From: Michal Milewski
Message: 13620
Date: 2002-05-03
----- Original Message -----
From: <x99lynx@...>
> (Let me point out as an aside that there's nothing I said that indicates
all
> the "sister branches" of 09 originated in New Guinea.
I 'm sorry if you had the impression that I presented it as your opinion. I
only used is an alternative hypothesis that seemed to be much less likely
than the Near East origin of 09 and its sister branches. (BTW, I've noticed
that I was quite inconsistent when using the term "sister branches". After
thinking for a while on this problem, I came to a new conclusion, but I
will need more time to explain it in detail)
> But let me ask you just this quick question. This picture of the early
> spread of the Y-Chromosome in theory represents the spread of all (male)
> modern humans. What haplotypes do you think represents the spread of
> humanity into South East Asia - possibly the area of the most concentrated
> population on earth for as long as we have reliable evidence? At what
times
> do you believe those genes arrived and how does it jive with this study?
Or
> with the archaeology of modern humans in South East Asia?
My knowledge of the upper paleolithic archaeological findings in Central,
Eastern, Southern and South-East Asia and is rather incomplete (and derives
in part from the data that were posted on this list some time ago). Maybe
you (or John) could try to correlate these data in a more professional way.
The fact that the modern human is believed to appear in Central Asia around
35,000 BC fits my theory, but this can in no way be used as a definitive
proof. In fact, I've just read a paper that brings some new (and I think
quite important) data to this question, but I will need more time to make a
complete analysis. This is a paper from American Journal of Human Genetics
by Bing Su et al., (Y-chromosme evidence for a northward migration of modern
humans into Eastern Asia during the last Ice Age), 1999, 65:1718. I can send
you a PDF, if you are interested (but not earlier than onTuesday, since I
will be travelling till Monday). The most intriguing data I noticed so far
is the relatively high frequency (in some populations from this region) of
haplotype that does not contain neither the 01(YAP) or 89 mutations. I
guess, these Eastern Asian chromosomes correspond to the 130 lineage
(haplogroup V, haplotypes 44-48) in Underhill's work (unfortunately, this
marker was not tested here). I mentiond earlier (in one of my first messages
in this thread) that those haplotypes are likely to correspond to the first
wave out of Africa and dominate among native Australians, although they
seemed to survive in Central Asia+Siberia, too. The samples analysed by Bing
Su are extremely small, but if my interpretation of those data is correct,
this haplogroup accounts for 75% of Y chromosomes (3 out of 4) among Buryat,
58% (14/24) among Mongolian and 50% (4/8) among Ewenki people. The frequency
among different Chinese populations ranges from 0 to 20% (with the exception
of Yao Nandan, where it reaches 50%, or 5 out of 10). It may mean that the
male descendants of the people contributing to the first out-of-Africa wave
survived among Eastern Asian populations, and constitute rather high
proportion of males in East Siberian "Altaic" populations. Whether or not it
is somehow related to the Altaic family of languages is a very controversial
question (but maybe worth discussing). I would like to see similar data for
paleosiberian populations and some language isolates from this region (there
are such papers, and as I remember, it has been shown that Amerindian and
European (IE?) Y chromosomes are closely related to the Y chromosomes of Ket
population in Central Asia). But let's go back to the Eastern Asian
question. It looks like the arriving 09 group (mostly the members of the 175
subgroup, or haplogroup VII in Underhill) came to the Eastern Asia either
from south/south-west (if we prefer the Sothern Asian or New Guinean
homeland of 09 group) or north-west (if we prefere the Central Asian
concept) and replaced/dominated the original inhabitants (130 group). It
could be a peacefull co-existence, but I think that paleolithic populations
were not very friendly toward foreigners (but this assumption may be wrong)
Since members of this 130 group are much more common in northern part of
Eastern Asia, it seems more likely that it was a nothward migration of
09(175) group (though this cannot be certain). It could take place in about
30,000-20,000 BC. Today, males bearing different haplotypes from the 09
group (mostly 175 subgroup) constitute 62,5% of Tibetan, 85 % of Northern
Han, 89% of Southern Han, 86% of Zhuang and 73% of Cambodian populations of
males. This wave of newcomers covered not only China, Tibet and SE Asia, but
also Japan. It is, however, hard to tell whether it took part in the same
period or later. The frequency of 175 haplogroup in Japan is 51%, whereas
28% is represented by 174 group (haplotype IV in Underhill), which I have
previously associated with the second out-of-Africa wave (or Ainu
population). But now I'm not that sure any more about Ainu, because the
remaining 21% corresponds to the even more "ancient' 130 lineage (haplogroup
IV) preserved in Australia, Eastern Siberia and China (if my guess was
right - remember that the 130 marker was not tested). So it looks like Japan
is maybe the only place, where all three out-of-Africa waves met and their
descendants survived till today (at least when we are talking about Y
chromosomes). As for the second out-of-Africa wave, their descendates
survived not only in Japan (so I was wrong earlier). This study shows that
these haplotypes are present among Mongolian (4%), Hui (5%) and Tibetan Y
chromosomes. In Tibet, its frequency reaches even 37.5% (but the sample is
small, just 8 people). Anyway, it seems possible that the earliest bones of
modern humans in Central Asia could belong to people from this particular
haplogroup.
More data about SE and Oceanian populations (and their Y chromosomes) can be
found in the paper by Cristain Capelli et al., A predominantly indigenous
paternal heritage for the Austronesian-speaking peoples of insular Sotheast
Asia and Oceania. (2001) Am J Hum Genet, 68:432. This is probably, what you
are more interested in, but I have no time to take a look at it. I can,
however, email it (as PDF) to you.
> And finally how do
> you account for the concentration of original 09 types in New Guinea?
This is a hard question, and you probably won't be satisfied with my answer.
In my opinion, the most likely cause of this high frequency of the original
09 haplotype is that we have yet to find the subsequent mutations defining
this group. I know that I shouldn't assume that we just lack some data,
because it looks like a very bad excuse, and it makes all these data look
not very reliable. However, I will show you an example that supports my
doubts. Bing Su reports in his/her paper that the highest frequency of the
original 09 haplotype is not among the New Guineans (40% for Oceania) but
among Koreans (57%) and Chinese Yi population (43%). The samples for the
last two populations are very small (7 and 14, respectively), but the
percentages look impressive anyway. Until you notice that the defining
mutations for some of the daughter branches of 09 founder haplotype were not
analyzed. So the "09 only" haplotype can include haplotypes 88-93 of
Underhill. Even worse, the 175 mutation was not tested either (they tested
the defining mutations of all daughter branches), so I'm almost sure that
those "09" only chromosomes in Korea have the 09/175 haplotype.
But of course, other explanations of this New Guinean problem (including
your initial hypothesis) are possible.
> And
> how does that affect your certainly about other concentrations of other
> haplotypes in other areas that fit your theory better?
I'm trying to rely more on the presumable spreading directions of daughter
and sister branches than on the concentrations of founding haplotypes. Of
course, this strategy is not free of some risk, but I can't see a better
method.
I need to go back to my duties, so this is really my last message.
Regards,
Michal