PDA

View Full Version : DNA reveals history of vanished 'Paleo-Eskimos'



Clinton P
08-29-2014, 12:02 PM
"A new "genetic prehistory" provides the best picture ever assembled of how the North American Arctic was populated, from 6,000 years ago to the present."

"Using DNA from more than 150 ancient human remains, the researchers showed that all the Saqqaq and Dorset peoples, further bundled together as Paleo-Eskimos, represent a single genetic lineage. They all stem from a migration across the Bering Strait from Siberia that began some 6,000 years ago."

Click here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28965227) or here (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6200/1255832) to read more about this story.

Clinton P

J Man
08-30-2014, 02:22 AM
Interesting...So it seems like the Thule people who are the ancestors of the Inuit people of today wiped out or displaced the Paleo-Eskimos.

Bolgeris
08-30-2014, 10:54 AM
This explains clearly why the Eskimos had no memories of the Vikings.
Why were not they (the Inuit) the people the Norse had met in Greenland ..
but were their predecessors the Dorset .. "Thule"..

Interesting.

Bolgeris
08-30-2014, 09:39 PM
In fact, had always seemed very strange ..
that the Eskimos did not have any recollection or legend.. or history about the Grrenland Vikings ..
Now everything is clear ..
The Vikings had met and fought the people of Dorset (Thule) and not the Inuit.

Mehrdad
08-30-2014, 11:03 PM
Since the paper only covered mtDNA, I'm still wondering whether R*, R1b, R1a or even R2 ever made it into the American continent at some point in time through the Bering Strait.

Bolgeris
08-30-2014, 11:12 PM
If R is ab. 24.000 years old..
not is impossible..
I think..
that some Iranian gene R arrived in America with Cherookee .. Sioux etc.
Mixed with others siberians peoples.

Ebizur
08-30-2014, 11:28 PM
If R is ab. 24.000 years old..
not is impossible..
I think..
that some Iranian gene R arrived in America with Cherookee .. Sioux etc.
Mixed with others siberians peoples.Investigations of the autosomes of Native North Americans (and some populations that might not necessarily be considered North American, e.g. Mayas) reveal that they exhibit European admixture (and occasionally African admixture, too) in a very choppy fashion (high standard deviation, with some individuals having a lot of European affinity and some other individuals having very little or no European affinity). This pattern suggests that the admixture is of recent vintage, and has not had enough time/generations to be spread evenly throughout each of the populations.

Therefore, one should start with a hypothesis that these indigenous peoples contain post-Columbian European (and sometimes also African, etc.) admixture, and examples of R1a, R1b, etc. Y-DNA among these folks should be ascribed to such admixture barring the discovery of some data to the contrary (very divergent subclades that might date back to the initial settlement of the Americas by modern humans and that are not found among Europeans or Africans, for example).

lgmayka
08-31-2014, 02:12 PM
Therefore, one should start with a hypothesis that these indigenous peoples contain post-Columbian European (and sometimes also African, etc.) admixture, and examples of R1a, R1b, etc. Y-DNA among these folks should be ascribed to such admixture barring the discovery of some data to the contrary (very divergent subclades that might date back to the initial settlement of the Americas by modern humans and that are not found among Europeans or Africans, for example).
That is indeed the null hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis). I heartily encourage investigations whose formal aim is to disprove this null hypothesis. That is, after all, how the scientific method is supposed to work.

Unfortunately, all too many studies of Native American DNA pre-assume this null hypothesis is true (the opposite of the scientific method) and make no attempt to investigate at all. Typically, all "unexpected" haplogroups are thrown out of the study immediately and without further examination (not even a supplemental listing of Y-STRs).

Ebizur
08-31-2014, 04:44 PM
That is indeed the null hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis). I heartily encourage investigations whose formal aim is to disprove this null hypothesis. That is, after all, how the scientific method is supposed to work.

Unfortunately, all too many studies of Native American DNA pre-assume this null hypothesis is true (the opposite of the scientific method) and make no attempt to investigate at all. Typically, all "unexpected" haplogroups are thrown out of the study immediately and without further examination (not even a supplemental listing of Y-STRs).Yes, that is the flip side of the coin, so to speak. If one is working under the hypothesis that Y-DNA that belongs to the R1b, I, E, etc. clades in a Native American population is ascribable to post-Columbian gene flow, then it is unscientific (and totally indefensible in my humble opinion) to exclude any sample that might disprove that hypothesis from one's data set. A study whose materials and methods do not allow for its hypothesis to be falsified is not a scientific study.

I have encountered that sort of haughty (or perhaps just lazy) presumptuousness in studies of aboriginal Australian DNA, too. It is not a problem peculiar to researchers of aboriginal Americans.

tamilgangster
10-02-2014, 06:20 AM
Were the paleo eskimos mongoloids, or were some ANE based group