Ancient E-M34 from Chukotka, ~6000 BP?

[Farroukh]

Is it just contamination or real Palaeo-Eskimo aDNA?

Location: Ust-Belaya, Anadyr river, Chukotka, Russia
Sample: I7760/Mos85, E-M34/C4a'b'c, 5900 – 5740 cal BP

What do you think, Sirs?

[Capsian20]

Is it just contamination or real Palaeo-Eskimo aDNA?

Location: Ust-Belaya, Anadyr river, Chukotka, Russia
Sample: I7760/Mos85, E-M34/C4a'b'c, 5900 – 5740 cal BP

What do you think, Sirs?

If this true this sample belong to Y-DNA E-M34 , is will very interesting

[Capsian20]

Target: Russia_Ust_Belaya:I7760__BC_3870__Cov_33.15%
Distance: 7.0594% / 0.07059404
38.6 Nganassan
24.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
15.0 Han
8.2 TUR_Barcin_N
7.2 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
3.4 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I8728
3.0 MAR_Taforalt

Distance to: Russia_Ust_Belaya:I7760__BC_3870__Cov_33.15%
0.04696201 Shor_Mountain:Shor-263
0.04725485 Shor_Khakassia:KHS-001
0.04887355 Shor_Khakassia:KHS-049
0.04950384 Khakass:Khs-006
0.04987564 Shorhor122
0.04988994 Shor_Mountain:Shor-204
0.05009439 Khakass:Khakass6
0.05095146 Shor_Mountain:Shor-262
0.05114658 Shor_Khakassia:KHS-012
0.05137354 Shor_Khakassia:KHS-034
0.05209532 Shor_Khakassia:KHS-035
0.05217096 Shor_Mountain:Shor-292
0.05224742 Khakass:Khs-005
0.05341027 Khakass:Khs-007
0.05374601 Tubalar:Tuba6
0.05415765 Shor_Mountain:Shor-293
0.05437677 Tubalar:Tuba13
0.05529029 Shorhor123
0.05582760 Shorhor125
0.05592088 Shor_Mountain:Shor-209
0.05816688 Khakass:Khs-168
0.05820867 Khakass:Khs-190
0.05908245 Tubalar:Tuba12
0.05962570 Khakass:Khs-010
0.06038351 Khakass:Khs-011

Russia_Ust_Belaya:I7760__BC_3870__Cov_33.15%,0.067156,-0.213261,0.075047,0.021964,-0.074783,-0.029562,-0.012456,-0.000923,0.004909,0.005103,0.008931,0.006594,0.005054,-0.040461,0.005022,-0.008221,-0.014081,0.000127,0.009176,0.019509,-0.031819,0.007048,0.012325,-0.008917,0.001796

[Megalophias]

There are 2 archaeological sites called Ust' Belaya, one in Chukotka and one in the Lake Baikal area, which sometimes get mixed up. I expect this guy is not actually from Chukotka.

He is an outlier autosomally who groups with West Siberians.

[Farroukh]

this guy is not actually from Chukotka

You are right. He was from Angara area. Haplogroup E detected in modern groups of Tuva people

[Ebizur]

this guy is not actually from Chukotka

You are right. He was from Angara area. Haplogroup E detected in modern groups of Tuva people

Vladimir N. Kharkov has reported the following cases of Y-DNA haplogroup E in the samples that he has examined for his PhD thesis:

2/32 = 6.3% Chita Oblast Evenk
4/67 = 6.0% Belarusian
3/68 = 4.4% Mari
2/47 = 4.3% Tomsk Tatar
4/96 = 4.2% Ukrainian
14/468 = 3.0% Russkiye (i.e. ethnic Russian)
2/134 = 1.5% Southern Altaian
4/297 = 1.3% Buryat
2/422 = 0.5% Tuvan
1/251 = 0.4% Khakas

[alchemist223]

Honestly I suspect this is the result of contamination.

[J Man]

Probably not a correct assignment....theytree also has an Iron Gates Mesolithic forager listed as J2a when in fact the sample is I2a.

[Megalophias]

I think the sample is misdated. Or rather I think someone suggested it was a Medieval sample that got swapped with a Neolithic one. It sure does not look that old.

[CLTVTE]

Perhaps, one more yDNA E signal may be caused by an ancient population, other more ancient relatives of which contributed to Heilongjiang’s AR11K, who was determined to belong to yDNA DE in "The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene", but this individual was also determined to belong to yDNA C2-M217 https://www.theytree.com/tree/C-M48

NE-8 M AR11K AR13-10K 11,601–11,176 46.01 125.82 SS 34 27 1.5 D4o DE 274 0.421 225,066

According to Mark Hudson’s “The Linguistic Prehistory of Japan: Some Archaeological Speculations” from year 1994, “Ainu. On the Tohoku place-name evidence and on the general cultural continuities, Ainu seems to me to be descended from an ancient language in the Japanese archipelago and is unlikely to have arrived after the Yayoi. In this case the chances are high that it is descended from a language of the initial Pleistocene colonization of the region. If Ainu is related to Korean and/or Japanese then those languages could also belong to a Pleistocene eastern branch of "Altaic"-or Eurasiatic ifthat term is more appropriate. The status of the so-called Paleosiberian languages is obviously relevant here, as is the work of linguists who see an Austronesian or Austric derivation for Ainu.”

On the other hand, connections between the Ainu population and the Nivkh population, which were likely mediated by the Okhotsk culture’s population, were highlighted. Additionally, connections between the Nivkh language and the Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages were highlighted by Michael Fortescue. Consequently, one has to mention the Paleosiberian-Tungusic (Altaic) connection one more time: indeed, some information on Nivkh-Tungusic similarities were collected in the following article: “Some parallels in grammar between Nivkh and Tungusic languages”, https://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace..._gusev.pdf

Such connections between Western Eurasian and Eastern Eurasian languages were viewed by the American linguist Morris Swadesh on a different level. Morris Swadesh pointed to the existence of similar lexical items between Native American Wakashan languages (with which the Paleosiberian Nivkh language was also compared) and the Native American Chinook language. The Chinookan languages are a small family of extinct languages spoken in the State of Oregon and the State of Washington. Though the placename “Washington” has a clear Indo-European etymology, nonetheless, a somewhat inspiring Native American river name “Washwash”, related to the Wakashan languages (with which the Paleosiberian Nivkh language was also compared) also existed (though it is unknown whether such a “foreshadowing “river name from a language, having potential Near Eastern connections, could indeed appear already “in the Paleolithic of the United States”).

The new article “Ancient genomes revealed the complex human interactions of the ancient western Tibetans” shows that a Near Eastern yDNA J1 individual participated in the cline, which led to a Near Eastern yDNA E-M78 individual, and the Near Eastern yDNA E-M78 individual was the transitional individual, from whom this genetic cline reached the Paleosiberian-related Altaic individual, who was not a Yakut. This situation supports the Near Eastern-Altaic connection, which, according to Mark Hudson, should have reached Paleosiberians in the Pleistocene and which may be manifested by the existence of[ yDNA DE]/(yDNA C2-M217/C-M48) ancient AR11K individual (having two types of yDNA calls), who was quite obviously more relevant for the formation of the Tungusic (Altaic-related) population, rather than for the formation of the Paleosiberian Nivkh population, which suggests that the Near Eastern-Altaic connection made its way to Paleosiberians from ancient populations, more closely related to the Altaic individuals (Near East=>“Altaic”=>Paleosiberian), but not vice versa (not Paleosiberian=>”Altaic”) , within the part of this Near Eastern-Altaic connection, which, according to Mark Hudson, might have started to appear during the Pleistocene.

[Strider99]

Probably not a correct assignment....theytree also has an Iron Gates Mesolithic forager listed as J2a when in fact the sample is I2a.

I have seen quite a few incorrect calls from them. For example, sample RISE174 from Iron Age Scania which was determined to be biologically and osteologically female in multiple studies was assigned to R1a-Z93 by them. That should raise eyebrows. There was also an incorrect M253+ call for a Ukrainian Mesolithic forager, just to name a few.

Given how precise and reliable Yfull and FTDNA tend to be, I see no reason to rely on theytree, personally.

[Ebizur]

Probably not a correct assignment....theytree also has an Iron Gates Mesolithic forager listed as J2a when in fact the sample is I2a.

I have seen quite a few incorrect calls from them. For example, sample RISE174 from Iron Age Scania which was determined to be biologically and osteologically female in multiple studies was assigned to R1a-Z93 by them. That should raise eyebrows. There was also an incorrect M253+ call for a Ukrainian Mesolithic forager, just to name a few.

Given how precise and reliable Yfull and FTDNA tend to be, I see no reason to rely on theytree, personally.

On the other hand, TheYtree's assignments are usually consistent with those of FTDNA and YFull. FTDNA has assigned "Ando 1," allegedly from Early Neolithic Ando, an islet off the southern coast of Korea, to Y-DNA haplogroup O-FGC50590, and TheYtree has assigned the same sample (AND001 朝鲜栉文土器时代 6300-3000 BC, cf. Robbeets et al. 2021, "Triangulation supports agricultural spread of the Transeurasian languages") to O-FGC50590 > O-FGC50661 > O-FGC50710.

FTDNA has assigned this specimen to one level more basal than TheYtree has (FTDNA currently considers FGC50661 and FGC50710 to be phylogenetically equivalent SNPs, so these together count as only one level in FTDNA's tree). This is a typical pattern; FTDNA tends to be more conservative with their haplogroup assignments for ancient DNA samples than TheYtree. However, the entire O-FGC50590 clade is a very peculiar one, and the assignments of FTDNA and TheYtree for this sample's Y-DNA are overall essentially the same.

What really troubles me about this sample is that Robbeets et al. 2021 have labeled it as "AND001," which is precisely the way in which TheYtree has recorded the name of this sample, yet it is clearly stated in the original archaeological report on the excavation of the Ando Shell Midden that 안도1호 i.e. "Ando #1" has been judged to be female based on a morphological analysis of the skeleton's well-preserved pelvis.

[CLTVTE]

On the other hand, TheYtree's assignments are usually consistent with those of FTDNA and YFull. FTDNA has assigned "Ando 1," allegedly from Early Neolithic Ando, an islet off the southern coast of Korea, to Y-DNA haplogroup O-FGC50590, and TheYtree has assigned the same sample (AND001 朝鲜栉文土器时代 6300-3000 BC, cf. Robbeets et al. 2021, "Triangulation supports agricultural spread of the Transeurasian languages") to O-FGC50590 > O-FGC50661 > O-FGC50710.

The Transeurasian languages of Martine Robbeets, having a novel way of proving their relationship, are quantitatively almost synonymous with more strictly and traditionally defined Altaic languages, and both Japanese and Korean have been included into both Transeurasian and Altaic languages. Unlike this, the languages that had been separating from the ancestor of the Sino-Tibetan languages and languages, whose bearers interacted with speakers of languages, splitting from the ancestor of the Sino-Tibetan languages, cannot be considered Transeurasian. In “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”, the [ yDNA DE]/(yDNA C-M48) ancient AR11K individual might have “given” the African-like component to some individuals, including those individuals, whose yDNA C2-F1756 is implied in an IVPP article to be the best preserved representative of the first Transeurasian Xinglongwa culture, highlighted by Martine Robbeets. Japanese and Korean populations should be connected to Transeurasian populations by certain mtDNA lineages, assigned to the Japanese and Korean populations in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”. Unlike this, the lineage yDNA C2-M8574 (https://www.theytree.com/tree/C-M8574), observed in the Japanese, separated prior to the Xinglongwa culture during a more “Paleosiberian” than “Transeurasian” period.

It is suggested that the yDNA lineage of O-M188>…>O-FGC50590 > O-FGC50661 > O-FGC50710 of the discussed ancient individual AND001 separated from other yDNA O-FGC50710 lineages 12300 years ago, that is, at the dawn of the Neolithic period prior to the clear differentiation into millet-farming and rice-farming populations. In “Supplementary information 22” of the article “Triangulation supports agricultural spread of the Transeurasian languages”, the AND001 was overwhelmingly modeled using the Miaozigou culture of Inner Mongolia. However, the Miaozigou culture of Inner Mongolia was rather close geographically to the Middle Yellow river basin, inhabited by the ancient Sinitic (and before by ancient Sino-Tibetan) populations. Since descendants of populations, less admixed with inhabitants of Southern China than the most modern Chinese individuals, are better represented in the Upper Yellow river basin, the article “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years” suggested that the ancestry of O-M188>…>O-FGC50590 > O-FGC50661 > O-FGC50710 AND001 ancient individual is better represented in mtDNA D4b2b-related Upper_Yellow River_Iron Age DCZ-M17IV Dacaozi ancient individual. The highest amount of cases of ancient mtDNA D4b2b* were reported from the Shimao localities in the Middle Yellow river basin in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”, and the Shimao population was treated as the population, related to the Han Chinese in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”. Indeed, in “Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years”, the O-M188>… > O-FGC50710 AND001 individual-like ancestry was not suitable for Tibeto-Burman Tibetan_Chamdo individuals, whose ancestry had something to do with the Yellow_River_Late_Bronze_Age_Iron_Age population (in the new article “Ancient genomes revealed the complex human interactions of the ancient western Tibetans”), which contributed some ancestry to the Japan Kofun population in “Ancient genomics reveals tripartite origins of Japanese populations”.

[Farroukh]

Contamination was the first thing came to mind.
But then how can we explain his typically local mt- and autosomal DNA? Also there were detected several E-M123 cases in Tuva and Buriat people.

[Арсен]

surprisingly, relative to other Neolithic samples from Siberia, he are drawn to the region of the Levant and Anatolia


Target: RUS_Ust_Belaya:I7760__BC_3870__Cov_33.15%
Distance: 2.9785% / 0.02978489 | R4P
51.8 Russia_LenaRiver_N.SG
25.4 RUS_Nizhnetytkesken_6500BP
12.0 TUR_SE_Cayonu_PPN
10.8 Italy_Sardinia_N


Target: RUS_Ust_Belaya:I7760__BC_3870__Cov_33.15%
Distance: 2.6508% / 0.02650825 | R5P
40.6 Russia_LenaRiver_N.SG
20.6 Russia_UstBelaya_Angara_o.SG
16.6 RUS_Siberia_N_Vengerovo-2
11.8 TUR_SE_Cayonu_PPN
10.4 Italy_Sardinia_N