PDA

View Full Version : New research shows humans settled in North America 17,000 years earlier than previous



okarinaofsteiner
08-02-2022, 06:42 AM
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.903795/full

HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY article
Front. Ecol. Evol., 07 July 2022
Sec. Paleontology
https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.903795

Human Occupation of the North American Colorado Plateau ∼37,000 Years Ago


Calibrating human population dispersals across Earth’s surface is fundamental to assessing rates and timing of anthropogenic impacts and distinguishing ecological phenomena influenced by humans from those that were not. Here, we describe the Hartley mammoth locality, which dates to 38,900–36,250 cal BP by AMS 14C analysis of hydroxyproline from bone collagen. We accept the standard view that elaborate stone technology of the Eurasian Upper Paleolithic was introduced into the Americas by arrival of the Native American clade ∼16,000 cal BP. It follows that if older cultural sites exist in the Americas, they might only be diagnosed using nuanced taphonomic approaches. We employed computed tomography (CT and μCT) and other state-of-the-art methods that had not previously been applied to investigating ancient American sites. This revealed multiple lines of taphonomic evidence suggesting that two mammoths were butchered using expedient lithic and bone technology, along with evidence diagnostic of controlled (domestic) fire. That this may be an ancient cultural site is corroborated by independent genetic evidence of two founding populations for humans in the Americas, which has already raised the possibility of a dispersal into the Americas by people of East Asian ancestry that preceded the Native American clade by millennia. The Hartley mammoth locality thus provides a new deep point of chronologic reference for occupation of the Americas and the attainment by humans of a near-global distribution.

Title source (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/wdrdyb/new_research_shows_humans_settled_in_north/)

Dewsloth
08-02-2022, 07:07 PM
~40,000 years gets us closer to the Ceruti site :biggrin1:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerutti_Mastodon_site


Recent Findings
A 2020 paper[17] by Luc Bordes, Elspeth Hayes, Richard Fullager and Tom Deméré, further confirms the initial research that suggests that the cobbles were intentionally used by hominins to break the mastodon bones. This new data has identified bone micro-residues on cobbles pegmatite CM-254 and andesite CM-281. The micro residues were only found on the upward facing surface of the cobbles whilst there was no residue found on the downward facing surfaces. The surfaces of the cobbles that showed no wear also had no traces of micro residue showing that the bones were only in contact with some surfaces of the cobbles. This means that the contact had to be forceful enough to transfer residue otherwise residue would be all over the cobbles had the transfer been as a result of environmental exposure. They state that the bone residue and the damaged surface of the cobbles occur under a carbonate crust that develops over time and therefore, this leads them to believe that the bone residue was transferred to the cobbles when the site was formed around 130,700 years ago. Therefore, they conclude that humans used these cobbles as hammer and anvils in order to break the bones which is consistent with the original findings.

ArmandoR1b
08-03-2022, 01:04 AM
There has yet to be a Y-DNA or mtDNA haplogroup found solely in the Americas whose TMRCA can be dated to ∼37,000 years ago. None of the scientific studies or YFull or FTDNA have found evidence of a haplogroup that old that isn't found it Asia, Polynesia, or Europe that has been determined to originate in the Americas. Therefore, one of two things are true. Those people did not cross with what today we call Native Americans at a detectable level or the study arrived at an erroneous conclusion. If they did not intermix with the people that arrived in the Americas about 16,000 years ago then personally I don't find it interesting. If the study is has an erroneous conclusion I find it interesting in that we have scientists doing that.

pmokeefe
08-03-2022, 03:38 AM
There is an existing thread on Population Y, which this papers discusses at length:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?26387-Questions-about-Population-Y

Recent genomic evidence for two Old World founding populations in the Americas (Skoglund et al., 2015) offers independent corroboration that the sites described above may be cultural. A unique ancestry signal discovered in Suruí, Karitiana, and Xavante populations living today around the Amazon basin rim was found to be shared with living populations in Australia, New Guinea, and Andaman Islands. The ancestral population that contributed this signal was termed a “genetic ghost population” and given the name “Population Y” (Skoglund et al., 2015). Population Y was estimated to have occupied eastern Asia ∼50,000 years ago (Reich, 2018). Additional aDNA support came from a ∼40,000 years old human bone from Tianyuan cave in northern China that shares the Population Y signal (Yang et al., 2017). Doubts raised about the Population Y hypothesis (Posth et al., 2018) were dispelled by more recent genomic studies that reproduced the earlier findings and documented in South America the Australasian signal in every major linguistic group, making it geographically widespread (Castro et al., 2021).

How and when Population Y ancestry reached South America has been explained by alternative hypotheses (Skoglund et al., 2015; Reich, 2018). The first is that Population Y contributed ancestry to the Native American clade before its dispersal south from Beringia. Some of the Native Americans then carried this ancestry as they dispersed down the west coast and into South America. In other words, Population Y predated dispersal but did not live in the Americas, and its descendants now solely exist there and in Australasia (Wohns et al., 2022). This has been the favored hypothesis because it is consistent with the conventional view that Native Americans were the first people to enter the Americas ∼16,000 years ago.

However, several recent aDNA analyses that included a ∼45,000 years old human genome from Ust’-Ishim, Siberia (Fu et al., 2014), ∼32,000 years old human genomes from the Yana RHS site (Sikora et al., 2019), and younger ancient Asian genomes (Poznik et al., 2016), revealed complex patterns of dispersal, admixture, and turnover among West Eurasian and East Asian populations in the occupation of Siberia and western Beringia. Marine Isotope Stage 3 (MIS 3, ca. 50,000 – 30,000 cal BP) was evidently a time of rapid expansion of modern humans across Eurasia (Atkinson et al., 2008; Poznik et al., 2016; Pavlova and Pitulko, 2020), but no Population Y ancestry was detected by any of these studies (Sikora et al., 2019).

The second hypothesis is that unmixed descendants of Population Y dispersed directly to the Americas during pre-LGM time, predating the Native American arrival by millennia (Skoglund et al., 2015; Reich, 2018). This early population was later displaced by the Native Americans except in South America, where it mixed with Native Americans and left a discernable signal in every major living linguistic group. This now seems the more likely, because the first hypothesis alone fails to explain archeological sites that predate Native American arrival.

At present, the oldest human aDNA in the Americas is from the Anzick child burial site that includes diagnostic Clovis artifacts and dates to 12,905 – 12,695 cal BP (Becerra-Valdivia et al., 2018). aDNA places this individual on the stem of the Native American clade (Rasmussen et al., 2014); it preserves no Population Y ancestry. The absence of a Population Y signal in North America may be an artifact of the lack of human bones and aDNA older than ∼13,000 cal BP, and under-sampling of living populations. Until much older human aDNA is recovered, uncertainty will attend the association of Population Y with any of the older archeological sites. It is technically possible that the older American sites represent entirely separate, unrecognized pre-LGM lineage(s) that became extinct without leaving a discernable genetic trace in younger populations (Raff, 2022).

ArmandoR1b
08-04-2022, 02:14 AM
please delete

ArmandoR1b
08-04-2022, 03:17 AM
There is an existing thread on Population Y, which this papers discusses at length:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?26387-Questions-about-Population-Y

Recent genomic evidence for two Old World founding populations in the Americas (Skoglund et al., 2015) offers independent corroboration that the sites described above may be cultural. A unique ancestry signal discovered in Suruí, Karitiana, and Xavante populations living today around the Amazon basin rim was found to be shared with living populations in Australia, New Guinea, and Andaman Islands. The ancestral population that contributed this signal was termed a “genetic ghost population” and given the name “Population Y” (Skoglund et al., 2015). Population Y was estimated to have occupied eastern Asia ∼50,000 years ago (Reich, 2018). Additional aDNA support came from a ∼40,000 years old human bone from Tianyuan cave in northern China that shares the Population Y signal (Yang et al., 2017). Doubts raised about the Population Y hypothesis (Posth et al., 2018) were dispelled by more recent genomic studies that reproduced the earlier findings and documented in South America the Australasian signal in every major linguistic group, making it geographically widespread (Castro et al., 2021).

How and when Population Y ancestry reached South America has been explained by alternative hypotheses (Skoglund et al., 2015; Reich, 2018). The first is that Population Y contributed ancestry to the Native American clade before its dispersal south from Beringia. Some of the Native Americans then carried this ancestry as they dispersed down the west coast and into South America. In other words, Population Y predated dispersal but did not live in the Americas, and its descendants now solely exist there and in Australasia (Wohns et al., 2022). This has been the favored hypothesis because it is consistent with the conventional view that Native Americans were the first people to enter the Americas ∼16,000 years ago.

However, several recent aDNA analyses that included a ∼45,000 years old human genome from Ust’-Ishim, Siberia (Fu et al., 2014), ∼32,000 years old human genomes from the Yana RHS site (Sikora et al., 2019), and younger ancient Asian genomes (Poznik et al., 2016), revealed complex patterns of dispersal, admixture, and turnover among West Eurasian and East Asian populations in the occupation of Siberia and western Beringia. Marine Isotope Stage 3 (MIS 3, ca. 50,000 – 30,000 cal BP) was evidently a time of rapid expansion of modern humans across Eurasia (Atkinson et al., 2008; Poznik et al., 2016; Pavlova and Pitulko, 2020), but no Population Y ancestry was detected by any of these studies (Sikora et al., 2019).

The second hypothesis is that unmixed descendants of Population Y dispersed directly to the Americas during pre-LGM time, predating the Native American arrival by millennia (Skoglund et al., 2015; Reich, 2018). This early population was later displaced by the Native Americans except in South America, where it mixed with Native Americans and left a discernable signal in every major living linguistic group. This now seems the more likely, because the first hypothesis alone fails to explain archeological sites that predate Native American arrival.

At present, the oldest human aDNA in the Americas is from the Anzick child burial site that includes diagnostic Clovis artifacts and dates to 12,905 – 12,695 cal BP (Becerra-Valdivia et al., 2018). aDNA places this individual on the stem of the Native American clade (Rasmussen et al., 2014); it preserves no Population Y ancestry. The absence of a Population Y signal in North America may be an artifact of the lack of human bones and aDNA older than ∼13,000 cal BP, and under-sampling of living populations. Until much older human aDNA is recovered, uncertainty will attend the association of Population Y with any of the older archeological sites. It is technically possible that the older American sites represent entirely separate, unrecognized pre-LGM lineage(s) that became extinct without leaving a discernable genetic trace in younger populations (Raff, 2022).

I didn't even read that part until you posted it. The more I think about it the more interesting the second hypothesis is correct. That could in theory been enough time for the autosomal mixture to have remained in descendants at a very low rate, less than or equal to 3%, with the paternal and maternal haplogroups being at an even lower level making them difficult to find within those Native South American populations. Since they are more interested in autosomal DNA and advanced Y-DNA and mtDNA tests are expensive then the Population Y (Ypikuéra) uniparental haplogroups might not be detected for another decade or more.

The reason I mention the less than or equal to 3% autosomal Pop Y DNA is a statement within Castro e Silva, 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2022-0078) that states "In any case, the proportion of this extra ancestry in the groups where it was discovered is quite low, ranging from 1 to 3% of the total (Skoglund et al., 2015, Moreno-Mayar et al., 2018b, Castro e Silva et al., 2021a)"

The second hypothesis would also agree with the following from that same Castro e Silva, 2022 study. "Interestingly, it has been suggested by a recent study that the divergence between the AB, NNA, and SNA groups might have taken place in Asia (Ning et al., 2020), which would increase the probability of contact and gene flow from East Asian groups, including a possible gene flow from groups related to contemporary Australasian populations exclusively into the SNA branch. It should be highlighted, however, that this genetic affinity pattern is completely consistent with other scenarios in which gene flow from other Asian sources with common ancestors with present Australasians occurs."

It is still strange that Population Y is not detected outside of South America if Population Y migrated to South America from North America through Central America.

edit: I guess they also didn't have a culture that allowed them to flourish as much as the wave of people that migrated about 16k years ago.

razyn
08-04-2022, 09:36 AM
I didn't even read that part until you posted it. The more I think about it the more interesting the second hypothesis is correct. That could in theory been enough time for the autosomal mixture to have remained in descendants at a very low rate, less than or equal to 3%, with the paternal and maternal haplogroups being at an even lower level making them difficult to find within those Native South American populations. Since they are more interested in autosomal DNA and advanced Y-DNA and mtDNA tests are expensive then the Population Y (Ypikuéra) uniparental haplogroups might not be detected for another decade or more.

The reason I mention the less than or equal to 3% autosomal Pop Y DNA is a statement within Castro e Silva, 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2022-0078) that states "In any case, the proportion of this extra ancestry in the groups where it was discovered is quite low, ranging from 1 to 3% of the total (Skoglund et al., 2015, Moreno-Mayar et al., 2018b, Castro e Silva et al., 2021a)"

The second hypothesis would also agree with the following from that same Castro e Silva, 2022 study. "Interestingly, it has been suggested by a recent study that the divergence between the AB, NNA, and SNA groups might have taken place in Asia (Ning et al., 2020), which would increase the probability of contact and gene flow from East Asian groups, including a possible gene flow from groups related to contemporary Australasian populations exclusively into the SNA branch. It should be highlighted, however, that this genetic affinity pattern is completely consistent with other scenarios in which gene flow from other Asian sources with common ancestors with present Australasians occurs."

It is still strange that Population Y is not detected outside of South America if Population Y migrated to South America from North America through Central America.

edit: I guess they also didn't have a culture that allowed them to flourish as much as the wave of people that migrated about 16k years ago.

Another 2022 publication that has gotten almost no discussion on this forum, so far, is the last one cited in the quoted passage (which has disappeared, since I'm replying to ArmandoR1b). I'll just paste in its last sentences:


Until much older human aDNA is recovered, uncertainty will attend the association of Population Y with any of the older archeological sites. It is technically possible that the older American sites represent entirely separate, unrecognized pre-LGM lineage(s) that became extinct without leaving a discernable genetic trace in younger populations (Raff, 2022).

It's not a field in which I have any special academic background, but it interests me, and I do still read books. This one was released the second weekend in February, and I gave it to myself as a Valentine's Day present from my wife; she was in a nursing home so I had to do the shopping for us both. I posted a little notice of it on Feb. 15, and four days later she died. So I got even busier, and didn't follow up. There was one more post of substance on that thread: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-Genetic-Genealogy-amp-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-(DISCUSSION-ONLY)&p=833458&viewfull=1#post833458

Anyway: Jennifer Raff, Origin: A Genetic History of the Americas (2022) is available in places that don't deal in the more rarefied academic journals, and is worth reading.

Kale
08-04-2022, 02:26 PM
~40,000 years gets us closer to the Ceruti site :biggrin1:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerutti_Mastodon_site

There's only one logical explanation to these disparate streams of evidence; the Hartley mammoth site, the Cerutti Mastodon site, population Y, bigfoot...
Prior to the LGM the Americas were inhabited by... a relict population of Denisovans! Mwahahaha!

PLogan
08-04-2022, 02:50 PM
Do we know when the Beringia Land Bridge was first crossable? Be curious if the Denisovans would have had the opportunity time-wise to make the crossing.

Forget where I read it, but I thought current theory was Denisovans died out about 30K years ago. If the below is accurate, of 35K, there may have been a 5K year window of opportunity.



The Bering Land Bridge is believed to have existed through numerous ice ages -- from earlier ones around 35,000 years ago to more recent ice ages around 22,000-7,000 years ago. Most recently, it is believed that the strait between Siberia and Alaska became dry land about 15,500 years before the present, but by 6,000 years before the present, the strait was again closed due to a warming climate and rising sea levels. During the latter period, the coastlines of eastern Siberia and Alaska developed roughly the same shapes they have today.


This thought experiment is more about just pondering than serious consideration of the above response. I thought his punchline was going to be, "It was aliens". LOL

Kale
08-04-2022, 03:09 PM
From what I understand the ice ages have been coming in regular cycles for hundreds of thousands of years at least. We only talk about 'the' ice age because that's the only one that mattered to most of extant humanity.

pmokeefe
08-04-2022, 03:53 PM
While there's an extensive literature on the Bering Land Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia) for the last glaciation, I didn't find much on previous glaciations:

Millennial scale cycles in the Bering Sea during penultimate and last glacials; their similarities and differences (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618218310632) (2019)

Orbital and suborbital environmental changes in the Western Bering Sea during the last 172 ka Inferred from Diatom and Productivity Proxies (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818120302964) (2021)

Sea-ice response to climate change in the Bering Sea during the Mid-Pleistocene Transition (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379121001256) (2021)

parasar
08-04-2022, 10:46 PM
There's only one logical explanation to these disparate streams of evidence; the Hartley mammoth site, the Cerutti Mastodon site, population Y, bigfoot...
Prior to the LGM the Americas were inhabited by... a relict population of Denisovans! Mwahahaha!

Recalling that (now old) Denisova allele map showing higher levels in South America.
https://johnhawks.net/graphics/skoglund-denisova-frequencies-2011.png
"Figure 1e from Skoglund and Jakobsson (2011). Original caption: Interpolated spatial distribution of the frequency of Denisova alleles at SNPs where Denisova is different from chimpanzee and Neandertal."

ArmandoR1b
08-05-2022, 02:39 AM
Another 2022 publication that has gotten almost no discussion on this forum, so far, is the last one cited in the quoted passage (which has disappeared, since I'm replying to ArmandoR1b). I'll just paste in its last sentences:



It's not a field in which I have any special academic background, but it interests me, and I do still read books. This one was released the second weekend in February, and I gave it to myself as a Valentine's Day present from my wife; she was in a nursing home so I had to do the shopping for us both. I posted a little notice of it on Feb. 15, and four days later she died. So I got even busier, and didn't follow up. There was one more post of substance on that thread: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-Genetic-Genealogy-amp-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-(DISCUSSION-ONLY)&p=833458&viewfull=1#post833458

Anyway: Jennifer Raff, Origin: A Genetic History of the Americas (2022) is available in places that don't deal in the more rarefied academic journals, and is worth reading.

Earlier today I was actually thinking to myself that I didn't even point out, even though it should be evident, that the second hypothesis was that there was only a difference of about one thousand years and not the 17,000 years earlier mentioned in the title of this thread or the ∼37,000 Years Ago in the title of the actual article. But yes, there is a chance that the people from ∼37,000 Years Ago, if they actually existed, are not source of Population Y DNA and therefore no trace of them exist at all.

It's still all strange that any of those people,if they were different people, didn't reproduce at high enough of a rate, with the abundance of food without other human competition, to have caused a much more significant trace of their DNA.

parasar
09-08-2022, 01:42 AM
Recalling that (now old) Denisova allele map showing higher levels in South America.
https://johnhawks.net/graphics/skoglund-denisova-frequencies-2011.png
"Figure 1e from Skoglund and Jakobsson (2011). Original caption: Interpolated spatial distribution of the frequency of Denisova alleles at SNPs where Denisova is different from chimpanzee and Neandertal."


ENA Abstract

An increasing body of archaeological and genomic evidence has hinted at the complex settlement process that likely occurred in the Americas, which is only now beginning to become unraveled. This is especially true of the peopling of South America, where archeological sites suggest humans reached the continent soon after the first migrations out of Beringia. However, unexpected ancestral signals (e.g., Australasian) have raised perplexing scenarios for the early migrations into different regions of the South American continent. Here we present ancient genomes from northeastern Brazilian archaeologically rich region, and compare them to ancient and present-day genomes throughout the Americas. We find a distinct relationship between Meso and South American populations, including ancient individuals from northeastern Brazil, Lagoa Santa, Uruguay and Panama. We also find a strong Australasian signal in the ancient genomes near the Atlantic coast, likely originating from an unexpectedly high genomic affinity with present-day Onge. Together, these ancestral connections present genomic evidence for an ancient migration route along South America’s Atlantic coast. To further add to the complexity of peopling of the Americas, we also detect greater Denisovan ancestry in ancient Uruguay and Panama individuals, than in ancient Brazil, suggesting multiple waves of ancestral migrations along the coast. This work sheds light on the deep demographic history of eastern South America and presents a starting point for future fine-scale investigations on the regional level.

No data available at the moment.

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB48809

Almost like the boab conundrum.

https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-environment/2019/07/how-did-the-iconic-boab-tree-get-to-australia/
"But there is one remarkable Australian deciduous tree that doesn’t have a single native sibling, nor any presence elsewhere in our region. That total loner is the unmistakable boab of Western Australia’s Kimberley region ...
Of the eight baobab species, two are found on the African mainland and the others inhabit the African island of Madagascar, the unrivalled botanical epicentre for the genus ... the boab isn’t a Gondwanan remnant like the deciduous beech ...
the possibility that the boab’s antecedents floated to Australia ... the boab seedpod is just too fragile to withstand a long sea journey. If any pods floated free, they would have become waterlogged ...
the Australian species is startlingly young – a mere 72,000 years old ... here’s a very good chance humans introduced the boab to Australia and that people moving out of Africa carried the tree’s seeds as a valuable food source ... sea levels 70,000 years ago being up to 150m lower than they are today, “there were many islands and seamounts in the Indian Ocean that we just can’t see now”"

Billyh
09-08-2022, 02:10 AM
There has yet to be a Y-DNA or mtDNA haplogroup found solely in the Americas whose TMRCA can be dated to ∼37,000 years ago. None of the scientific studies or YFull or FTDNA have found evidence of a haplogroup that old that isn't found it Asia, Polynesia, or Europe that has been determined to originate in the Americas. Therefore, one of two things are true. Those people did not cross with what today we call Native Americans at a detectable level or the study arrived at an erroneous conclusion. If they did not intermix with the people that arrived in the Americas about 16,000 years ago then personally I don't find it interesting. If the study is has an erroneous conclusion I find it interesting in that we have scientists doing that.

37,000 years is quite a while. It's possible whatever haplogroups of theirs remain slipped back across the Bering Strait.

TheKearnsSite
11-10-2022, 04:27 AM
Thanks for posting.I would appreciate any insight you might have:

Genetically from the far west of Ireland, I've joked of "my cave man brain" since getting my m.Arch.

30 years later, when I ran my dna through GED,2 things stood out as unexpected:
1) that I seem to have quite a bit in common, genetically, with Ust-Ishim(top line), than expected. My understanding of the latest research on his genetics led me to believe that his genetic line was a "dead end". not reflected in current populations;What insight am I lacking? (hoping that it proves that I do, in fact, have a cave man brain ;)

2)I have lots in common, genetically (relatively speaking!) with the 12,500 year old clovis child (second line from bottom), but very little in common with the 8300 year old Kennewick man(bottom line). Wouldn't this indicate that north America was peopled across both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans?

https://imgur.com/GlL2hVr kennewick

In the course of my research on a specific type of ancient art, I'm seeing the same forms on both sides of the Atlantic. It seems like they know where the maternal "x" originated and split, in the altai, and several North American Indigenous peoples along the St. Lawrence have the still have notable percentages of R1 ydna.

https://imgur.com/KLFXpLa

I'm still carrying around about 4% of a maternal X gene, and about 66% of my ydna is R1b, with R1a at 10%

Am I missing something, here? From a political perspective, I understand why history would be re-written to downplay any cross-culture exchange before the imperialist surges after Columbus. But I assumed genetics would prevail and set the record straight. Any insight is appreciated.

Billyh
11-10-2022, 05:13 AM
Thanks for posting.I would appreciate any insight you might have:

Genetically from the far west of Ireland, I've joked of "my cave man brain" since getting my m.Arch.

30 years later, when I ran my dna through GED,2 things stood out as unexpected:
1) that I seem to have quite a bit in common, genetically, with Ust-Ishim(top line), than expected. My understanding of the latest research on his genetics led me to believe that his genetic line was a "dead end". not reflected in current populations;What insight am I lacking? (hoping that it proves that I do, in fact, have a cave man brain ;)

2)I have lots in common, genetically (relatively speaking!) with the 12,500 year old clovis child (second line from bottom), but very little in common with the 8300 year old Kennewick man(bottom line). Wouldn't this indicate that north America was peopled across both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans?

https://imgur.com/GlL2hVr kennewick

In the course of my research on a specific type of ancient art, I'm seeing the same forms on both sides of the Atlantic. It seems like they know where the maternal "x" originated and split, in the altai, and several North American Indigenous peoples along the St. Lawrence have the still have notable percentages of R1 ydna.

https://imgur.com/KLFXpLa

I'm still carrying around about 4% of a maternal X gene, and about 66% of my ydna is R1b, with R1a at 10%

Am I missing something, here? From a political perspective, I understand why history would be re-written to downplay any cross-culture exchange before the imperialist surges after Columbus. But I assumed genetics would prevail and set the record straight. Any insight is appreciated.

Y-DNA does not come in percentages. You can only be one Y-Haplogroup. It is lineal. Y-DNA is passed from father to son, no mixing as women don't have Y-DNA to pass on. A man's x chromosome should be close to 50% maternal, at least as far as I know. From what I understand, your mother's X chromosomes sort of mix and match with each other like the other chromosomes, and then the result is passed on. So it should be combo of maternal and mothers father.

As far as kennewick/ust'Ishim matches go, I'm not sure. I haven't used GEDMatch in a while, but maybe you are looking at the wrong matcher. Maybe using lengths too short? I don't know.

Billyh
11-10-2022, 05:18 AM
In my opinion, Tianyuan-like pops (Hoabinh, Jomon, Pre-Amerind) spread across pacific rim before mainline EAs. Then were replaced by newcomer Siberians. DNA survived more in South America, especially in Southeast which would have been harder to penetrate from population coming in through beringia and travelling down the west coast.

Here in america though, natives are not always on board with archaeological digs in their lands.

Ebizur
11-10-2022, 08:53 AM
In my opinion, Tianyuan-like pops (Hoabinh, Jomon, Pre-Amerind) spread across pacific rim before mainline EAs. Then were replaced by newcomer Siberians.Are you assuming that "pre-Amerinds" have contributed the majority of present-day indigenous American Y-DNA? The Y-DNA of the Tianyuan specimen is supposedly more closely related to present-day Amerind and Western Eurasian haplogroups Q and R than any of those is related to present-day East/Southeast Asian haplogroup O.

Also, haplogroup O has at least five subclades that do not share a common patrilineal ancestor within the last 30,000 years, i.e. O1a (East China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia), O1b1 (South China, Indochina, Indonesia, East India), O1b2 (Korea, Japan), O2a (East Asia, Southeast Asia, the Himalayas, Central Asia), O2b (Southeast Asia, East Asia). None of these five clades has any basal diversity among present-day Siberians, and the total frequency of these clades in Siberia is zero in regard to samples of ancient DNA obtained from archaeological specimens and near zero in regard to samples of present-day inhabitants (including members of indigenous ethnic groups). Therefore, it is very unlikely that present-day East Asians could be derived from a Siberian population at any time more recent than 30,000 years before present.

TheKearnsSite
11-10-2022, 11:09 AM
I'm a woman. All the sites break down which maternal and paternal haplogroups are present in the user's dna sample. Results appear to be consistent with other research and commercial sites that I ran my file through. i take all of it with a grain of salt, because there are so many variables and we're still in early days; Rather, I watch for patterns, and these seemed hard to ignore

Perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding?

TheKearnsSite
11-10-2022, 11:32 AM
Just read the fine print on the commercial sites. The ydna percentages for women reflect the ydna of male samples that are close to the user sample.
I'm shaking my head over my cognitive hiccup...knowing full well that I have 2 x chromosomes, i should have immediately looked for an explanation of what the ydna breakdowns represented. That thought never made it across a critical synapse.

TheKearnsSite
11-11-2022, 11:08 PM
I'm really not assuming anything. I'm just looking to understand the science. The paper on the e/w migrations in the x variant was from this study. https://imgur.com/WAUAv55. My mtdna is represented on the colored wheel. Full text: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~tgschurr/lectures/Altai%20ASHG%2003.pdf

Looking at the art, there are forms in the northeast U.S that have stylistic components of other cultures, and I'm interested current dna research because of the relationship of genetics and culture.

And the degree to which I share mutations with the Clovis sample paired with the degree to which I do not match the Kennewick sample is something I would like to understand.

TheKearnsSite
11-12-2022, 06:22 AM
This was the research that I was waiting for. Would explain both questions. Looks like the tests were spot-on.

From: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2022/07/feature-ancient-dna

"....Reich and his colleagues had been assessing the relatedness of different groups of modern humans. When they compared Northern Europeans to Native Americans and Southern Europeans, each of whom have distinctive (but not necessarily functionally important) genetic changes at varying frequencies across their genomes, they observed a powerful statistical signal that Northern Europeans have “a massive contribution of genetic material from a population related to Native Americans.”

“We of course didn’t think that Native Americans sailed across the Atlantic. That seemed implausible,” he says. Instead, he and his colleagues proposed the existence of a population that no longer exists, the “Ancient North Eurasians.” “They would have lived in Siberia, or other parts of northern Eurasia, sometime before 15,000 years ago, and contributed to the ancestors of Native Americans before they crossed the Bering Land bridge into North America.” Then, some time later, genes of the descendants of the Ancient North Eurasians who had not crossed into North America somehow suddenly appeared in populations throughout Eurasia. “The signal” Reich recalls, “was very strong.”

“It was a weird observation,” he says, because the prevailing model from archaeology in 2012 “was that Europeans might very well be mixed between hunter gatherers who were the sole population in Europe before 8,500 years ago, and Anatolian farmers” who brought agriculture to Europe after that time. That theory rested on the reasonable—but as it turned out, incorrect—assumption that once farming was established in Europe, allowing highly efficient exploitation of local resources, it would have been difficult for any other group to make a major demographic impact. The discovery of genes related to Native Americans arriving in high proportion after the spread of farming was therefore very surprising. That’s why Reich and his close collaborator, research fellow in genetics Nick Patterson, had hypothesized the existence of this third source population, the Ancient North Eurasians..."

Hitchcock
11-18-2022, 10:49 PM
This was the research that I was waiting for. Would explain both questions. Looks like the tests were spot-on.

From: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2022/07/feature-ancient-dna

"....Reich and his colleagues had been assessing the relatedness of different groups of modern humans. When they compared Northern Europeans to Native Americans and Southern Europeans, each of whom have distinctive (but not necessarily functionally important) genetic changes at varying frequencies across their genomes, they observed a powerful statistical signal that Northern Europeans have “a massive contribution of genetic material from a population related to Native Americans.”

“We of course didn’t think that Native Americans sailed across the Atlantic. That seemed implausible,” he says. Instead, he and his colleagues proposed the existence of a population that no longer exists, the “Ancient North Eurasians.” “They would have lived in Siberia, or other parts of northern Eurasia, sometime before 15,000 years ago, and contributed to the ancestors of Native Americans before they crossed the Bering Land bridge into North America.” Then, some time later, genes of the descendants of the Ancient North Eurasians who had not crossed into North America somehow suddenly appeared in populations throughout Eurasia. “The signal” Reich recalls, “was very strong.”

“It was a weird observation,” he says, because the prevailing model from archaeology in 2012 “was that Europeans might very well be mixed between hunter gatherers who were the sole population in Europe before 8,500 years ago, and Anatolian farmers” who brought agriculture to Europe after that time. That theory rested on the reasonable—but as it turned out, incorrect—assumption that once farming was established in Europe, allowing highly efficient exploitation of local resources, it would have been difficult for any other group to make a major demographic impact. The discovery of genes related to Native Americans arriving in high proportion after the spread of farming was therefore very surprising. That’s why Reich and his close collaborator, research fellow in genetics Nick Patterson, had hypothesized the existence of this third source population, the Ancient North Eurasians..."

this quotes mention the discovery of Ancient North Eurasian which is old news , what do you mean by the research you was waiting for?