PDA

View Full Version : Studies Find Mysterious Link Between Native Americans And Indigenous Australasians



tamilgangster
07-23-2015, 11:06 AM
How and when the Americas were populated remains contentious. Using ancient and modern genome-wide data, we find that the ancestors of all present-day Native Americans, including Athabascans and Amerindians, entered the Americas as a single migration wave from Siberia no earlier than 23 thousand years ago (KYA), and after no more than 8,000-year isolation period in Beringia. Following their arrival to the Americas, ancestral Native Americans diversified into two basal genetic branches around 13 KYA, one that is now dispersed across North and South America and the other is restricted to North America. Subsequent gene flow resulted in some Native Americans sharing ancestry with present-day East Asians (including Siberians) and, more distantly, Australo-Melanesians. Putative ‘Paleoamerican’ relict populations, including the historical Mexican Pericúes and South American Fuego-Patagonians, are not directly related to modern Australo-Melanesians as suggested by the Paleoamerican Model.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/07/20/science.aab3884.full


Genetic studies have consistently indicated a single common origin of Native American groups from Central and South America1, 2, 3, 4. However, some morphological studies have suggested a more complex picture, whereby the northeast Asian affinities of present-day Native Americans contrast with a distinctive morphology seen in some of the earliest American skeletons, which share traits with present-day Australasians (indigenous groups in Australia, Melanesia, and island Southeast Asia)5, 6, 7, 8. Here we analyse genome-wide data to show that some Amazonian Native Americans descend partly from a Native American founding population that carried ancestry more closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders than to any present-day Eurasians or Native Americans. This signature is not present to the same extent, or at all, in present-day Northern and Central Americans or in a ~12,600-year-old Clovis-associated genome, suggesting a more diverse set of founding populations of the Americas than previously accepted.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature14895.html

I am still reading them so ill get back to discuss in a bit

Piquerobi
07-23-2015, 02:50 PM
As for the Australo-Melanesian signal, these are the observations by the researchers:


The data presented here are consistent with a single ini-tial migration of all Native Americans and with later gene flow from sources related to East Asians and, more distant-ly, Australo-Melanesians. From that single migration, there was a diversification of ancestral Native Americans leading to the formation of ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ branches, which appears to have taken place ca. 13 KYA within the Americas. This split is consistent with the patterns of unip-arental genomic regions of mtDNA haplogroup X and some Y chromosome C haplotypes being present in northern, but not southern, populations in the Americas (18, 62). This di-versification event coincides roughly with the opening of habitable routes along the coastal and the interior corridors into unglaciated North America some 16 KYA and 14 KYA, respectively (63, 64), suggesting a possible role of one or both these routes in the isolation and subsequent dispersal of Native Americans across the continent.

We found that some American populations, including the Aleutian Islanders, Surui, and Athabascans are closer to Australo-Melanesians compared to other Native Americans, such as North American Ojibwa, Cree and Algonquin, and the South American Purepecha, Arhuaco and Wayuu (fig. S10). The Surui are, in fact, one of closest Native American populations to East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, the latter including Papuans, non-Papuan Melanesians, Solo-mon Islanders, and South East Asian hunter-gatherers such as Aeta (fig. S10). We acknowledge that this observation is based on the analysis of a small fraction of the whole ge-nome and SNP chip genotype datasets, especially for the Aleutian Islander data that is heavily masked due to recent admixture with Europeans (28), and that the trends in the data are weak.

Nonetheless, if it proves correct, these results suggest there may be a distant Old World signal related to Australo-Melanesians and East Asians in some Native Americans. The widely scattered and differential affinity of Native Americans to the Australo-Melanesians, ranging from a strong signal in the Surui to much weaker signal in north-ern Amerindians such as Ojibwa, points to this gene flow occurring after the initial peopling by Native American an-cestors.

However, how this signal may have ultimately reached South America remains unclear. One possible means is along a northern route via the Aleutian Islanders, previously found to be closely related to the Inuit (39), who have a rela-tively greater affinity to East Asians, Oceanians and Den-isovan than Native Americans in both whole genome and SNP chip genotype data-based D-tests (table S10 and figs. S10 and S11). On the basis of archaeological evidence and mtDNA data from ancient and modern samples, the Aleu-tian Islands are hypothesized to have been peopled as early as ca. 9 KYA by ‘Paleo-Aleuts’ who were succeeded by the ‘Neo-Aleuts’, with present-day Aleutian Islanders potentially resulting from admixture between these two populations (52, 53). Perhaps their complex genetic history included in-put from a population related to Australo-Melanesians through an East Asian continental route, and this genomic signal might have been subsequently transferred to parts of the Americas, including South America, through past gene flow events (Fig. 1). Evidence for this gene flow is supported by diCal2.0 and MSMC analyses showing a weak but recent gene flow into South Americans from populations related to present-day Northeast Asians (Koryak) (Fig. 2C and table S11C), who might be considered a proxy for the related Aleu-tian Islanders.

The detection of an Australo-Melanesian genetic signal in the Americas, however subtle, returns the discussion to the Paleoamerican model, which hypothesizes, on the basis of cranial morphology, that two temporally and source-distinct populations colonized the Americas. The earlier population reportedly originated in Asia in the Late Pleisto-cene and gave rise to both Paleoamericans and present-day Australo-Melanesians, whose shared cranial morphological attributes are presumed to indicate their common ancestry (23). The Paleoamericans were, in turn, thought to have been largely replaced by ancestors of present-day Amerindi-ans, whose crania resemble modern East Asians and who are argued to be descendants of later arriving Mongoloid populations (14, 23, 26, 54). The presence of Paleoamericans is inferred primarily from ancient archaeological specimens in North and South America, and a few relict populations of more recent age, which include the extinct Pericúes and Fuego-Patagonians (24, 25, 55).

The Paleoamerican hypothesis predicts that these groups should be genetically closer to Australo-Melanesians than other Amerindians. Previous studies of mtDNA and Y chro-mosome data obtained from Fuego-Patagonian and Paleo-american skeletons have identified haplogroups similar to those of modern Native Americans (55–57). Although these results indicate some shared maternal and paternal ancestry with contemporary Native Americans, uniparental markers can be misleading when drawing conclusions about the de-mographic history of populations. To conclusively identify the broader population of ancestors who may have contrib-uted to the Paleoamerican gene pool, autosomal genomic data are required.

We, therefore, sequenced 17 ancient individuals affiliated to the now-extinct Pericúes from Mexico and Fuego-Patagonians from Chile and Argentina (28), who, on the basis of their distinctive skull morphologies, are claimed to be relicts of Paleoamericans (23, 27, 58, 59). Additionally, we sequenced two pre-Columbian mummies from northern Mexico (Sierra Tarahumara) to serve as morphological con-trols, since they are expected to fall within the range of Na-tive American morphological cranial variation (28). We found that the ancient samples cluster with other Native American groups and are outside the range of Oceanian ge-netic variation (28) (Fig. 5 and figs. S32, S33, and S34). Simi-larly, outgroup f3 statistics (47) reveal low shared genetic ancestry between the ancient samples and Oceanians (28) (Figs. S36, S37), and genome-based and masked SNP chip genotype data-based D-statistics (46, 47) show no evidence for gene flow from Oceanians into the Pericúes or Fuego-Patagonians (28) (fig. S39).

As the Paleoamerican model is based on cranial mor-phology (23, 27, 58, 59), we also measured craniometric data for the ancient samples and assessed their phenotypic affin-ities to supposed Paleoamericans, Amerindians and world-wide populations (28). The results revealed that the analyzed Fuego-Patagonians showed closest craniometric affinity to Arctic populations and the Paleoamericans, while the analyzed female Pericúes showed closest craniometric affinities to populations from North America, the Arctic re-gion and Northern Japan (table S15). More importantly, our analyses demonstrated that the presumed ancestral ancient Paleoamerican reference sample from Lagoa Santa, Brazil (24) had closest affinities to Arctic and East Asian popula-tions (table S15). Consequently, for the Fuego-Patagonians, the female Pericúes and the Lagoa Santa Paleoamerican sample, we were not able to replicate previous results (24) that report close similarity of Paleoamerican and Australo-Melanesian cranial morphologies. We note that male Pericúes samples displayed more craniometric affinities with populations from Africa and Australia relative to the female individuals of their population (fig. S41). The results of analyses based on craniometric data are, thus, highly sen-sitive to sample structure and the statistical approach and data filtering used (51). Our morphometric analyses suggest that these ancient samples are not true relicts of a distinct migration, as claimed, and hence do not support the Paleo-american model. Similarly, our genomic data also provide no support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/07/20/science.aab3884.full.pdf

The remarks of the researchers of the second study:


The team named the mysterious ancestor Population Y, after the Tupí word for ancestor, “Ypykuéra.”

Reich, Skoglund and colleagues propose that Population Y and First Americans came down from the ice sheets to become the two founding populations of the Americas.

“We don’t know the order, the time separation or the geographical patterns,” said Skoglund.

Researchers do know that the DNA of First Americans looked similar to that of Native Americans today. Population Y is more of a mystery.

“About 2 percent of the ancestry of Amazonians today comes from this Australasian lineage that’s not present in the same way elsewhere in the Americas,” said Reich.

However, that doesn’t establish how much of their ancestry comes from Population Y. If Population Y were 100 percent Australasian, that would indeed mean they contributed 2 percent of the DNA of today’s Amazonians. But if Population Y mixed with other groups such as the First Americans before they reached the Americas, the amount of DNA they contributed to today’s Amazonians could be much higher—up to 85 percent.

To answer that question, researchers would need to sample DNA from the remains of a person who belonged to Population Y. Such DNA hasn’t been obtained yet. One place to look might be in the skeletons of early Native Americans whose skulls some researchers say have Australasian features. The majority of these skeletons were found in Brazil.
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/07/2015/genetic-studies-link-indigenous-peoples-in-the-amazon-and-australasia

Piquerobi
07-24-2015, 01:00 AM
From one of the studies:


Fig. 1. Origins and population history of Native Americans. (A) Our results show that the ancestors of all present-day Native Americans, including Amerindians and Athabascans, derived from a single migration wave into the Americas (purple), separate from the Inuit (green). This migration from East Asia occurred no later than 23 KYA and is in agreement with archaeological evidence from sites such as Monte Verde (50). A split between the northern and southern branches of Native Americans occurred ca. 13 KYA, with the former comprising Athabascans and northern Amerindians and the latter consisting of Amerindians in northern North America and Central and South America including the Anzick-1 individual (5). There is an admixture signal between Inuit and Athabascans and some northern Amerindians (yellow line); however, the gene flow direction is unresolved due to the complexity of the admixture events (28). Additionally, we see a weak signal related to Australo-Melanesians in some Native Americans, which may have been mediated through East Asians and Aleutian Islanders (yellow arrows). Also shown is the Mal’ta gene flow into Native American ancestors some 23 KYA (yellow arrow) (4). It is currently not possible for us to ascertain the exact geographical locations of the depicted events; hence, the positioning of the arrows should not be considered a reflection of these. B. Admixture plot created on the basis of TreeMix results (fig. S5) shows that all Native Americans form a clade, separate from the Inuit, with gene flow between some Native Americans and the North American Arctic. The number of genome-sequenced individuals included in the analysis is shown in brackets.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/07/20/science.aab3884.full.pdf

http://i59.tinypic.com/5bsn46.jpg


Fig. 5. The Paleoamerican model. (A) Principal Component Analysis plot of 19 ancient samples combined with a worldwide reference panel, including 1,823 individuals from (6). Our samples plot exclusively with American samples. For plots with other reference panels consisting of Native American populations, see fig. S32. Population structure in the ancient Pericú, Mexican mummy and Fuego-Patagonian individuals from this study. Ancestry proportions are shown when assuming six ancestral populations (K = 6). The top bar shows the ancestry proportions of the 19 ancient individuals, Anzick-1 (5), and two present-day Native American genomes from this study (Huichol and Aymara). The plot at the bottom illustrates the ancestry proportions for 1,823 individuals from (6). Our samples show primarily Native American (ivory, >92%) and Siberian (red, ca. 5%) ancestry. For the plot with K=13, see fig. S33.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/07/20/science.aab3884.full.pdf

http://i62.tinypic.com/ra7tbq.jpg

Motzart
07-26-2015, 06:38 PM
I think originally Australia was populated by a Y DNA K population and North America by a Y DNA Q population. At some later date a Y DNA C population made contributions to both these groups.

tamilgangster
07-28-2015, 10:28 AM
This paper is saying that an oceanian like population predated most of the modern day amerindians, But there genetics are left as a legacy http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/images/nature14895-f1.jpg

Amazon Indians such as karitiana have the highest level of the Paleoamerican component. But its lacking among north American tribes.

We found that some American populations, including
the Aleutian Islanders, Surui, and Athabascans are closer to
Australo-Melanesians compared to other Native Americans,
such as North American Ojibwa, Cree and Algonquin, and
the South American Purepecha, Arhuaco and Wayuu (fig.
S10). The Surui are, in fact, one of closest Native American
populations to East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, the
latter including Papuans, non-Papuan Melanesians, Solomon
Islanders, and South East Asian hunter-gatherers such
as Aeta

Phenotypically speaking Amazon Indians show very strong resemblance to SE asian populations, North American Indians who lack the paleoamerican Admixture though have a completely different phenotype.

Where does ANE fit into this?
ANE mixed into the population 23KYA during the native american split from East Asians. This predated the divergence between Northern and Southern Groups 13kya. This means that ANE levels should be constant and the main factor that distinguishes ANE level would be how mixed they are with paleoamericans.

This Means that North American Tribes should score more ANE, but on Eurogenes K7 South American Tribes, score more ANE. THe reason for this is that the non East Asian component from Karitiana is used as an ANE proxy. Karitiana have one of the highest levels of Paleoamerican component, therefore much of the oceanian like admixture found in Paleoamericans is showing up as ANE on other test. Based on this its likely that the high levels of ANE in south asians is due to noise from ASI and also that much of the ANE/EHG found in Europe, siberia, and central asia is getting unnoticed.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-28-2015, 11:20 AM
You're not getting it. That Oceania component is very small. North American natives are more East Eurasian than South Americans. Even more than the ancient Clovis hunter.

Kale
07-28-2015, 01:06 PM
That study also suggested lower levels of ANE for both. 35% for South Americans, 30% for North Americans. Makes sense, as it's hard to believe Native Americans would pull so hard towards East Asians versus MA1/Karelia_HG if they were a 58/42 split.

tamilgangster
07-28-2015, 10:44 PM
You're not getting it. That Oceania component is very small. North American natives are more East Eurasian than South Americans. Even more than the ancient Clovis hunter.

Unless ur talking about Eskimos and Anthabaskans The paper is saying the exact opposite of that.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-28-2015, 11:00 PM
Unless ur talking about Eskimos and Anthabaskans The paper is saying the exact opposite of that.

You're cherry-picking. They said that they only tested a small sample of the genomes from those pops and they have European admixture, which may be causing an issue. Did you look at the K6, at the bottom? North American natives are closer to Siberians, so more East Eurasian.

Shaikorth
07-29-2015, 06:28 AM
That study also suggested lower levels of ANE for both. 35% for South Americans, 30% for North Americans. Makes sense, as it's hard to believe Native Americans would pull so hard towards East Asians versus MA1/Karelia_HG if they were a 58/42 split.

Are those models something that would cause a downward revision of non-Native American ANE? When it comes to clustering in global PCA's and such, the behaviour of natives is not surprising. Eskimos have 24% ANE according to Lazaridis et al (who estimated 41% for Karitiana), and even they are closer to MA-1 than Europeans or the South Central Asian populations for which much higher ANE (>30%) is estimated by those who have experimented on the public data. That is because ANE is more related to East Eurasians than to the mixture of Near East and western HG that makes up most of modern West Eurasian ancestry.

tamilgangster
07-29-2015, 09:06 AM
Are those models something that would cause a downward revision of non-Native American ANE? When it comes to clustering in global PCA's and such, the behaviour of natives is not surprising. Eskimos have 24% ANE according to Lazaridis et al (who estimated 41% for Karitiana), and even they are closer to MA-1 than Europeans or the South Central Asian populations for which much higher ANE (>30%) is estimated by those who have experimented on the public data. That is because ANE is more related to East Eurasians than to the mixture of Near East and western HG that makes up most of modern West Eurasian ancestry.

THere is nothing East Eurasian About ANE, Its more related to west eurasian than to east eurasians. Its from the same lineage as West Eurasian, but lacks Basal eurasian. The only similarity between ANE and East Eurasians is the lack of basal eurasian. Where are you getting the 24% ANE in eskimos from

Shaikorth
07-29-2015, 09:19 AM
THere is nothing East Eurasian About ANE, Its more related to west eurasian than to east eurasians. Its from the same lineage as West Eurasian, but lacks Basal eurasian. The only similarity between ANE and East Eurasians is the lack of basal eurasian. Where are you getting the 24% ANE in eskimos from

From Lazaridis et al supplements, and the rest of what I said is confirmed by f3 stats and IBS stats.

tamilgangster
07-29-2015, 09:24 AM
You're cherry-picking. They said that they only tested a small sample of the genomes from those pops and they have European admixture, which may be causing an issue. Did you look at the K6, at the bottom? North American natives are closer to Siberians, so more East Eurasian.

Its only the greenland Aleutian, and Canadian(most likely anthabascan) who show siberian like admixture, they are a seperate group from other Native Americans.

We tested
whether later gene flow from East Asian sources, such as the
Inuit, might explain the genetic differences between these
two branches. Using D-statistics on SNP chip genotype data
(47) masked for non-Native ancestry, we observed a signal of
gene flow between the Inuit and northwest Pacific Coast
Amerindians such as Coastal Tsimshian and Nisga’a, residing
in the same region as the northern Athabascans (28)
(fig. S8B). However, this signal of admixture with the Inuit,
also detected in Athabascans (figs. S6 and S8A), was not
evident among northern Amerindian populations located
further east such as Cree, Ojibwa and Chipewyan

tamilgangster
07-29-2015, 09:25 AM
From Lazaridis et al supplements, and the rest of what I said is confirmed by f3 stats and IBS stats.

Can you show me the link,

Kale
07-29-2015, 01:05 PM
I think what we're going to end up finding is a lot of major splits at 50kya...with recombination of multiple branches leading to what we see as crown Eurasian branches today. Here's an example...if A is what actually happened, without a sample from the purple area, what we will observe is B.

5343

Shaikorth
07-29-2015, 01:35 PM
Here's the ANE estimate from Lazaridis et al.

http://oi57.tinypic.com/md1egx.jpg




I think what we're going to end up finding is a lot of major splits at 50kya...with recombination of multiple branches leading to what we see as crown Eurasian branches today. Here's an example...if A is what actually happened, without a sample from the purple area, what we will observe is B.

5343

Yes, when finally resolved the tree isn't going to be the simplest possible model. Some methods may have trouble showing it. We can say that the modern West Eurasian cluster we see on a PCA's is a mixture mainly containing WHG-related stuff (a component quite close to ANE) and Near Eastern (less related to ANE than East Asian is, but closer to WHG) with varying ANE. Since a dimension shows only a fraction of total variation, a result like MA-1's higher affinity to populations such as Amerindians and Eskimos isn't apparent from a global PCA.

parasar
07-29-2015, 02:19 PM
THere is nothing East Eurasian About ANE, Its more related to west eurasian than to east eurasians. Its from the same lineage as West Eurasian, but lacks Basal eurasian. The only similarity between ANE and East Eurasians is the lack of basal eurasian. Where are you getting the 24% ANE in eskimos from

Really?
I think you mean East Asian.
ANE peaks in a location that is almost as east as you can get, so much so that it is in fact west again!

No doubt ANE is related to Lazaridis' WHG, but you have to consider that both MA1 and Loschbour have common ancestry with eastern non-Africans.
Lazaridis et al. on nomenclature - "In a different, geographical, sense the category “West Eurasian” could be transferred to the “basal Eurasian” element instead, as it is the only one whose presence we can detect only in West Eurasia, while the common ancestry of both MA1 and Loschbour with eastern non-Africans (drift non_African-->X) raises the alternative possibility of an eastern sojourn of their ancestors and a temporal priority of “basal Eurasians” in western Eurasia."

That is why what we are seeing in the Karitiana and the Surui is no surprise at all.

Kale
07-29-2015, 02:39 PM
Really?
I think you mean East Asian.
ANE peaks in a location that is almost as east as you can get, so much so that it is in fact west again!

No doubt ANE is related to Lazaridis' WHG, but you have to consider that both MA1 and Loschbour have common ancestry with eastern non-Africans.
Lazaridis et al. on nomenclature - "In a different, geographical, sense the category “West Eurasian” could be transferred to the “basal Eurasian” element instead, as it is the only one whose presence we can detect only in West Eurasia, while the common ancestry of both MA1 and Loschbour with eastern non-Africans (drift non_African-->X) raises the alternative possibility of an eastern sojourn of their ancestors and a temporal priority of “basal Eurasians” in western Eurasia."

That is why what we are seeing in the Karitiana and the Surui is no surprise at all.

There is nothing in Europe which suggests modern human habitation beyond 50,000 years, which is when the main bifurcation of crown Eurasian lineages took place. Oase1 lies on an additional crown Eurasian branch (not East or West), I bet Fumane would as well if analyzed. Kostenki shows no evidence of basal Eurasian, WHG show no evidence of basal Eurasian. There is nothing really to suggest the first inhabitants of Europe were basal Eurasians.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-29-2015, 02:48 PM
Its only the greenland Aleutian, and Canadian(most likely anthabascan) who show siberian like admixture, they are a seperate group from other Native Americans.

No, it's not. It starts in Mexico and gets higher in Canada. Again, look at the K6 in the paper.

Sangarius
07-29-2015, 04:39 PM
There is nothing in Europe which suggests modern human habitation beyond 50,000 years, which is when the main bifurcation of crown Eurasian lineages took place. Oase1 lies on an additional crown Eurasian branch (not East or West), I bet Fumane would as well if analyzed. Kostenki shows no evidence of basal Eurasian, WHG show no evidence of basal Eurasian. There is nothing really to suggest the first inhabitants of Europe were basal Eurasians.

Regarding Kostenki14, the study featured an ADMIXTURE run where Kostenki14 showed "Middle Eastern" admixture. If it is not Basal Eurasian, what is it? Do you know more about it?

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Kostenki-ADMIXTURE.jpg

Kale
07-29-2015, 05:33 PM
Regarding Kostenki14, the study featured an ADMIXTURE run where Kostenki14 showed "Middle Eastern" admixture. If it is not Basal Eurasian, what is it? Do you know more about it?

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Kostenki-ADMIXTURE.jpg

As evidenced by fst distances, Middle Eastern components are never pure basal Eurasian. They always contain a fair bit of West Eurasian. The Middle Eastern component in K14 is either a K14 component in Middle Easterners...or just an artifact of K14 being so near the root of West Eurasians that it has to have a little bit of all West Eurasian components to counteract any resemblance of divergence.

Hector
07-29-2015, 06:12 PM
As evidenced by fst distances, Middle Eastern components are never pure basal Eurasian. They always contain a fair bit of West Eurasian. The Middle Eastern component in K14 is either a K14 component in Middle Easterners...or just an artifact of K14 being so near the root of West Eurasians that it has to have a little bit of all West Eurasian components to counteract any resemblance of divergence.

You make no sense because basal Eurasians are West Eurasians. They are in fact "purer" West Eurasians than WHG or ANE as Lazaridis himself pointed out.

The division between East and West Eurasians is based on a simplistic model where two populations gradually diverged into two distinct gene pools. But with WHG ANE etc. you have a more detailed and complicated model and going back to that "two population model" is simply absurd. In some cases you may still find populations that fit the category of East or West Eurasians but in many other cases not so.

Currently "West Eurasians" is paraphyletic in its definition. Lazaridis himself appears to be aware of this problem. It matters absolutely none who were the first people that colonized Europe from this standpoint because we are interested in their relationship to modern populations.

It was simply accidents of history that the population impacted most heavily by WHG and ANE became dominant in the Western Eurasia while the ANE impacted East Eurasian populations such as Native Americans and northern Asians became marginalized due to socio-geo-political, cultural or ecological reasons. With a twist of history you could have had nearly pure basal Eurasian populations that became dominant in Western Eurasia while Native Americans and northern Asians became dominant in Eastern Eurasia. In that scenario East Asians would have been an exotic people lingering in the hill valleys of China and Europeans, a tiny minority in mostly basal Eurasian Western Eurasia. In that case ANE would have been classified as "East Eurasian" and WHG, an early curious foray of East Eurasians into Europe.

In fact even an admixture of WHG (much less ANE) among Europeans results in a strong pull toward East Eurasians and that is what Dienekes et al were discussing prior to Lazaridis' paper:why northern Europeans are closer to East Eurasians than southern Europeans or middle Eastern Cacasoids are. In your simplistic model, a cladistic one where ANE and WHG are just branches of West Eurasians, this cannot happen.

tamilgangster
07-30-2015, 07:13 AM
No, it's not. It starts in Mexico and gets higher in Canada. Again, look at the K6 in the paper.

It only shows siberian admixture in mexico and that is also at minute levels(yet you say paleoamerican component is minute). SIberian is different from East asian and Siberians themselves have 15-20% ANE. Thats just one graph, they prove the contrary more than once in the paper using different techniques, if you read through it carefully. Also the oceanian might only be 2% but also take into consideration 2% is all that is being picked up in the k run, and that since the paleoamerican component is very archaic its hard to isolate into a seperate component, and will just show up as amerindian.

tamilgangster
07-30-2015, 07:26 AM
Really?
I think you mean East Asian.
ANE peaks in a location that is almost as east as you can get, so much so that it is in fact west again!

No doubt ANE is related to Lazaridis' WHG, but you have to consider that both MA1 and Loschbour have common ancestry with eastern non-Africans.
Lazaridis et al. on nomenclature - "In a different, geographical, sense the category “West Eurasian” could be transferred to the “basal Eurasian” element instead, as it is the only one whose presence we can detect only in West Eurasia, while the common ancestry of both MA1 and Loschbour with eastern non-Africans (drift non_African-->X) raises the alternative possibility of an eastern sojourn of their ancestors and a temporal priority of “basal Eurasians” in western Eurasia."

That is why what we are seeing in the Karitiana and the Surui is no surprise at all.

Yes ANE peaks in Amerindians, but is completley absent among Han CHinese and SE asians. The Chart that Kale posted, and the one on Lazardis Show ANE as being more West eurasian than anything. But like you said in the other thread, the ANE being sampled is from Karitiana, which also likely also includes Paleoamerican admixture also. Which is possibly why South Asian might score high ANE. European ANE values could also be much higher

tamilgangster
07-30-2015, 07:50 AM
As evidenced by fst distances, Middle Eastern components are never pure basal Eurasian. They always contain a fair bit of West Eurasian. The Middle Eastern component in K14 is either a K14 component in Middle Easterners...or just an artifact of K14 being so near the root of West Eurasians that it has to have a little bit of all West Eurasian components to counteract any resemblance of divergence.
Of course they are not pure basal eurasian, but Stuutgart and Iceman are scoring it in levels 40-50%+ yet is nonexistant among Motala and La brana, the distinguishing factor is the ENF, which is a combination of Both basal eurasian and west eurasian

Generalissimo
07-30-2015, 08:34 AM
But like you said in the other thread, the ANE being sampled is from Karitiana, which also likely also includes Paleoamerican admixture also. Which is possibly why South Asian might score high ANE. European ANE values could also be much higher

East Asian and the Onge-like admixture in the Karitiana are both part of the so called ENA clade. But of course ANE is a separate clade more closely related to WHG.

So no, estimates of ANE are not confounded by the Onge-like admixture in the Karitiana, not for them and not for anyone else.

J Man
07-30-2015, 12:12 PM
Very interesting stuff.

Kale
07-30-2015, 01:55 PM
You make no sense because basal Eurasians are West Eurasians. They are in fact "purer" West Eurasians than WHG or ANE as Lazaridis himself pointed out.

Basal Eurasians have no East-West pull, because they branched off before East-West was even a thing. The fact that heavy basal populations show as extremely West Eurasian, is because they are heavily mixed with West Eurasians. Zero + West does not equal East. The reason they seem purer West Eurasian than even WHG is because Mesolithic Europeans contain a small percentage of East Eurasian that arrived in Europe sometime after 37,000 years ago (K14's time) but likely not too long after (maybe 30,000-20,000 years ago). And when you consider Lazaridis original Basal Eurasian concept was 'a population that diverged before the divergence of Loschbour and Onge' things are unnecessarily muddled. Loschbour is the West proxy, and Onge the East proxy. But the fact that Loschbour has that small East Eurasian mix, means that the distance between West and East is underestimated. Any West Eurasian population that has less East Eurasian than Loschbour, is going to, in effect, show a pseudo-basal component.


The division between East and West Eurasians is based on a simplistic model where two populations gradually diverged into two distinct gene pools. But with WHG ANE etc. you have a more detailed and complicated model and going back to that "two population model" is simply absurd. In some cases you may still find populations that fit the category of East or West Eurasians but in many other cases not so.

It wasn't gradual at all. We have the two main branches which formed 50,000 years ago yes. But we have an explosion of sub-lineages shortly after.



In fact even an admixture of WHG (much less ANE) among Europeans results in a strong pull toward East Eurasians and that is what Dienekes et al were discussing prior to Lazaridis' paper:why northern Europeans are closer to East Eurasians than southern Europeans or middle Eastern Cacasoids are. In your simplistic model, a cladistic one where ANE and WHG are just branches of West Eurasians, this cannot happen.

That makes perfect sense. West and East share a node further up the tree than either does with Basal. They share the crown Eurasian node. So it basically comes down to a crown versus basal relation. Han are 100% crown. Sardinians are 60% crown. If Swedes are 80% crown, who is Han going to be closer to, Swede or Sardinian?

Hector
07-30-2015, 02:23 PM
Basal Eurasians have no East-West pull, because they branched off before East-West ...

Essentially you are defining West Eurasians roughly as WHG + ANE branch but then you are faced with the uncomfortable fact that some Caucasoid populations are more basal Eurasian than "West Eurasian". Even Northern Europeans have a farily significant amount of Basal Eurasian, too much to brush it off as "an insignificant introgression".

You are just playing with the definition and in your definition "West Eurasians" are not that many and are non-European since even Northern Europeans have too much of Basal Eurasian. This is why Lazaridis had misgivings about his termnology since it could be taken the wrong way by amateurs as you exemplified it.

P.S. I initially equated EEF with basal Eurasians but perhaps that was too much of simplification. But there are many "Caucasoid" populations that show >100 percent of EEF in a 3 way EEF-WHG-ANE analysis which probably means that the basal Eurasian proportion is even higher for them than for EEF. Unless you exclude these populations from being called West Eurasians, your definition is invalid(ie. inconsistent with the common notion of "West Eurasians")

Kale
07-30-2015, 04:11 PM
Essentially you are defining West Eurasians roughly as WHG + ANE branch but then you are faced with the uncomfortable fact that some Caucasoid populations are more basal Eurasian than "West Eurasian".
"Caucasoid"? This is a discussion about genetics...go to anthroscape if you want to talk about 'oids'.


Even Northern Europeans have a farily significant amount of Basal Eurasian, too much to brush it off as "an insignificant introgression".
Ok so what?


You are just playing with the definition and in your definition "West Eurasians" are not that many and are non-European since even Northern Europeans have too much of Basal Eurasian. This is why Lazaridis had misgivings about his termnology since it could be taken the wrong way by amateurs as you exemplified it.
No thanks. My definition is good.


P.S. I initially equated EEF with basal Eurasians but perhaps that was too much of simplification. But there are many "Caucasoid" populations that show >100 percent of EEF in a 3 way EEF-WHG-ANE analysis which probably means that the basal Eurasian proportion is even higher for them than for EEF. Unless you exclude these populations from being called West Eurasians, your definition is invalid(ie. inconsistent with the common notion of "West Eurasians")

African ancestry will boost the EEF in that calculator. I don't think it's likely that any population is more than 50% basal.

Hector
07-30-2015, 04:44 PM
No thanks. My definition is good.


Good for you but it is not used anywhere in academic circles.

Kale
07-30-2015, 05:12 PM
Good for you but it is not used anywhere in academic circles.

How about academic trapezoids?

West Eurasia = The Western portion of the continent "Eurasia"
Suffix 'ian' = One relating to, belonging to, or resembling

West Eurasian = one belonging to West Eurasia

People with genetics similar to K14, Loschbour, La Brana, MA1, Karelia_HG, Samara_HG, Motala are all related, and inhabited West Eurasia for over 30,000 years. Their genetic signature still dominates Europe, and forms a significant to majority portion of ancestry in the Middle East + Central Asia.

Hector
07-30-2015, 05:45 PM
How about academic trapezoids?

Maybe trapezoids but not academic.



People with genetics similar to K14, Loschbour, La Brana, MA1, Karelia_HG, Samara_HG, Motala are all related,

LOL. Good for you to leave out the Stuttgart since it is not that closely related to MA1. Europe as recent as 5000 years ago had populations whose genetic distance was almost as great as that between modern French and Chinese.


... forms a significant to majority portion of ancestry in the Middle East...

But how about the other significant to majority portion, which is Basal Eurasian?

Kale
07-30-2015, 06:37 PM
Stuttgart and people like her, came from the middle east only in the past 8000 years. Stuttgart is pretty much the most Basal neolithic farmer we have and is 60-70% West Eurasian anyway. Not sure the point you're trying to make there.

MbutiPygmy BedouinB Loschbour Ust'-Ishim -0.0855 -20.749
MbutiPygmy Karitiana MA-1 Ust'-Ishim -0.0903 -14.114

As much gene flow between Karitiana and MA1 as there is between WHG and BedouinB. Karitiana is 40% ANE. That means THE MOST BASAL population in the Middle East is still about 40% West Eurasian.

Hector
07-30-2015, 06:54 PM
Stuttgart is pretty much the most Basal neolithic farmer we have and is 60-70% West Eurasian anyway.

That is not true. 45+-10 is the Basal estimate for EEF and She is not the most basal either even compared with modern populations.

Kale
07-30-2015, 07:08 PM
That is not true. 45+-10 is the Basal estimate for EEF and She is not the most basal either even compared with modern populations.

That is including the pseudo-basal found because Stuttgart lacks the couple % East Eurasian that Loschbour has. All the diagrams show 30% or so.

Tomenable
08-03-2015, 01:55 AM
In the context of this new data about Australo-Melanesian input, let's remind that also Polynesian visits were suggested before:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4769-2-mysterious-intriguing-autosomal-results-of-Botocudos-remains-from-Brazil!

"Two ancient human genomes reveal Polynesian ancestry among the indigenous Botocudos of Brazil":

http://www4.furg.br/paginaFURG/arquivos/noticias/000024507.pdf

http://geogenetics.ku.dk/publications/si-botocudos/SOM_CurrentBiology.pdf

And not only this, but also the other way around. Amerindian admixture was found in Polynesians indigenous to Easter Island:

http://i.imgur.com/okkSeZx.jpg

"The Polynesian gene pool: an early contribution by Amerindians to Easter Island":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267125/

It shows, that there was probably also some early gene flow in the opposite direction, from America to Easter Island:


It is now generally accepted that [entire] Polynesia was first settled by peoples from southeast Asia. An alternative that eastern parts of Polynesia were first inhabited by Amerindians has found little support. There are, however, many indications of a ‘prehistoric’ (i.e. before Polynesia was discovered by Europeans) contact between Polynesia and the Americas, but genetic evidence of a prehistoric Amerindian contribution to the Polynesian gene pool has been lacking. We recently carried out genomic HLA (human leucocyte antigen) typing as well as typing for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome markers of blood samples collected in 1971 and 2008 from reputedly non-admixed Easter Islanders. All individuals carried HLA alleles and mtDNA types previously found in Polynesia, and most of the males carried Y chromosome markers of Polynesian origin (a few had European Y chromosome markers), further supporting an initial Polynesian population on Easter Island. The HLA investigations revealed, however, that some individuals also carried HLA alleles which have previously almost only been found in Amerindians. We could trace the introduction of these Amerindian alleles to before the Peruvian slave trades, i.e. before the 1860s, and provide suggestive evidence that they were introduced already in prehistoric time. Our results demonstrate an early Amerindian contribution to the Polynesian gene pool on Easter Island, and illustrate the usefulness of typing for immunogenetic markers such as HLA to complement mtDNA and Y chromosome analyses in anthropological investigations.

What they detected is not a recent admixture resulting from Peruvian slave trade, but something older:


When were the Amerindian HLA alleles introduced on Easter Island? Our investigations cannot answer this question with certainty, except that the Amerindian contribution to the gene pool of Easter Island must have occurred early.

First, we have to establish that these Amerindian alleles did not arrive as a result of the repatriation following the Peruvian slave raids in the 1860s, which resulted in an admixture of Amerindian and European genes in the area [16]. (...)

That could be brought there by Polynesians returning from America - maybe while returning they took some Amerindians (or mixed Polynesian-Amerindians) with them to Easter Island. Another possibility is that Native Americans visited Easter Island on their own. Unfortunately results of this study are not unambiguous, but that's probably because Easter Islanders were so decimated in the past:


An early Amerindian contribution to the gene pool on Easter Island was revealed only by the genomic HLA investigations. No genetic traces of Amerindians were detected by typing for mtDNA and Y chromosome markers. One explanation for these contrasting findings is that the Amerindian HLA alleles may have been subject to different selective forces than Amerindian mtDNA and Y chromosome markers. (...) There is, however, also another, not mutually exclusive explanation. At the end of the 1800s, approximately 100 individuals only were left on the island. Many had disappeared because of the Peruvian slave raids, others had died because of epidemics. This may cause a more random transmission of genes from one generation to the next; i.e. genetic drift, leading to random genetic changes in the population including loss of given gene variants. Uniparental genetic markers such as mtDNA and Y chromosome markers are more sensitive to genetic drift than genes which are inherited from both parents, such as the HLA genes. This also illustrates the usefulness of genomic HLA typing to complement mtDNA and Y chromosome analyses in anthropological investigations.

So there was a bottleneck on Easter Island, as the result of which many Y-chromosome and maternal lineages could get extinct. But despite this loss, signs of some Native American admixture survived in autosomal DNA of the remaining Easter Islanders.

About the loss of Native American genetic diversity after 1492:

http://patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com/2014/07/loss-of-amerindian-genetic-diversity.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/12/111205-native-americans-europeans-population-dna-genetics-science/

tamilgangster
08-03-2015, 07:15 AM
In the context of this new data about Australo-Melanesian input, let's remind that also Polynesian visits were suggested before:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4769-2-mysterious-intriguing-autosomal-results-of-Botocudos-remains-from-Brazil!

"Two ancient human genomes reveal Polynesian ancestry among the indigenous Botocudos of Brazil":

http://www4.furg.br/paginaFURG/arquivos/noticias/000024507.pdf

http://geogenetics.ku.dk/publications/si-botocudos/SOM_CurrentBiology.pdf

And not only this, but also the other way around. Amerindian admixture was found in Polynesians indigenous to Easter Island:

http://i.imgur.com/okkSeZx.jpg

"The Polynesian gene pool: an early contribution by Amerindians to Easter Island":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267125/

It shows, that there was probably also some early gene flow in the opposite direction, from America to Easter Island:



What they detected is not a recent admixture resulting from Peruvian slave trade, but something older:



That could be brought there by Polynesians returning from America - maybe while returning they took some Amerindians (or mixed Polynesian-Amerindians) with them to Easter Island. Another possibility is that Native Americans visited Easter Island on their own. Unfortunately results of this study are not unambiguous, but that's probably because Easter Islanders were so decimated in the past:



So there was a bottleneck on Easter Island, as the result of which many Y-chromosome and maternal lineages could get extinct. But despite this loss, signs of some Native American admixture survived in autosomal DNA of the remaining Easter Islanders.

About the loss of Native American genetic diversity after 1492:

http://patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com/2014/07/loss-of-amerindian-genetic-diversity.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/12/111205-native-americans-europeans-population-dna-genetics-science/

Its unlikely, because if it was due to polynesians it would peak among coastal populations, but it peaks in amazonian indians(its unliekely for polynesians to have gotten that far) , meaning it has to be from a more archaic migration

Tomenable
08-03-2015, 07:34 AM
But probably Polynesians also reached South America later on:

"Sweet potato DNA indicates early Polynesians traveled to South America":

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/12/111205-native-americans-europeans-population-dna-genetics-science/


Its unlikely, because if it was due to polynesians it would peak among coastal populations, but it peaks in amazonian indians(its unliekely for polynesians to have gotten that far) , meaning it has to be from a more archaic migration

Those two Botocudos were actually 100% Polynesian, it seems:

http://dna-explained.com/category/native-american/


Botocudo remains from Brazil were Polynesian and not admixed with either Native, European or African. This admixture was first discovered via mitochondrial DNA, but full genome sequencing confirmed their ancestry and added the twist that they were not admixed – an extremely unexpected finding. This is admittedly a bit confusing, because it implies that there were new Polynesian arrivals in the 1600s or 1700s.

They were probably new immigrants from Polynesia.


ts unliekely for polynesians to have gotten that far

Europeans travelled across the Amazon from the Pacific coast to the Atlantic coast.

Polynesians also could travel far inland, in theory at least.

Piquerobi
08-03-2015, 12:07 PM
Those two Botocudos were actually 100% Polynesian, it seems:

Yes, and that's why probably they did not come from immigrants. There were Polynesians skulls in the museum where they got these two "botocudo" samples, and at least to me, the most likey is that the skulls were mistakenly labelled as 'botocudo'. We know Polynesians got as far as the Easter Island. There are some hints they had contact with South America. However, for the ancestors of those 2 samples to arrive in the Pacific Coast and then travel thousands of kilometers up to the interior of Brazil, and, through generations, still keep themselves 0% Native American is something very difficult to accept. The researchers should have considered the two samples may have been mistakenly labelled as botocudo samples and yet in fact have been in fact something else.

As RCO put it nicely:


Another possibility would be a scientific fraud. Someone bought or brought Polynesian skeletons to the Museum as a hidden scientific misconduct pretending they were "exotic" skulls from Botocudos. Venderam gato por lebre. The mtDNA genetic distance is quite recent, one or two positions only.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4769-2-mysterious-intriguing-autosomal-results-of-Botocudos-remains-from-Brazil!&highlight=Botocudos

This is from the botocudo study:

No Karitiana component showing up in BOT (the 2 "Botocudo" samples):
http://i61.tinypic.com/ba4yb.jpg

No pull towards Native Americans in the map, the 2 "botocudo" samples clustering firmly with Polynesians:
http://i58.tinypic.com/fa0s49.jpg

Gedmatch results of one of the "botocudo" samples:


Bot15 Rio Doce, Minas Gerais, Brazil F999963 M C-PH3092 B4a1a1a ~1600 AD

GEDmatch.Com Oracle

This version of GEDmatch Oracle is based on 'Oracle v1' by Dienekes Pontikos. His original program was developed as part of the Dodecad Ancestry Project. More information on Dienekes' orignal program can be found here.

Many thanks also to Zack Ajmal for helping us get this web version of Dienekes' Oracle program developed.

World9 Oracle results:

Kit F999963

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 72.23
2 Australasian 23.9
3 Atlantic_Baltic 2.26
4 African 0.39
5 South_Asian 0.36
6 Caucasus_Gedrosia 0.36
7 Amerindian 0.33
8 Southern 0.17

Megalophias
08-03-2015, 06:53 PM
The new Reich paper isn't open access, so I don't know exactly what they tested. If the Oceanian-like signature in Karitiana etc is due to Polynesians, it should be obvious in the D stats and if it is recent it should show up in linkage disequilibrium. I very much doubt they would have missed something like that.

The Kennewick Man paper has stats for CHB, Polynesian; X, Karitiana, and Karitiana is as close or closer to Poynesians than any other group. But the difference is small and confounded by the fact that distance to CHB also varies (with YRI as outgroup).

Tomenable
08-03-2015, 08:01 PM
Nature paper says that this Australo-Melanesian signature is Paleoamerican substrate, inherited by Native Americans from remnants of earlier settlers, while Science paper rebukes the substrate hypothesis and claims that it came to already inhabited America relatively late, perhaps via the Aleutian islands.

Which version is more likely true?

Piquerobi
08-03-2015, 09:01 PM
^ We'll have to wait other studies. Hopefully they will test many more ancient Native American remains.

tamilgangster
08-04-2015, 10:30 AM
One interesting observation, is that the blow darts, are only used among Central and south american indians and among SE asian groups such a papuans, aetas and Dayaks, but isn't used in any other area. Its seems too unlikely to just be a coincidence

parasar
08-04-2015, 06:10 PM
The new Reich paper isn't open access, so I don't know exactly what they tested. If the Oceanian-like signature in Karitiana etc is due to Polynesians, it should be obvious in the D stats and if it is recent it should show up in linkage disequilibrium. I very much doubt they would have missed something like that.

The Kennewick Man paper has stats for CHB, Polynesian; X, Karitiana, and Karitiana is as close or closer to Poynesians than any other group. But the difference is small and confounded by the fact that distance to CHB also varies (with YRI as outgroup).

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280236692_Genetic_evidence_for_two_founding_popula tions_of_the_Americas
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/extref/nature14895-s1.pdf

parasar
08-04-2015, 07:40 PM
Nature paper says that this Australo-Melanesian signature is Paleoamerican substrate, inherited by Native Americans from remnants of earlier settlers, while Science paper rebukes the substrate hypothesis and claims that it came to already inhabited America relatively late, perhaps via the Aleutian islands.

Which version is more likely true?

The Clovis Anzick-1 may have been the later population.

I would go with the Ust-Ishim type substrate theory. The evidence from separation from Neanderthal admixture point for the Karitiana is 696 generations, a lower number than other modern populations. Assuming the time elapsed is the same, it would mean that the Karitiana are less admixed and thus retain longer string lengths.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--Q-txSoFSHQ/U0Stuv4PFQI/AAAAAAAAJjs/nmlQ5I6N4lY/s1600/ustishim.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=172&v=M7VdRKQuAa8

Hector
08-05-2015, 02:55 AM
... Assuming the time elapsed is the same, it would mean that the Karitiana are less admixed and thus retain longer string lengths.


For such effects to take place it probably requires an extreme degree of homogeneity, probably due to a severe bottle neck etc. and I don't see such from Karitiana. And there are ways to figure this out when that happens(ie. looking at the length distribution of Neanderthal segments) and I have not seen anyone who proposed such.

tamilgangster
08-05-2015, 03:25 AM
The 2% oceanian ancestry does not represent the whole Paleoamerican component, its just a signal\ from the paleoamerican component. THe actual ancestry from the Paleoamerican component could be much higher, due to it being very ancient and archaicly admixed, that due to genetic drift, much of the paleoamerican ancestry has diverged and shows up general amerindian component.

parasar
08-07-2015, 04:38 PM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150722-dna-first-american-history-anthropology-science/

“The new genetic data is surprising, but importantly the authors don’t make the claim that indigenous Australasian travelled to South America by boat,” University of Adelaide ancient DNA expert Jeremy Austin told an Australian news site. “Instead, it seems that a small group of Australasians may have travelled around the Pacific Rim, leaving no genetic trace, finally settling in and surviving only in the Amazon Basin.”...


See also the article below I had posted before that had claimed that the original population was wiped out. But evidence from the Reich and Willerslev papers indicates that genetic traces remain and they were not fully wiped out in the Amazon region.


The first Americans were descended from Australian aborigines, according to evidence in a new BBC documentary ...
Stone tools and charcoal from the site in Brazil show evidence of human habitation as long ago as 50,000 years.
The site is at Serra Da Capivara in remote northeast Brazil. This area is now inhabited by the descendants of European settlers and African slaves who arrived just 500 years ago. Images of giant armadillos, which died out before the last ice age, show the artists who drew them lived before even the natives who greeted the Europeans...

These people [Australians] date back to about 60,000 years, and were themselves descended from the first humans, who left Africa about 100,000 years ago.

But if the first Americans had drifted from Australia, where are their descendants now? Again, the skulls suggest an answer ...
The shape of the skulls changes between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago from being exclusively negroid to exclusively mongoloid. Combined with rock art evidence of increasing violence at this time, it appears that the mongoloid people from the north invaded and wiped out the original Americans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm

Megalophias
08-07-2015, 05:43 PM
We now know from multiple ancient samples that people with Paleoamerican morphology were genetically Amerindian (at least those we have tested so far) - which renders a lot of old theories based on skull shape obsolete.

Regarding Serra da Capivara, the dating doesn't seem to have been sorted out yet - here is a recent review: http://www.rockartscandinavia.com/images/articles/brazila9.pdf

parasar
08-07-2015, 06:27 PM
We now know from multiple ancient samples that people with Paleoamerican morphology were genetically Amerindian (at least those we have tested so far) - which renders a lot of old theories based on skull shape obsolete.

Regarding Serra da Capivara, the dating doesn't seem to have been sorted out yet - here is a recent review: http://www.rockartscandinavia.com/images/articles/brazila9.pdf

I'm not sure that the skull theories are fully obsolete. True, it is possible that a selective sweep happened, originating in that same original population, or introduced by a new population.

Reich's group is still pursuing the morphology line while the Willerslev one is apparently not.
Skoglund et al.

This discovery is striking in light of interpretations of the morphology
of some early Native American skeletons, which some authors have
suggested have affinities to Australasian groups. The largest number
of skeletons that have been described as having this craniofacial morphology
and that date to younger than 10,000 years old have been
found in Brazil6, the home of the Suruı´, Karitiana and Xavante groups
who show the strongest affinity to Australasians in genetic data.

Do we know where EDAR originated? I think that will go a long way towards resolving this issue of one or two inputs. If EDAR originated in Beringia, but is absent in early Amerindians then I think a two population theory is likely.

tamilgangster
08-07-2015, 11:05 PM
We now know from multiple ancient samples that people with Paleoamerican morphology were genetically Amerindian (at least those we have tested so far) - which renders a lot of old theories based on skull shape obsolete.

Regarding Serra da Capivara, the dating doesn't seem to have been sorted out yet - here is a recent review: http://www.rockartscandinavia.com/images/articles/brazila9.pdf

Of course they will show up as genetically amerindian, because theyve been isolated for over 50000 years, and were absorbed into the gerneral amerindian population, thus diverging into their own component. THis is the same reason why ANE would genetically show up as amerindian, because the population is archaic

Erik
08-08-2015, 01:20 AM
I believe that this likely comes from the Amerindians' South Asian ancestry

Megalophias
08-08-2015, 05:33 PM
Of course they will show up as genetically amerindian, because theyve been isolated for over 50000 years, and were absorbed into the gerneral amerindian population, thus diverging into their own component. THis is the same reason why ANE would genetically show up as amerindian, because the population is archaic
If they are an isolated branch of ENA (or of Eurasian) which has mixed into Amerindian, then they'll be closer to Amerindian than to other people, but they won't appear Amerindian in all tests. They would be related differently to outgroups, the same as MA-1 has different relationships than Karitiana does. If Paleo-Americans were an isolated branch, then we'd expect Amerindians to be considerably closer to North Europeans (and anyone else with ANE) and to Han Chinese (or other northeast Asians) than the Paleo-Americans are, because they have more recent shared ancestry with these groups.

But the f3 stats for the Paleo-American-looking samples follow the same curve as for other Amerindians. The whole genome D-stats of the form (Fuegan/Pericues, X; Y, Yoruba), where X is Athabascan, Anzick-1, Karitiana, Huichol, or Aymara, and Y is French, Papuan, or Han, are all close to zero. (There is a small systematic deviation when using SNP chip data but this seems to be artifact of errors in the genome.)

Of course these samples are very recent, so we wouldn't expect them to be pure Paleo-Americans anyway, and they do show some distance from most modern Amerindians on the heat map (but maybe this is just an artifact of genome quality also?) With further investigation something interesting might be picked out of them. But they don't appear to be radically distinct.


I believe that this likely comes from the Amerindians' South Asian ancestry
Did you have some particular migration theory in mind here?

Megalophias
08-08-2015, 08:09 PM
I'm not sure that the skull theories are fully obsolete. True, it is possible that a selective sweep happened, originating in that same original population, or introduced by a new population.
Do we know where EDAR originated? I think that will go a long way towards resolving this issue of one or two inputs. If EDAR originated in Beringia, but is absent in early Amerindians then I think a two population theory is likely.
We don't know where EDAR comes from. I recall one study that put it in eastern China via a population simulation but it made an awful lot of assumptions, so I wouldn't put much weight on that. The same study figured it was 30 000 years old or so.

It does a whole bunch of different things (hair, teeth, sweat glands, lactation) and we don't know which one(s) were actually being selected for. In terms of skeletal remains it affects teeth but not bones. EDAR has nothing to do with Mongoloid cranial structure, and while it does increase two of the traits associated with Sinodonty - incisor shovelling and fifth cusp on the second lower molar - it is only one of the genes that affect this. Furthermore, Paleoindians without classic Sinodonty don't necessarily have lower frequency of these traits - one major reported cluster has greater shovelling but lower frequency of fifth cusp.

So is there any real evidence that non-Mongoloid early Americans actually lacked the derived EDAR allele? Do we know the EDAR status of any of our numerous ancient American samples?

parasar
08-08-2015, 10:15 PM
We don't know where EDAR comes from. I recall one study that put it in eastern China via a population simulation but it made an awful lot of assumptions, so I wouldn't put much weight on that. The same study figured it was 30 000 years old or so.

It does a whole bunch of different things (hair, teeth, sweat glands, lactation) and we don't know which one(s) were actually being selected for. In terms of skeletal remains it affects teeth but not bones. EDAR has nothing to do with Mongoloid cranial structure, and while it does increase two of the traits associated with Sinodonty - incisor shovelling and fifth cusp on the second lower molar - it is only one of the genes that affect this. Furthermore, Paleoindians without classic Sinodonty don't necessarily have lower frequency of these traits - one major reported cluster has greater shovelling but lower frequency of fifth cusp.

So is there any real evidence that non-Mongoloid early Americans actually lacked the derived EDAR allele? Do we know the EDAR status of any of our numerous ancient American samples?

My feeling is Anzick-1 did not have it as it was not reported. It is possible the region was not tested as I never got a conclusive response to my query last year June:

Does Anzick-1 have the EDAR mutation (because straightening of hair and sino-dentition would require that)? If not, when did that come in, as it now reaches fixation levels in East Asia and the Americas. If it did, is it possible that what we term as East Asian characteristics are actually of American origin?

parasar
08-09-2015, 04:06 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--Q-txSoFSHQ/U0Stuv4PFQI/AAAAAAAAJjs/nmlQ5I6N4lY/s1600/ustishim.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=172&v=M7VdRKQuAa8

The Karitiana and/or Surui:
1. Neanderthal (696 generations above).


2. Denisovan. Proportion less than Papuan, but slightly closer in time.
http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Anthropogenesis-DenisovaMeyerHeterozygosity.jpg
http://johnhawks.net/graphics/skoglund-denisova-frequencies-2011.png


3. ANE - shared drift with MA1
http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/4151/zubo.png





4. WHG type blue eyes alleles
http://johnhawks.net/graphics/rs12913832-hgdp-selection-browser.png

tamilgangster
08-10-2015, 07:23 AM
I believe that this likely comes from the Amerindians' South Asian ancestry

Ru refering to ANE

tamilgangster
08-10-2015, 07:28 AM
I'm not sure that the skull theories are fully obsolete. True, it is possible that a selective sweep happened, originating in that same original population, or introduced by a new population.

Reich's group is still pursuing the morphology line while the Willerslev one is apparently not.
Skoglund et al.


Do we know where EDAR originated? I think that will go a long way towards resolving this issue of one or two inputs. If EDAR originated in Beringia, but is absent in early Amerindians then I think a two population theory is likely.

Many of the genetic papers look at skull morphology, its still a very legitihmate fields. Physical anthropology, is still fairly valid, as it compliments genetic anthropology. Physical antropology is valid when discussing factors like skull shape, but not valid when discussing skin color, and hair texture (especially at the individual level).

BalkanKiwi
09-02-2015, 09:35 PM
A few months old but still quite interesting.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150722-dna-first-american-history-anthropology-science/

Megalophias
09-02-2015, 09:56 PM
Discussed in these threads:

Studies Find-Mysterious Link Between Native Americans And Indigenous Australasians (www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4990-Studies-Find-Mysterious-Link-Between-Native-Americans-And-Indigenous-Australasians)
New DNA Papers General Discussion Thread/ (www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2573-New-DNA-Papers-General-Discussion-Thread/page119)

Tomenable
09-26-2015, 02:48 AM
There are several populations which could be potential sources of that Australo-Melanesian signal.

Not only Aborigines, also other populations which carry similar ancestry in various proportions:

With black points I marked some of populations which carry such Australasian ancestry:

The original map (http://d1jrw5jterzxwu.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/default/files/uploads/nature-dna-map.jpg) doesn't show all of these groups, but they are mentioned in the text:

http://s7.postimg.org/6myi0k163/Australasian.png

By the way:

Most of these groups, with some exceptions (like Onge) also happen to have Denisovan admixture - including Ainu:

http://www.jref.com/forum/threads/denisovan-neanderthal-admixture-in-ancient-jomon.55108/

Padre Organtino
09-30-2015, 11:30 AM
My take on this is that most claims are invalid simply due to geography.
Closest island with confirmed Australasian derived settlement is Rapa Nui.
It is like 2 thousand lm away from nearest Australasian populated island - Pitcairn. At the same time it is still 3,5 thousand km away from South America.

It has been reached by Pacific settlers not earlier than in 400-500 AD.

It took these guys a lot of time to get halfway to America. How does anyone expect them to have visited SA in ancient times when their seafaring skills have been clearly inferior in prehistory compared to Middle Ages?

Souriquois
09-30-2015, 11:55 AM
Interesting. I thought this only applied to South America.

Tomenable
10-01-2015, 09:09 AM
How does anyone expect them to have visited SA in ancient times when their seafaring skills have been clearly inferior in prehistory compared to Middle Ages?

They probably came on foot, through Beringia. Or along the coast.

Padre Organtino
10-01-2015, 07:40 PM
They probably came on foot, through Beringia. Or along the coast.

Not possible. The farthest similar people went (I mean Ainu) is Kuril Islands. Bering is just too far and too cold for these people. Plus they clearly prefer marine movements. I dunno why the would try to go somewhere through mainland Asia?

Kale
10-02-2015, 03:01 PM
Not possible. The farthest similar people went (I mean Ainu) is Kuril Islands. Bering is just too far and too cold for these people. Plus they clearly prefer marine movements. I dunno why the would try to go somewhere through mainland Asia?

What did you ask a few Ainu what kind of weather they like? People will put up with it if there's a food source. Along the ice shelf there is seals. They could've just skirted the coast like some Inuit do.

Padre Organtino
10-02-2015, 04:31 PM
What did you ask a few Ainu what kind of weather they like? People will put up with it if there's a food source. Along the ice shelf there is seals. They could've just skirted the coast like some Inuit do.

There is no material evidence of such migration. Moreover Ainu did have an opportunity to do so but chose to stay on their islands. When we are talking specifically about Australasians and similar people majority of them tend to be tropically adapted. One has to come up with a very creative scenario of their travel route to such extreme Northern places.
Face it - whole theory is most probably a hoax that came from the time when people only relied on skull reconstructions.

Kale
10-03-2015, 02:43 PM
There is no material evidence of such migration. Moreover Ainu did have an opportunity to do so but chose to stay on their islands. When we are talking specifically about Australasians and similar people majority of them tend to be tropically adapted. One has to come up with a very creative scenario of their travel route to such extreme Northern places.
Face it - whole theory is most probably a hoax that came from the time when people only relied on skull reconstructions.

Of course there is no material evidence. It would have sank to the bottom of the ocean when the ice melted. We have the data that suggests that such a people got there, it's just a matter of theorizing how.

Megalophias
10-03-2015, 04:04 PM
Face it - whole theory is most probably a hoax that came from the time when people only relied on skull reconstructions.
Two separate teams of highly respected scientists produced fraudulent genetic data to support an obsolete theory for no reason?

Padre Organtino
10-04-2015, 04:48 PM
Two separate teams of highly respected scientists produced fraudulent genetic data to support an obsolete theory for no reason?

Nope. What they have shown is simply that there is a very minor admixture within some NA groups. "Hoax" refers to those supposedly "native" skulls that turned out to be recent people from Pacific.

Megalophias
10-04-2015, 05:18 PM
"Hoax" refers to those supposedly "native" skulls that turned out to be recent people from Pacific.
So you are addressing a completely different subject than the topic of this thread and you didn't feel that you should mention that? We aren't telepaths, man.

Padre Organtino
10-04-2015, 05:32 PM
So you are addressing a completely different subject than the topic of this thread and you didn't feel that you should mention that? We aren't telepaths, man.

K, sorry about that, my fault.
If we go back to the issue: I don't believe that any people that were anything alike modern Polynesians or Melanesians could have made way to South America. Ocean route is simply to difficult. And I don't see why they would have moved far to the North on their own.
The way it could have probably happened was through a mediation by the help of some intermediary group. I have mentioned Ainu but we have to imagine people who probably were more Amerindian and East Asian(?) than them and have made it into North America.

Kale
10-05-2015, 06:23 PM
That would be a simple open and shut case if it weren't for the fact that this Oceanian admixture seems to only occur in South American populations.

parasar
10-06-2015, 03:38 AM
K, sorry about that, my fault.
If we go back to the issue: I don't believe that any people that were anything alike modern Polynesians or Melanesians could have made way to South America. Ocean route is simply to difficult. And I don't see why they would have moved far to the North on their own.
The way it could have probably happened was through a mediation by the help of some intermediary group. I have mentioned Ainu but we have to imagine people who probably were more Amerindian and East Asian(?) than them and have made it into North America.

We have to remember Africans made it to Australia 50000ybp and we do not have any evidence of humans in South Asia prior to that.
Sure much of beachcomber evidence may be underwater or under YTT, but I find it difficult to believe all evidence along the way just vanished. This leaves an oceanic journey a slight possibility.

At four knots, the 6,000-mile journey from
East Africa to NW Australia would take
approximately two months, which should
have been attainable if there was sufficient
rain to provide fresh water. The chances of
reaching Australian landfall would obviously
be increased if there were multiple
boats, something it is impossible to
estimate
http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/CEO%20Circularity.pdf
http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/bradshaws.htm

Kale
10-06-2015, 01:12 PM
Are there even any currents that run that way? I thought the typical 'trade winds' dumped off somewhere near Cambodia.

Padre Organtino
10-06-2015, 01:16 PM
Wait a sec. Island-hopping and then making it on foot to Sahel is totally believable but traversing vast Pacific Ocean water masses? Looks very unlikely.

parasar
10-06-2015, 02:46 PM
Wait a sec. Island-hopping and then making it on foot to Sahel is totally believable but traversing vast Pacific Ocean water masses? Looks very unlikely.

I agree that it looks unlikely. The paper I had quoted, besides the boat paintings at the Kimberley, also thinks there may be something to the baobab connection.
That scenario would actually bring the pioneer Africans to Australia from Madagascar.


‘Mushroom head’ depiction shared by Sandawe (A) and Bradshaw (B) cultures.
Extant Sandawe shamans testify that this depiction represents the subjective experience
of a trance under the influence of magic mushrooms (Psilocybe spp.). We can validly
assume that these identical icons have the same meaning in the Bradshaw culture, even
though it is extinct, without extant human witnesses ...

An ancient African–Australian
voyage?
...
In February, opportunity arises when the
prevailing Indian Ocean easterlies reverse
direction to give way to vigorous westerlies
that are capable of driving even sluggish
raft-like reed boats to the Kimberley in
feasible time...



In the month of February, the sun is still
around eight degrees south of the equator
in the southern hemisphere, so a bearing
for sunrise from the Tanzanian coast,
from a latitude of say, 9 degrees south,
would head unknowing voyagers directly
to the Kimberley in NW Australia (at 17
degrees south).
Food would not have been a problem
no matter how long the voyage turned out
to be, because the Sandawe lived in the
heart of one of the most abundant baobab
forests on the continent at that time...

ice
age simulations19 show that February westerlies
on the African coast and along the
Indian Ocean equator were enhanced,
reaching wind velocities double what they
attain today. At the predicted Pleistocene
wind speeds of 10 to 25 knots...

The Toba eruption, 74,000 years ago,
puts the discussion in the right time frame
for the first human migrations to Australia
from Africa...

with
significant ash coverage in Northern
Africa, the Middle East and India. In
India, the ash covered the sub-continent,
where it was at least three metres thick...

The Australian baobab tree, or boab,
Adansonia gregorii, is an unmistakable
member of the genus, the other members
of which are all located far away in Africa
and Madagascar. How did it make the
6,000 mile journey?
...
Australia and Africa have not been
close for 100 million years, while the
genetics show that the African and Australian
baobabs are almost identical, having
separated less than 100,000 years ago
...
The geographic distribution of boabs is
almost exactly the same as the distribution
of Bradshaw paintings...

Baobab trees are instantly
recognisable in both Australian and
African environments. They also occur in
rock art in both places...

The link between baobab references and
the Toba event would obviously be much
improved with more precise dating of the
depictions, which we predict will have an
age around 70,000 years, close to the time
of the Toba event, with the Tassel Bradshaws
baobab references earlier, by some
more precise amount, than the Sash Bradshaws...

Inigo Montoya
10-06-2015, 05:51 PM
Where did Melanesians genomes pick up their Denisovan component in that scenario?

parasar
10-07-2015, 02:23 PM
Where did Melanesians genomes pick up their Denisovan component in that scenario?

Per Reich et al. there were two populations living in SE Asia/Oceania - one admixed with Denisovans, the other did not, and the one that did not had a subsequent input into the one that did.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188841/

evidence of an episode of additional gene flow into Australian and New Guinean ancestors—after their ancestors separated from those of the Mamanwa—from a modern human population that did not have Denisova genetic material...

the modern humans who admixed with the ancestors of Australians and New Guineans were closer to Andamanese and Malaysian Negritos than to mainland East Asians...

this suggests that ancestors of both of these groups (but not of East Asians) were present in the region at the time ...

evidence of a Southeast Asian location for the Denisovan admixture thus suggests that Denisovans were spread across a wider ecological and geographic region—from the deciduous forests of Siberia to the tropics—than any other hominin with the exception of modern humans...

A Model of Population Separation and Admixture that Fits the Data
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188841/bin/gr3.jpg




A parsimonious explanation for the Denisova genetic material that we detect in the non-Australian populations is the well-documented admixture that has occurred in many Southeast Asian and Oceanian groups ...
For those populations whose Denisova ancestry is explained in this way, their fraction of Denisovan ancestry is predicted to be exactly proportional to their fraction of Near Oceanian ancestry...
We compared pD(X) and pN(X) for all relevant populations (Table 1, Figure 2, and Figure S1) and found that, allowing for sampling error, they occur in a one-to-one ratio for the populations from the Nusa Tenggaras, Moluccas, Polynesia, and Fiji. Common ancestry with Near Oceania thus can account for the Denisova genetic material in these groups.

Denisovan and Near Oceanian Ancestry Are Proportional Except in the Philippines
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188841/bin/gr2.jpg

fjnj
10-07-2015, 03:31 PM
The problem with the Reich's initial paper on denisovan ancestry is that they described a far more restrictive distribution than what becomes commonly accepted later on. So the diagram proposed by Reich early on may not be holding up.

Megalophias
10-07-2015, 07:44 PM
The problem with the Reich's initial paper on denisovan ancestry is that they described a far more restrictive distribution than what becomes commonly accepted later on. So the diagram proposed by Reich early on may not be holding up.
The early paper found that East Asians and Onge etc had Denisovan admixture that didn't differ significantly from zero. Later papers using more powerful methods were able to determine that very low levels of Denisovan admixture were in fact significant. I don't see that it should make any major difference to the original conclusions, except maybe to change the proportions slightly. I could be wrong.

tamilgangster
10-08-2015, 04:35 AM
Not possible. The farthest similar people went (I mean Ainu) is Kuril Islands. Bering is just too far and too cold for these people. Plus they clearly prefer marine movements. I dunno why the would try to go somewhere through mainland Asia?
There is no proof for any oceanian affinities in ainus

tamilgangster
10-08-2015, 04:36 AM
Nope. What they have shown is simply that there is a very minor admixture within some NA groups. "Hoax" refers to those supposedly "native" skulls that turned out to be recent people from Pacific.

Those skulls were after columbus, they were most likely polynesian slaves brought by the spanish

tamilgangster
10-08-2015, 04:38 AM
K, sorry about that, my fault.
If we go back to the issue: I don't believe that any people that were anything alike modern Polynesians or Melanesians could have made way to South America. Ocean route is simply to difficult. And I don't see why they would have moved far to the North on their own.
The way it could have probably happened was through a mediation by the help of some intermediary group. I have mentioned Ainu but we have to imagine people who probably were more Amerindian and East Asian(?) than them and have made it into North America.

There was no technology involved, people migrated, just like how humans migrated all over the world out of tropical africa, whats so hard about this to get

tamilgangster
10-08-2015, 04:43 AM
The early paper found that East Asians and Onge etc had Denisovan admixture that didn't differ significantly from zero. Later papers using more powerful methods were able to determine that very low levels of Denisovan admixture were in fact significant. I don't see that it should make any major difference to the original conclusions, except maybe to change the proportions slightly. I could be wrong.

They recently found traces of denisovan admixture in tibetans

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature13408.epdf?referrer_access_token=CTlAdv75QQ3 ORzBIItrL6NRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MtM92vhHSq0x5RFNZwE 6M65cO9gNRNA1G--_sIhSOG7mA7Ke4r7ExXt4OFdcrRdpsqeSb65Xk62Fyh9keUAD5 2oDIrctcCip8zZe5jgL4AbVZBLxiNwUh9Bk70VXUSEcTg3WtJV 3DC-4cTP8Iqg2ghy3gs4jKz498dmRfqVlPQRTyRNarg_65J0bSCAUO s02pnZX0NGWcODTws1LvtY1pqQEc1iwq85vYKBuVaYw38_Q%3D %3D&tracking_referrer=phenomena.nationalgeographic.com

fjnj
10-08-2015, 03:46 PM
Stating that denisovan ancestry is only present in oceanians but absent in mainland east asians is very different conceptually from denisovan ancestry is widespread in east asian populations. The more restricted presence would put limitations on where the interbreeding could occur.

parasar
11-09-2018, 08:41 PM
My feeling is Anzick-1 did not have it as it was not reported. It is possible the region was not tested as I never got a conclusive response to my query last year June:

Revisiting Anzick-1 EDAR:
"Our data show that a variant in EDAR that affects tooth shape, hair follicles and thickness, sweat, and mammary gland ductal branching and that occurs at nearly 100% frequency in present day Native Americans and East Asian (Kamberov et al., 2013) was not fixed in USR1, Anzick-1, a Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP individual and a Brazil_Laranjal_6700BP individual, all of whom carry the ancestral allele. Thus, the derived allele rose in frequency in parallel in both East Asians and in Native Americans."
∼12,800 BP Anzick-1 individual from Montana
∼11,500 BP USR1 individual from Alaska
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(18)31380-1?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com %2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867418313801%3Fshowall%3D true

https://els-jbs-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/ae75a0f2-f0b1-4961-89ed-4eb7732bd55b/gr4.jpg

Kale
11-19-2018, 04:14 PM
If the signal for Mixe/Surui at least is true (I haven't been able to replicate it), then I really don't think 'Australasian' accurately describes the nature of the signal. Populations with no particular relation to each other (Australians, Onge, Tianyuan) all show it... The only East-Eurasian group that doesn't it seems, is East Asians (though I don't believe ASI-heavy populations have been tested). While extra East Eurasian in Surui should boost affinity to all East Eurasians, when it's considered that extra East-Eurasian is coming at the expense of East-Asian related ancestry (which makes up the bulk of Native American ancestry) it's not a surprise the comparison zeroes itself out. Surui don't lack affinity to the other half of their ancestry though, ANE, so I think the most logical thing to assume is that the general East-Eurasian signal is not so general, but rather related to the East-Eurasian portion of ANE. I think this hypothesis is most parsimonious.

Psynome
11-20-2018, 04:40 PM
Surui don't lack affinity to the other half of their ancestry though, ANE, so I think the most logical thing to assume is that the general East-Eurasian signal is not so general, but rather related to the East-Eurasian portion of ANE. I think this hypothesis is most parsimonious.

Is this compatible with the hypothesis of population structure in Beringia giving rise to the signal? E.g. by the East Asian ancestors of Pop Y mixing with an ANS population with different East Eurasian ancestry than the one that mixed with other Native Americans?

Following the recent Siberia paper, both Ancient Paleosiberians and Native Americans could have derived from a period of admixture in a Beringian refugium. Since their proportions of ANS and East Asian are analysed as slightly different, that implies at least some structure in the Beringian refugium.