Siberian ethnic groups, including Yukaghirs, Chukchis, Koryaks, Itelmens, and Siberian Eskimos).

Y-DNA haplogroup D does not seem to have spread much into the Amur watershed or into Chukotko-Kamchatka. One study that you have mentioned previously (is it Stepanov et al.?) seems to have found some members of Y-DNA haplogroup D among Nivkhs, but the two other relevant studies of which I have knowledge have not found any such Y-DNA in their samples of Nivkhs, so any cases that do occur might be attributable to very recent admixture from Ainus or Japanese (or even Koreans or Chinese, among whom Y-DNA haplogroup D is occasionally found, and some of whom currently are or recently have been living in close quarters with some Nivkhs. I have even read a short biography about a Khanti individual who has been picked up during Soviet times by a Nivkh and brought to live in a village on the lower Amur, although that Khanti happens to be female). On the other hand, Y-DNA haplogroup O does have a regular presence among Amur Tungus and Nivkhs (and, of course, among Manchus and Sibes), although it seems to be found only sporadically among northern Siberian Tungus (i.e. Evenks and Evens).

Y-DNA haplogroup N is also found among Tungusic ethnic groups wherever they live, but generally not with notably high frequency (except in a few cases, such as among the Sakkyryyr Evens, who, as I understand it, consider themselves to be ethnic Evens despite speaking the regionally more dominant Yakut language), and the subclades of haplogroup N that have been found among Tungusic speakers vary widely. Some of them may even be descendants of an ethnic group that has descended directly in situ from the origin of Y-DNA haplogroup N-M231, which is not particularly old (with dispersal having occurred almost certainly after the LGM, perhaps from some place in what is now northern China). The present-day distributions of Y-DNA haplogroup N and Y-DNA haplogroup C-M217 seem to be overall positively correlated, although they of course tend to be complementary to each other within any individual ethnic group, and the presence of C-L1373 in the Americas is not accompanied by any known presence of N-M231. The split between C-F1067 and C-L1373 is older than the earliest known split within haplogroup N-M231; the split between C-F1067 and C-L1373 should be chronologically closer to the split between N-M231 and O-M175 or the split between Q-M242 and R-M207.

I would like to see the results of an investigation of the Y-DNA of the male relatives of those Demon's Gate females. C-L1373 Y-DNA predominates among most modern ethnic groups associated with Tungusic languages, but not among the southerly Manchus or Sibes, or even among the Khamnigans in Buryatia (who are considered to be ethnic Khamnigans, i.e. Evenks or Tungus from the Mongolic point of view, despite the fact that they currently speak a Mongolic language and appear to belong mainly to the C-M407 subclade of C-F1067 that is generally predominant among pre-Russian indigenes of Buryatia, especially toward the west of that region. Perhaps their pre-Mongolic ethnic memory has been preserved mainly through the maternal line).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
JCA
Feb 13 2017, 09:33:29 AM
If I am not mistaken, the most notable difference between Nivkhs and their Tungusic-speaking neighbors is that the Nivkhs apparently have a significantly higher frequency of Y-DNA haplogroup P-M45(xM17, M3). I suspect most of this is probably Q-F746, like the ancient remains from Saqqaq or many extant Chinese (members of the Q-M120 subclade), or some form of Q-M1107(xM3), like the ancient Anzick remains or many extant indigenes of the northern part of the American continent. The frequency of such Y-DNA among indigenous Chukotko-Kamchatkans does not seem to be much greater than among Nivkhs, however, and I am not confident about the direction of spread (a spread from the area of Nivkh inhabitation toward the extreme northeast of Siberia might be more reasonable than the reverse, especially when one considers the presence of subclades of N-M231 among all modern Northeast Siberian ethnic groups, including Yukaghirs, Chukchis, Koryaks, Itelmens, and Siberian Eskimos).
When I took a look at one of those wikipedia pages, I noticed that the site seems to have been on the former territory of a Jin empire... So far, I was never really interested in the backgrounds of the northeastern neighbours of Han Chinese. But now, we might consider the possibility that they could have contributed such relatively "exotic" y hgs (Q-M120+ in particular) to Han Chinese gene pool... Maybe I should change my mind...

Quote:
 
Y-DNA haplogroup D does not seem to have spread much into the Amur watershed or into Chukotko-Kamchatka. One study that you have mentioned previously (is it Stepanov et al.?) seems to have found some members of Y-DNA haplogroup D among Nivkhs, but the two other relevant studies of which I have knowledge have not found any such Y-DNA in their samples of Nivkhs, so any cases that do occur might be attributable to very recent admixture from Ainus or Japanese (or even Koreans or Chinese, among whom Y-DNA haplogroup D is occasionally found, and some of whom currently are or recently have been living in close quarters with some Nivkhs. I have even read a short biography about a Khanti individual who has been picked up during Soviet times by a Nivkh and brought to live in a village on the lower Amur, although that Khanti happens to be female). On the other hand, Y-DNA haplogroup O does have a regular presence among Amur Tungus and Nivkhs (and, of course, among Manchus and Sibes), although it seems to be found only sporadically among northern Siberian Tungus (i.e. Evenks and Evens).


As far as I remember statements in academic literature, there were certain locations at which the ancestors of Nivkhs assimilated Ainus. So Ainu genes might have entered the gene pools of other Nivkhs via intermarriage with Nivkhs who had Ainu admixture. Same for the Ulchi sample examined by Jeong et al. 2017, in which Ainu-like admixture is evenly distributed. Nivkh and Ulchi being patrilocal, that means, Ainu(?) y DNA is relatively likely to be present in some Nivkh settlements but not in others.

Quote:
 
Y-DNA haplogroup N is also found among Tungusic ethnic groups wherever they live, but generally not with notably high frequency (except in a few cases, such as among the Sakkyryyr Evens, who, as I understand it, consider themselves to be ethnic Evens despite speaking the regionally more dominant Yakut language), and the subclades of haplogroup N that have been found among Tungusic speakers vary widely. Some of them may even be descendants of an ethnic group that has descended directly in situ from the origin of Y-DNA haplogroup N-M231, which is not particularly old (with dispersal having occurred almost certainly after the LGM, perhaps from some place in what is now northern China). The present-day distributions of Y-DNA haplogroup N and Y-DNA haplogroup C-M217 seem to be overall positively correlated, although they of course tend to be complementary to each other within any individual ethnic group, and the presence of C-L1373 in the Americas is not accompanied by any known presence of N-M231. The split between C-F1067 and C-L1373 is older than the earliest known split within haplogroup N-M231; the split between C-F1067 and C-L1373 should be chronologically closer to the split between N-M231 and O-M175 or the split between Q-M242 and R-M207.


The aboriginal populations to the north of Lake Baikal are often associated with the Yukaghirs in Soviet literature. However, we now know from genetic studies that present-day Yukaghirs are descendants of Beringians and WEAs besides those of mysterious North Asian inland aborigines. On top of that, matrilineal orientation might have skewed the y hg profiles of Yukaghir populations to a very significant extent especially since the onset of Europeanisation. So people idealising present-day Yukaghirs as direct descendants of pre-Tungusic and pre-Sakha aborigines would be misleading.

This might make the y hg profiles of northern Tungusic-speakers interesting in case that one can explain why their patrilineal ancestors could have adopted Tungusic languages. Let's say, some pre-Tungus northern aboriginal guys spent time with Tungus traders and blacksmiths while the latter were working. Such contacts could have improved their language skills especially when they worked together with the latter all day long. Sooner or later, the number of pre-Tungus aborigines working together with Tungus might have increased. And these culturally Tungus-influenced men might have gone back to their original communities using their "Tungus" knowledge and skills in their competition against other pre-Tungus men. Thereafter, they might have married Tungus women (from the communities of their Tungus friends) and made them privileged wives in order to secure their local social status outside of Tungus community. And that might have caused pre-Tungus patrilineages becoming linguistically fully Tungus in the long run. At the same time Tungus genetic admixture might have remained at a low level, though: since Tungus are patrilineal, the women they might have given to their pre-Tungus friends could have been matrilineally pre-Tungus etc.

Quote:
 
I would like to see the results of an investigation of the Y-DNA of the male relatives of those Demon's Gate females. C-L1373 Y-DNA predominates among most modern ethnic groups associated with Tungusic languages, but not among the southerly Manchus or Sibes, or even among the Khamnigans in Buryatia (who are considered to be ethnic Khamnigans, i.e. Evenks or Tungus from the Mongolic point of view, despite the fact that they currently speak a Mongolic language and appear to belong mainly to the C-M407 subclade of C-F1067 that is generally predominant among pre-Russian indigenes of Buryatia, especially toward the west of that region. Perhaps their pre-Mongolic ethnic memory has been preserved mainly through the maternal line).


The two women seemed to have belonged to different mtDNA hgs, "D4" and "M*". So they could have been genetically and culturally quite different from the majority of the ancestors of the Nivkhs. That said, the proximity of the location to northern Korea indicates the possibility of overlaps with northern Korean gene pools. Ideally, one might consider to check the latter possibility first. The regions to the west of Primor'e appear to be by far more mysterious not only because of their former probable diversity but also because there is a lack of ethno-demographic continuity there partly because of Russian expansion during the colonial period. Archaeologists will have to reconstruct quite a lot.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ebizur
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I have found an apparently updated version of a doctoral dissertation by Vladimir N. Kharkov that reports on a sample of 52 Nivkhs from Sakhalin Oblast.

According to this report, the Y-DNA of the Nivkh sample is as follows:

71% (37/52) C3*-M217(xC3c-M77/M86, C3d-M407)
7.7% (4/52) O3a*-M324(xO3a3c-M134)
7.7% (4/52) Q-M242(xQ1a3-M346)
5.8% (3/52) D-M174
3.8% (2/52) O-M175(xO2-P31, O3-M122)
1.9% (1/52) O2-P31
1.9% (1/52) N1c1-M46/M178

Note the discrepancy between the numbers reported in this dissertation and the numbers reported in the supplementary data table of Siiri Rootsi, Lev A Zhivotovsky, Marian Baldovic, et al. (2007), "A counter-clockwise northern route of the Y-chromosome haplogroup N from Southeast Asia towards Europe," in which the authors have cited "Kharkov VN: Structure of Y-chromosomal lineages in Siberian populations. PhD thesis (in Russian). Tomsk, Research Institute of Medical Genetics at the Tomsk Scientific Center, Siberian Division of Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, 2005" for their Nivkh data:

Nihvkis [sic]
n=55
0% K-M9(xNO-M214)
0% NO-M214(xN-M231/LLY22g, O-M175)
0% N*-M231/LLY22g(xN1-M128, N2-P43, N3-M178/TAT)
0% N1-M128
0% N2-P43
0% N3-M178/TAT
20% O-M175


If we assume that the N1c1-M46/M178 singleton in the sample as reported in the PDF to which I have linked has been identified previously as belonging to O-M175, and, furthermore, that all three of the missing individuals (note n=55 in Rootsi et al. 2007 vs. n=52 in the PDF) also previously have been assigned to O-M175, that would amount to 11/55 = 20% O-M175 as reported in the supplementary data table of Rootsi et al. 2007. However, the inconsistency does not inspire confidence.

I note that Kharkov often has worked as part of a team that also includes Dr. Vadim A. Stepanov. One may infer that any reference to the Y-DNA of Nivkhs or any graphical representation of Nivkh Y-DNA data that appears in a paper in which Dr. Stepanov is credited as one of the authors probably has been based on the same sample of Nivkhs.

Anyway, assuming that the PDF can be trusted for its classification of every member of haplogroup C in the Nivkh sample as belonging to C-M217(xM77/M86, M407) (37/52 = 71%) and every member of haplogroup Q (though they are only four in number) in the Nivkh sample as belonging to Q-M242(xQ1a3-M346) (4/52 = 7.7%), one may compare these results with data from Lell et al. 2002 and Tajima et al. 2004 and draw a conclusion that most Nivkhs are probably related in the paternal line with those individuals among the Chukotko-Kamchatkans who belong neither to Y-DNA haplogroup N-M231 nor to haplogroup Q-M3: i.e. haplogroup C2b1a2b-B90 (C-M48(xM77/M86)) and haplogroup Q1a1-F746/NWT01. The extant Nivkh mtDNA pool, though apparently low in diversity because of small effective population size, appears to be closest to that of Chukotko-Kamchatkans, followed by Tungusic peoples and Ainus. The Nivkhs may be related both patrilineally and matrilineally with Chukotko-Kamchatkans, which would strengthen the likelihood of an authentic genetic relationship among their languages. However, the Tungusic peoples also seem to share a great deal of their Y-DNA and mtDNA with Chukotko-Kamchatkans and Nivkhs, though perhaps at a chronologically deeper level. Furthermore, the Chukotko-Kamchatkans seem to have been influenced at some time in the last three millennia by a population that has introduced certain subclades of N-Tat, and the Nivkhs seem to have been influenced by various East Asians. Both the Nivkhs and the Chukotko-Kamchatkans also have been influenced (and are currently being influenced) by Europeans (and perhaps other associates of the Russians) as a result of their territories' having been conquered by the Russian Empire.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
black man
The Right Hand
[ *  *  * ]
Ebizur
Jul 9 2018, 10:10:38 AM
Note the discrepancy between the numbers reported in this dissertation and the numbers reported in the supplementary data table of Siiri Rootsi, Lev A Zhivotovsky, Marian Baldovic, et al. (2007), "A counter-clockwise northern route of the Y-chromosome haplogroup N from Southeast Asia towards Europe," in which the authors have cited "Kharkov VN: Structure of Y-chromosomal lineages in Siberian populations. PhD thesis (in Russian). Tomsk, Research Institute of Medical Genetics at the Tomsk Scientific Center, Siberian Division of Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, 2005" for their Nivkh data:

Nihvkis [sic]
n=55
0% K-M9(xNO-M214)
0% NO-M214(xN-M231/LLY22g, O-M175)
0% N*-M231/LLY22g(xN1-M128, N2-P43, N3-M178/TAT)
0% N1-M128
0% N2-P43
0% N3-M178/TAT
20% O-M175


If we assume that the N1c1-M46/M178 singleton in the sample as reported in the PDF to which I have linked has been identified previously as belonging to O-M175, and, furthermore, that all three of the missing individuals (note n=55 in Rootsi et al. 2007 vs. n=52 in the PDF) also previously have been assigned to O-M175, that would amount to 11/55 = 20% O-M175 as reported in the supplementary data table of Rootsi et al. 2007. However, the inconsistency does not inspire confidence.

I note that Kharkov often has worked as part of a team that also includes Dr. Vadim A. Stepanov. One may infer that any reference to the Y-DNA of Nivkhs or any graphical representation of Nivkh Y-DNA data that appears in a paper in which Dr. Stepanov is credited as one of the authors probably has been based on the same sample of Nivkhs.
The data addressed in the two versions of the dissertation and other works by the author are probably the same data with which his team works. But the samples do not need to be the same. E.g., in the 2012 version of his dissertation Kharkov refers to the data of a Canadian Inuit sample, whereas Stepanov et al. 2006 seem to refer to an Asian "Eskimo" sample, the y hg profile of which is very different. Apart from that, they can always remove samples from their datasets and add new ones.

Quote:
 
Anyway, assuming that the PDF can be trusted for its classification of every member of haplogroup C in the Nivkh sample as belonging to C-M217(xM77/M86, M407) (37/52 = 71%) and every member of haplogroup Q (though they are only four in number) in the Nivkh sample as belonging to Q-M242(xQ1a3-M346) (4/52 = 7.7%), one may compare these results with data from Lell et al. 2002 and Tajima et al. 2004 and draw a conclusion that most Nivkhs are probably related in the paternal line with those individuals among the Chukotko-Kamchatkans who belong neither to Y-DNA haplogroup N-M231 nor to haplogroup Q-M3: i.e. haplogroup C2b1a2b-B90 (C-M48(xM77/M86)) and haplogroup Q1a1-F746/NWT01. The extant Nivkh mtDNA pool, though apparently low in diversity because of small effective population size, appears to be closest to that of Chukotko-Kamchatkans, followed by Tungusic peoples and Ainus. The Nivkhs may be related both patrilineally and matrilineally with Chukotko-Kamchatkans, which would strengthen the likelihood of an authentic genetic relationship among their languages. However, the Tungusic peoples also seem to share a great deal of their Y-DNA and mtDNA with Chukotko-Kamchatkans and Nivkhs, though perhaps at a chronologically deeper level. Furthermore, the Chukotko-Kamchatkans seem to have been influenced at some time in the last three millennia by a population that has introduced certain subclades of N-Tat, and the Nivkhs seem to have been influenced by various East Asians. Both the Nivkhs and the Chukotko-Kamchatkans also have been influenced (and are currently being influenced) by Europeans (and perhaps other associates of the Russians) as a result of their territories' having been conquered by the Russian Empire.


In terms of interdisciplinary work the papers of the team are anyway IMO better than those of their Western collegues.

As for the Tungus, they are probably from southern inland North Asia. Moreover, Zgusta indicates in his book, they must have mixed with quite a lot of non-Tungusic peoples because they didn't have the socio-economic means to migrate as large-scale populations. So those who are genetically closest to the original Tungus should be those from the taiga region to the east of Lake Baikal. By contrast, Evenks and Evens elsewhere (and those along coastal lines in particular) are likely to have higher levels of pre-Tungusic ancestry. So if Tungus became Nivkhs, they might have brought the genes of Yukaghir-related or Koryak-related peoples into Nivkh gene pools. (Especially the Chavchuven Koryaks were said to have ancestors who migrated a lot. In this sense, people similar to their ancestors could have become members of Tungus and other ethnic groups after having migrated away from the region of their original ethnic group/s.)

[Hidden Content: Login/Register to View]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Paleo-Siberian, Beringian, & Amerind language families · Next Topic »
Add Reply