DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
All contents © 2006-2014 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes®.
DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively from
DNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved.
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
Copyright © 2014 DNA Tribes®. All rights reserved.
To request an email subscription to DNA Tribes® Digest, email [email protected] with the subject heading
“Subscribe.” To unsubscribe from DNA Tribes® Digest, email [email protected] with the subject heading
“Unsubscribe.” Previous issues of DNA Tribes® Digest are available online at http://dnatribes.com/library.html.
Table of Contents:
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
The Mal’ta Genome and the Siberian Heartland of Eurasia ........................................................ 2
Historical Background ......................................................................................................... 2
Non-Local Genetic Components in Northeast Asian Regions (STR) ................................. 6
Non-Local Genetic Components in Populations near Siberia (SNP) .................................. 9
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 11
DNA Tribes® Announcements for January 2014 ...................................................................... 12
New Year Sale for New 22 Marker and 26 Marker Kit STR Tests ................................... 12
About DNA Tribes® SNP (genome data required) ............................................................. 13
Introduction
Hello, and welcome to the January 2014 issue of DNA Tribes® Digest. This month’s article
explores early genetic relationships in Siberia, to provide a fuller context for DNA results published for
a 24,000 year old genome recovered from the Paleolithic Mal’ta culture near Lake Baikal.
In particular, both ancient and modern Siberians express genetic links with the Indian
Subcontinent, Northeast Europe, Native Americans, and Oceanians. Notably, this ancient Mal’ta
genome might be related to Ancestral North Eurasian (ANE) populations that influenced the genetic
structure of the Middle East, Americas, and Europe.
However, additional Southeast Asian related ancestry now found throughout Siberia might
reflect later expansions of Altaic speaking cultures in North Asia (possibly in contact with Yellow and
Yangtze River farming populations) since the Neolithic period.
Best regards and Happy New Year,
Lucas Martin
DNA Tribes
DNA Tribes® is on Facebook.
Find us at http://facebook.com/DNAtribes
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: [email protected]; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes
Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216
Page 1 of 13
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
All contents © 2006-2014 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes®.
DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively from
DNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved.
The Mal’ta Genome and the Siberian Heartland of Eurasia
Historical Background
New DNA Evidence: Mal’ta Boy and Ancestral North Eurasians
A recent paper, "Upper Paleolithic Siberian Genome Reveals Dual Ancestry of Native
Americans" by Raghavan et. al., featured groundbreaking DNA analysis of a 24,000 year old Siberian
person from Mal'ta (near Lake Baikal). 1 Surprisingly, admixture analysis published for the Paleolithic
Mal’ta genome expressed genetic components related to: the Indian Subcontinent (37%), Northeast
Europe (34%), indigenous Central and South Americans (16%), indigenous Arctic and Canadian First
Nations (10%), and Oceania (4%).
Several past DNA Tribes® Digest articles have explored genetic evidence for early relationships
between Europe, Siberia, and Native Americans based on modern Eurasians. 2 However, results
published for the Mal’ta genome did not express the East Asian related ancestral components that today
are predominant in indigenous Siberians and Asian-Pacific populations. This suggests that modern
Siberians have been shaped by population expansions from East Asia since the Paleolithic period.
Further, another new study, “Ancient Human Genomes Suggest Three Ancestral Populations
for Present-Day Europeans” by Lazaridis et. al., 3 has identified ancient genomes from both Mal’ta and
Afontova-Gora as part of an Ancestral North Eurasian (ANE) population related to present day
Middle Eastern (in particular Caucasus Mountains) and European populations.
This new DNA evidence highlights Siberia as one of several parts of the world that have been
genetically reshaped by migrations since the Paleolithic period, as well as an important source of early
expansions to West Eurasia.
To further explore these ancient relationships, the Historical Background of this article will
discuss archaeological evidence for early Siberian links with the Indian Subcontinent, West Asia, and
Europe, as well as later East Asian related expansions. This will provide a context for the autosomal
STR and autosomal SNP analysis of non-local genetic components in Northeast Asia.
Languages of Siberia
Deep in the interior of the Eurasian continent, the ecologically challenging landscapes of
Siberia are located in a complex network of Central Eurasian cultures speaking several languages
(shown in Figure 1). These include:
•
•
Dené–Caucasian languages (debated by linguists) of Siberia, East Asia, North America, the
Caucasus Mountains, and the West Mediterranean.
Uralic languages of North Siberia and Northeastern Europe.
1
See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature12736.html. The New York Times has
covered this discovery at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/science/two-surprises-in-dna-of-boy-found-buriedin-siberia.html.
2
For instance, see: http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-01-02.pdf, http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest2012-12-01.pdf, http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2009-11-30.pdf, and http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest2009-08-29.pdf.
3
See http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552.
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: [email protected]; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes
Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216
Page 2 of 13
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
All contents © 2006-2014 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes®.
DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively from
DNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved.
•
•
•
Indo-European languages of West Asia, Europe, and the Indian Subcontinent.
Altaic languages of Siberia and West Asia (Micro-Altaic); and (debated by linguists) Japan
and the Korean Peninsula (Macro-Altaic).
Paleo-Siberian languages of the outer periphery of Siberia and the Russian Far East.
Figure 1: Language familiar near Siberia with possible archaeological links (italics).
Mal’ta and Gravettian Links with Paleolothic Europe
To put new ancient DNA results for “Mal’ta Boy” in context, this ancient individual was
discovered in the area associated with the Mal’ta-Buret’ culture (possibly the most ancient site in
Eastern Siberia; highlighted in yellow in Figure 1). Notably, archaeologists have noted the similarity of
the technology and artwork of the ancient Mal’ta-Buret’ peoples and the Gravettian cultures of the
European Paleolithic. Both of these hunting cultures lived in the mammoth steppes of Ice Age Eurasia
and created distinctive “Venus figurines.”
Although the languages associated with these Upper Paleolithic Mal’ta-Buret’ and Gravettian
artisans are unknown, one possibility is that the vast distribution of the Dené–Caucasian languages
reflects the wide-ranging travels of hunting cultures tracking mammoths and other migrating big game
(megafauna) during the Last Glacial Maximum (Ice Age).
Remarkably, local traces of the Mal’ta-Burets artistic tradition might have persisted in parts of
Siberia until comparatively recent periods. For instance, the Afanasevo-Okunovo “Angara style”
(thought to date to approximately 3,300-2,000 BCE) included Mal’ta-like iconography that has been
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: [email protected]; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes
Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216
Page 3 of 13
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
All contents © 2006-2014 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes®.
DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively from
DNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved.
identified by archaeologists as specifically pre-Indo-European. 4 Instead, Okunovo artwork more closely
resembles imagery used in the American Desert Southwest, such as masked figures associated with
Southern Athabaskan and Uto-Aztecan cultures.
Mesolithic Links with India and Central Asia
Further evidence for pre-Neolithic cultural links between Europe and Asia (now confirmed by
the Mal’ta genome) has been found south of Siberia, in the Indian Subcontinent (South Asia). In
particular, some Mesolithic South Asian populations (such as the “hyperrobust” Sarai Nahar Rai series
discovered on the Gangetic Plain) have been described as similar to both Upper Paleolithic West Asian
and European (Cro-Magnon) cultures adapted to hunting-foraging lifeways. 5
Another Mesolithic culture linked to South Asia, Siberia, and Europe is the Kelteminar
culture (5,500–3,500 BCE). This Central Asian hunting-fishing culture probably involved interactions
between: first, indigenous Aral Sea fishing populations (possibly speaking Uralic languages and
related to the Pit-Comb culture of Eastern Europe 6); and second, an incoming group of southern
cultures from near the Caspian and Black Seas. 7 Notably, some linguists have suggested that similar
words for “pot” in Uralic and Dravidian languages might reflect early Kelteminar links. 8
This ancient Central Asian duality between simpler northern lifeways and more sophisticated
southern civilizations linked to the Fertile Crescent continued and in later periods became associated
with particular cultural objects. For instance, the use of simple hand-made pottery (associated with
Siberian cultures) and more elaborate wheel-made pottery (associated with West Asian cultures) has
been compared to Sanskrit literature describing manual fashioning of pottery for cultural ceremonies.9
Bronze Age Links with Eastern Europe
Siberian links with Europe intensified during the Bronze Age, in which a Eurasian
Metallurgical Province (EurAsMP) emerged near the Black Sea and spread into Western Siberia. This
involved two linked cultural blocs, one in Eastern Europe (Srubnaya culture) and one in Western
Siberia (Andronovo culture). 10 These two cultures met and mixed north of the Caspian Sea and in the
South Urals forest-steppe zone, near the site of the Sintashta-Petrovka “Country of Towns.”
4
See Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations ed. by C.
Carpelan et. al., pp.157-8. Depending on whether Afanasevo migrations involved Indo-European speaking
cultures, Okunovo traditions might have influenced early Tocharian settlers near the Tarim Basin.
5
See God-Apes and Fossil Men: Paleoanthropology in South Asia by Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, pp. 226-230.
6
For more information, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-10-01.pdf.
7
See E. E. Kuzmina, The Prehistory of the Silk Road p.20. Genetic evidence for two West Eurasian related
population strata in Central and South Asia is discussed at http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdf.
8
Some linguists have suggested that similar words for “pot” in Uralic and Dravidian might reflect early
Kelteminar contacts in Central Asia. Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European, pp. 283-285.
9
See Kuzmina, The Origin of the Indo-Iranians p. 80. Notably, a duality of Brahmin and Kshatriya functional
roles is depicted in early Sanskrit literature (for instance, in tales of the Mahabharata). Although only
folklorically associated with “Asuras” (perhaps Assyrian related), a similar cooperative duality of urbanism
(possibly re-introduced from West Asia) and peripheral pastoralist-traders is suggested in the archaeological
record of Iron Age India. For more discussion, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-10-01.pdf.
10
For more information, see “The ‘Steppe Belt’ of stockbreeding cultures in Eurasia during the Early Metal Age”
by Evgeny Chernykh, available at http://tp.revistas.csic.es/index.php/tp/article/viewFile/149/150.
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: [email protected]; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes
Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216
Page 4 of 13
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
All contents © 2006-2014 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes®.
DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively from
DNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved.
Although linguistic details are debated, with many substantial questions remaining, expansions
of these mining-pastoralist societies in Siberia and Central Asia probably in some way involved IndoEuropean speaking cultures (eastern or satem IE languages in particular). 11 However, East Asian
cultures were also linked to these changes from an early period, especially around the Altai Mountains
(possibly related to Proto-Turkic or more generally Altaic speaking cultures).
Seima-Turbino and Asian-Pacific Counter-Expansions
Although details of chronology and geography remain to be discovered, Asian-Pacific related
cultures also played an important role in shaping the landscape of Siberia during the Bronze Age and
perhaps much earlier. For instance, some archaeologists have suggested that some of the first
agricultural societies of the Indian Subcontinent (Mehrgarh in present day Baluchistan, approximately
6,000 BCE; possibly involving early Mon-Khmer languages) were related to present day Southeast
Asians. 12 An early East Asian related population in Inamgaon (Western India) during the Chalcolithic
period has also been proposed. 13
Nevertheless, Asian-Pacific farming cultures (possibly involving early Sino-Tibetan and/or
other languages) are attested along the Yangtze River in south-central China (the rice growing
Pengtoushan culture, circa 7,500 – 6,100 BCE) and along the Yellow River in northern China (the
millet growing and pastoralist Peiligang culture, circa 7,000 – 5,000 BCE). The relationships of these
early East Asian Neolithic populations with Siberia are not fully understood. However, an early
northward push for these communities is suggested by the presence of agriculture in the Korean
Peninsula between 3,600 and 3,000 BCE.
Asian-Pacific linked expansions are attested in Siberia beginning at least as early as the SeimaTurbino Phenomenon that swept across Eurasia approximately 2,000 BCE. 14 This early non-kurgan
expansion probably began near the Altai Mountains and swept westwards, reaching present day Finland
(possibly involving early Uralic and/or Altaic speaking cultures). In Asia, Seima-Turbino was
possibly involved in the “rapid transmission” of metallurgy technologies as far south as Thailand
(probably via Gansu and Yunnan in present day China). 15
However, Seima-Turbino expansions into Western Siberia and Northern Europe (possibly
transmitting some Uralic languages) were generally confined to the forest zone and did not penetrate
the forest-steppe areas that were already occupied by the separate Sintashta-Petrovka settlements.
Ultimately, the remarkably rapid Seima-Turbino Phenomenon was short lived, returning to a smaller
base area in Northwest Siberia (the Samus-Kizhirovo culture). 16
11
For more discussion, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdf. Bronze Age Eurasian
iconography appears as far away as Southwest Asia. For instance, compare “sun-faced” petroglyphs from
Tamgaly, Kazakhstan and male figurines from Kangurt-Tut, Tajikistan with similar depictions in mining sites of
the Negev Desert. See The Origin of the Indo-Iranians by E. E. Kuzmina, fig. 56, 90; Were These King
Solomon’s Mines? Excavations in the Timna Valley by B. Rothenberg, plates 101and XVIII.
12
See Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization by Jonathan M. Kenoyer, p.38; Indus Age: The Beginnings
by Gregory L. Possehl, p. 489. Citations courtesy www.harappadna.org.
13
See God-Apes and Fossil Men: Paleoanthropology in South Asia by Kenneth A. R. Kennedy pp. 322.
14
For more discussion in the context of Bronze Age Asia, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-1001.pdf and http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdf.
15
For more information, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdf.
16
Northwest Siberia (near the Gulf of Ob) was later home to the Arctic coast Ust-Poluy culture, possibly related
to Eskimo-Aleut and Iroquoian cultures that later spread in Far East Siberia and North America. See Prehistory of
Western Siberia by V. N. Chernetsov and W. Moszynska p. 129-133; 243; 308.
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: [email protected]; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes
Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216
Page 5 of 13
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
All contents © 2006-2014 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes®.
DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively from
DNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved.
It was not until several centuries later in the 14th century BCE that a fully developed East
Asian Metallurgical Province (EasAsMP) expanded in Northeast Asia. 17 Possibly originating with the
Karasuk and Dandybay cultures and in part derived from Seima-Turbino, the EasAsMP is not
associated with any known settlements and probably was based on nomadic cattle herding. Notably, the
EasAsMP was its own metallurgical tradition (not derived from Chinese techniques) that nevertheless
influenced the Shang Dynasty capitol of Yinxu between the 13th and 11th centuries BCE.
Summary: Archaeology in the Light of Ancient DNA Evidence
The Paleolithic Mal’ta genome provides new insight that can add meaning to the archaeological
record of early Siberia. Notably, DNA results from Mal’ta indicate early links with South Asia, Europe,
and Native Americans. Furthermore, Mal’ta might be related to early Ancestral North Eurasian (ANE)
populations that influenced the genetic structure of the Middle East and Europe.
Mal’ta DNA links with Europe are consistent with archaeological evidence for contacts
between Upper Paleolithic Mal’ta-Buret’ and Gravettian populations (on the eastern and western ends
of the Siberian mammoth steppe, respectively).
In later periods, Mal’ta related Ancestral North Eurasians might have influenced European
genetic structure in the period of the Mesolithic Kelteminar culture that linked Central Asia, West
Siberia, and Europe. Also relevant might be similarity between some Mesolithic South Asians from the
Indo-Gangetic Plain and Paleolithic Europeans and West Asians.
However, a more expansive wave of Ancestral North Eurasian (ANE) migrations into the
Middle East and Europe might have been during the period of the Yamna and Srubnaya-Andronovo
(EurAsMP) related “Kurgan” expansions in large areas of Asia and Europe. 18
Potential periods of contact with Native Americans (and ancestral North American Indian
populations of the United States and Canada in particular) might have included not only the first PaleoSiberia migrations, 19 but also Arctic Coast Ust-Poluy contacts (possibly Eskimo-Aleut and Iroquoian
related) during the Iron Age.
Finally, the Asian-Pacific genetic components related to present day Native Siberians might
have expanded in North Asia during several periods, including the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon and the
later East Asian Metallurgical Province (EasAsMP) linked to early dynastic China.
To further explore these several population strata that have shaped the genetic landscape of
Northeast Asia, the next sections of this article will examine the non-local genetic components of
Northeast Asian regions and populations using autosomal STR and autosomal SNP data.
Non-Local Genetic Components in Northeast Asian Regions (STR)
To assess the influence of population movements attested in the archaeological record and
compare with new ancient DNA evidence, non-local genetic components of Northeast Asian regions
(excluding local Siberian, Yellow River, Tibetan, and Japanese components) were identified based on
autosomal STR data. 20 Results are listed in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 2.
17
See http://tp.revistas.csic.es/index.php/tp/article/viewFile/149/150.
For
more
discussion,
see
http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdf
and
http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-11-01.pdf.
19
Discussed in detail at http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-12-01.pdf.
20
For information about the 32 world genetic regions distinguished in DNA Tribes® 22 and 26 Marker Kit
autosomal STR tests, see http://dnatribes.com/populations.html.
18
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: [email protected]; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes
Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216
Page 6 of 13
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
All contents © 2006-2014 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes®.
DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively from
DNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved.
Figure 2: Non-local genetic components in Northeast Asian regions. These percentages exclude
local Siberian, Yellow River, Tibetan, and Japanese components.
Discussion: Results in Table 1 express a variety of non-local genetic components in Northeast
Asian regions, including components related to Northeastern Europe, the Indian Subcontinent, AsianPacific populations, Native Americans, and (to some degree) Middle Eastern and African populations.
Northeast European components: Finnic percentages are generally absent, but are expressed
for the Siberian region (3.0%). However, Urals percentages (related to indigenous Uralic and Turkic
speaking populations in the eastern part of European Russia) are expressed for several regions. Notably,
the largest Urals component is expressed for the Siberian region (17.4%). These Urals related
components might reflect migrations between Europe and Siberia since the Paleolithic period
(Gravettian and Mal’ta links), as well as later Mesolithic Kelteminar contacts and later historical
expansions (such as Hunnic and Turkic expansions in the medieval period).
Indian Subcontinent components: South India percentages are largest for the Siberian region
(10.5%) and might reflect early links with South Asia dating to the Paleolithic period (Mal’ta-Buret’
culture) and suggested for some Mesolithic hunting-foraging populations of the Indo-Gangetic Plain
(discussed in the Historical Background of this article). Eastern India percentages have a somewhat
different geographical distribution, with a local maximum in the Tibetan region (19.2%). This might
suggest more localized contacts between Tibeto-Burmans and the Eastern Indian Subcontinent.
East Asian components: Southeast Asian percentages are expressed for all studied regions,
suggesting widespread expansions throughout East Asia that (in the case of Siberia) might have postdated the Mal’ta-Buret’ culture near Lake Baikal. Southeast Asian percentages are largest in Yellow
River (Chinese) populations (85.3%) and smallest in Siberian populations (45.6%). This might in part
reflect Neolithic expansions from the Yellow and Yangtze River systems, as well as later expansions of
Altaic speaking cultures in Siberia.
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: [email protected]; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes
Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216
Page 7 of 13
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
All contents © 2006-2014 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes®.
DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively from
DNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved.
Finnic
Urals
South India
Eastern
India
Southeast
Asian
Polynesian
Australian
Arctic
Paleo-Indian
Southern
African
Arabian
Levantine
Oceanian components: Smaller Polynesian and Australian percentages are also expressed for
some populations, with a maximum in Japanese populations (12.3% Australian). This might reflect
genetic traces of shared Asian-Pacific maritime contacts with Oceania.21
Native American components: Arctic percentages are largest in Siberian populations (15.6%)
and might reflect contacts between Northwest Siberian coastal hunters (such as Ust-Poluy) and PaleoEskimo and Proto-Inuit cultures that expanded along the Arctic Sea to large areas of Siberia and North
America. 22 However, Paleo-Indian (non-Arctic Native American) percentages might reflect deeper
relationships dating to the Paleolithic period of the Mal’ta-Buret’ culture.
Notably, results for the 24,000 year old Mal’ta genome expressed both Arctic (10%) and PaleoIndian (16%) genetic components. These reflect contacts with Paleolithic Siberian populations related
to the ancestors of Paleo-Indians that later migrated throughout the Americas, before Asian-Pacific
related expansions reshaped the genetic structure of Siberia (possibly in part related to Neolithic
farming populations of the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers).
Finally, small percentages of African and Middle Eastern components are expressed for
some Northeast Asians. In particular, non-local percentages expressed for the Tibetan region include
Southern African (3.3%), Arabian (2.5%), and Levantine (4.1%). These reflect early migrations in
Eurasia (preserved in the geographically isolated Tibetan Plateau and nearby parts of Highland East
Asia) that are not typical of any modern populations but also represented in parts of the Middle East and
Africa. 23
Japanese
0.0%
9.0%
9.3%
0.0%
60.6%
0.0%
12.3%
0.0%
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Siberian
3.0%
17.4%
10.5%
0.7%
45.6%
1.5%
2.2%
15.6%
3.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Tibetan
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
19.2%
64.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.9%
3.3%
2.5%
4.1%
Region
Yellow River 0.0% 1.7%
1.6%
4.8% 85.3% 0.0% 0.0%
2.6% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7%
Table 2: Non-local genetic components in Northeast Asian regions. These percentages exclude local Siberian,
Yellow River, Tibetan, and Japanese components.
Summary (STR): Similar to the results published for the 24,000 year old Mal’ta genome,
DNA Tribes® analysis using autosomal STR data expresses Northeast European, Indian Subcontinent,
Oceanian, and Native American related genetic components in present day Northeast Asians. However,
results for modern Northeast Asians express additional East Asian genetic components, which might
reflect expansions related to the Yellow and Yangtze River Neolithic and (in Siberia) the East Asian
Metallurgical Province (EasAsMP) and Altaic languages.
21
For more detailed discussion of East Asian links with Oceanian populations, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribesdigest-2013-05-01.pdf and http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdf.
22
For more discussion, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-12-01.pdf.
23
For instance, a recent paper has suggested a possible “Basal Eurasian” proto-population that impacted the
ancestral genetic structure in some parts of Eurasia. See http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552.
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: [email protected]; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes
Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216
Page 8 of 13
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
All contents © 2006-2014 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes®.
DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively from
DNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved.
Non-Local Genetic Components in Populations near Siberia (SNP)
To further explore the influence of population movements attested in the archaeological record
and compare with new ancient DNA evidence, non-local genetic components of several populations in
and near Siberia (excluding local Siberian-Arctic, Tibetan, and Chinese components) were identified
based on autosomal SNP data. 24 Results are listed in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Non-local genetic components in populations near Siberia (SNP). These percentages exclude local
Siberian-Arctic, Tibetan, and Chinese components.
Discussion: Results in Table 2 express a variety of non-local genetic components in
populations near Siberia, including Northeast European, West Asian, South Asian, Asian-Pacific, and
(to a small degree) African components.
Northeast European components: Slavic-Baltic percentages are generally absent, but are
expressed for sampled Uzbeks (2.2%). However, substantial Uralic percentages are expressed for many
North Asian studied populations and are largest for Selkups (42.5%), Dolgans (27.5%), Nganasans
(19.8%), and Tuvinians (19.3%). These components suggest pervasive genetic relationships between
indigenous Siberians and Northeast Europeans, probably in part reflecting Paleolithic migrations of
Gravettian and Mal’ta-Buret’ populations in pursuit of Eurasian megafauna (such as mammoths).
West Asian components: Caucasus Mountains percentages are expressed for just some
populations in Central Asia and are largest for Uyghur of Western China (12.0%). A small
Mesopotamian percentage is also expressed for Uzbeks (2.4%). Because they are generally absent in
indigenous Siberians, these West Asian components might reflect more recent contacts with the Middle
East (such as Scythian and other Indo-Iranian expansions during the Iron Age), rather than pervasive
population relationships in North Asia.
For information about DNA Tribes® SNP analysis (raw genome data from a SNP microarray test required), see
http://dnatribes.com/snp.html.
24
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: [email protected]; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes
Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216
Page 9 of 13
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
All contents © 2006-2014 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes®.
DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively from
DNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved.
Slavic-Baltic
Uralic
Caucasus
Mountains
Mesopotamian
Indus Valley
South India
Oceanian
Southeast
Asian
Mesoamerican
Nilotic
Other
Indian Subcontinent components: Indus Valley (Central Asian and Northern South Asian)
percentages are expressed primarily in Central Asian populations, such as Hazara (37.9%). However,
substantial Indus Valley percentages are also expressed in Mongols (9.7%), Selkups (8.6%), Tuvinians
(4.7%), and Yakuts (3.2%), which might reflect later patterns of contact across Siberia (such as
Andronovo contacts).
South India components are primarily expressed in populations adjacent to the Indian
Subcontinent, such as Burma (16.3%). However, South Asian percentages are expressed for some
geographically remote populations of Siberia, such as Dolgans (9.6%). These components at the
periphery of North Asia might reflect traces of Paleolithic links between Eurasian populations (attested
in genomic results from Mal’ta and also suggested by similarities between Mesolithic Indo-Gangetic
populations and Upper Paleolithic Europeans and West Asians).
Burma
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.3%
1.6%
76.1%
6.1%
0.0%
0.0%
Chukchi
0.0%
15.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
2.6%
43.1%
38.1%
0.0%
0.0%
Dolgan
0.0%
27.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.6%
3.3%
42.9%
16.3%
0.0%
0.3%
Han Beijing China
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.3%
87.6%
10.2%
0.0%
0.0%
Han Southern China
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
90.7%
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
Hazara
0.0%
11.6%
10.7%
0.0%
37.9%
0.2%
1.8%
30.3%
7.3%
0.0%
0.0%
Japan
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.8%
82.9%
12.8%
0.0%
0.1%
Koryak
0.0%
19.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
47.9%
29.8%
0.0%
0.4%
Mongol Mongolia
0.0%
18.1%
0.0%
0.0%
9.7%
0.0%
3.0%
53.9%
14.7%
0.0%
0.6%
Naxi China
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
3.3%
83.6%
10.3%
1.3%
0.0%
Nganasan
0.0%
19.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.5%
53.5%
21.6%
0.0%
0.6%
Selkup
0.0%
42.5%
0.0%
0.0%
8.6%
0.0%
2.5%
29.5%
16.2%
0.0%
0.7%
Tibetans
0.0%
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.9%
5.1%
72.6%
12.5%
1.1%
0.0%
Tuvinians
0.0%
19.3%
0.0%
0.0%
4.7%
0.0%
4.8%
54.1%
16.8%
0.0%
0.4%
Uyghur China
0.0%
15.5%
12.0%
0.0%
28.1%
0.3%
1.7%
34.9%
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
Uzbek
3.3%
16.6%
9.2%
2.4%
36.9%
0.0%
0.4%
24.5%
6.7%
0.0%
0.1%
Xibo China
0.0%
6.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
4.0%
76.4%
12.7%
0.0%
0.0%
Population
Yakut Siberia
0.0% 16.5% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%
1.6% 3.7% 56.7% 17.8% 0.0% 0.6%
Table 2: Non-local genetic components in populations near Siberia (SNP). These percentages exclude local
Siberian-Arctic, Tibetan, and Chinese components.
Asian-Pacific components: Oceanian (Papuan and Melanesian) percentages are expressed
for all studied populations, with the largest Oceanian percentage expressed for Tibetans (5.1%),
Tuvinians (4.8%), and Nganasans (4.5%). The presence of small amounts of Oceanian-like ancestry
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
Page 10 of 13
Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: [email protected]; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes
Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
All contents © 2006-2014 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes®.
DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively from
DNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved.
deep inside Siberia suggests that this component might express fairly early relationships among
Eurasian populations. This is also consistent with the Oceanian component (4%) expressed for the
Paleolithic Mal’ta genome from near Lake Baikal.
Southeast Asian ancestry is also expressed for all studied populations and is the largest nonlocal component for most of Northeast Asians included in this analysis. Southeast Asian percentages
are largest for Han from Southern China (90.7%), Han from Beijing (87.6%), and Naxi (83.6%). This
suggests that Southeast Asian like genetic components might be related to Neolithic expansions of
Yellow and Yangtze River populations in East Asia.
The smallest Southeast Asian percentages are expressed for Uzbeks (24.5%) and Selkups
(29.5%), both living far to the west of present day China. This is consistent with a primarily east-towest expansion of Southeast Asian ancestry in Siberia, possibly involving archaeological cultures such
as the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon and East Asian Metallurgical Province (EasAsMP).
Native American components: Mesoamerican percentages are expressed for all studied
populations, with the largest percentage expressed for Chukchi (38.1%) living near the Bering Sea
linking Far East Siberia with North America. Mesoamerican percentages are smallest for Burma (6.1%)
and Uzbeks (6.7%), located far to the south and southwest of the Bering Strait. This might reflect
shared origins of ancestral Siberians (such as Mal’ta) and Paleo-Indians dating to the Paleolithic period.
African components: Nilotic percentages, although small, are expressed for Naxi (1.3%) and
Tibetans (1.1%), both Tibeto-Burman speaking populations. Although not easily explained, this small
African SNP component in Tibeto-Burman speakers is similar to the African and Middle Eastern STR
percentages expressed for the Tibetan region (see previous portion of article). One possibility is that this
might reflect genetic traces of an early ancestral population, such as Basal Eurasians (BE) (recently
described in a Lazaridis et. al.), that might have impacted both Africans and Eurasians, preserved at low
levels in geographically remote populations of the Asia (such as the Tibetan Plateau).
Summary: SNP analysis of Northeast Asian populations expresses non-local genetic
components related to Northeast Europe, the Indian Subcontinent, Native Americans, and Oceanians
(present in Siberia since the Upper Paleolithic period Mal’ta-Buret’ culture). Additionally, SNP analysis
expresses West Asian and Southeast Asian components that might reflect later migrations to North Asia
since the Neolithic period.
Conclusion
Both autosomal STR and autosomal SNP analysis of Northeast Asian regions and populations
expresses Northeast European, Indian Subcontinent, Native American, and Oceanian genetic
components (similar to the 24,000 year old Mal’ta genome). This suggests partial genetic continuity
and/or recurring patterns of inter-regional migrations in Northeast Asia since the Upper Paleolithic
period.
However, STR and SNP results expressed additional Southeast Asian genetic components,
which might reflect expansions of Yellow and Yangtze River related farming populations since the
Neolithic period. In the interior of Siberia, Southeast Asian ancestry might partly relate to east-to-west
expansions of the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon and later Altaic speaking migrations (possibly related to
the East Asian Metallurgical Province of the Late Bronze Age).
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
Page 11 of 13
Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: [email protected]; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes
Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
All contents © 2006-2014 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes®.
DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively from
DNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved.
DNA Tribes® Announcements for January 2014
New Year Sale for New 22 Marker and 26 Marker Kit STR Tests
DNA Tribes® is pleased to offer 22 Marker Kit and 26 Marker Kit tests at great prices. Each 22 and 26
Marker Kit tests includes your Autosomal STR Profile for industry standard markers used in DNA
fingerprinting around the world.
Both kits options feature the most detailed and comprehensive comparison of your autosomal DNA to
world populations available anywhere. Your genetic ancestry report will include DNA Tribes® Native
Population Match, Global Population Match, and World Region Match analysis.
New DNA Tribes® 22 Marker Kits (Sale Price: $119.99) test the following autosomal STR markers:
Amelogenin, CSF1PO, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, D21S11, D3S1358, D5S818, D7S820,
D8S1179, FGA, Penta D, Penta E, TH01, TPOX, vWA, D19S433, D2S1338, D10S1248,
D12S391, D1S1656, D22S1045, and D2S441.
New DNA Tribes® 26 Marker Kits (Sale Price: $139.99) test the following autosomal STR markers:
Amelogenin, CSF1PO, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, D21S11, D3S1358, D5S818, D7S820,
D8S1179, FGA, Penta D, Penta E, TH01, TPOX, vWA, D19S433, D2S1338, D10S1248,
D12S391, D1S1656, D22S1045, D2S441, F13A1, F13B, FES/FPS, and LPL.
More information and new 22 and 26 Marker Kit test orders are available through our secure online
checkout system at http://www.dnatribes.com/order.html.
Upgrade testing for customers who have previously tested using DNA Tribes® 15 or 21 Marker Kit tests
are available at http://dnatribes.com/order_upgrades.html.
Updates incorporating new populations and world region definitions for previous 15, 21, or 27 Marker
Kit tests (including all previously ordered add-on reports) are available using the $24.99 “Update Your
STR Analysis” option at http://dnatribes.com/order_addons.html.
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
Page 12 of 13
Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: [email protected]; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes
Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
All contents © 2006-2014 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes®.
DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively from
DNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved.
About DNA Tribes® SNP (genome data required)
Do you have genome data from a SNP test? DNA Tribes® SNP is a detailed "deep
ancestry" analysis that can be performed based on your genotype raw data from any of
several SNP microarray tests. (Genome Data from Previous Testing Required)
DNA Tribes® SNP reports (http://dnatribes.com/snp.html) include:
•
Admixture Percentages
 Continent, Region, Native Population, and Global Population Percentages.
•
Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS) Graphs
 Continent, Region, Native population, and Global Population.
•
Total Similarity
 Compare your Genotype to over 280 Populations in our SNP Database.
Population
Percentage
Yoruba Nigeria
26.9%
Bambara West Africa
9.6%
Igbo Nigeria
6.7%
Kaba Chad
5.2%
Fang Cameroon
5.1%
Bantu South Africa
5.0%
Kongo
4.2%
Tunisia
3.8%
Herero Namibia
3.6%
Hausa Nigeria
3.4%
Dogon West Africa
3.2%
England
2.5%
France
2.5%
Pima Mexico
2.4%
Mandenka Senegal
2.4%
More information (including sample reports) and orders are available at:
http://dnatribes.com/snp.html.
DNA Tribes® Digest January 3, 2014
Page 13 of 13
Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: [email protected]; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes
Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216