Gene Study Supports Single Bering Strait Migration

Invisible Pink Unicorn writes "One of the most comprehensive analyses of genetic variation ever undertaken supports the theory that the ancestors of modern native peoples throughout the Americas came from a single source in East Asia across a northwest land bridge some 12,000 years ago. One particular discovery is of a 'unique genetic variant widespread in natives across both continents — suggesting that the first humans in the Americas came in a single migration or multiple waves from a single source, not in waves of migrations from different sources.' The full article is available online from PLoS."

Comments

Journey of Man

[Toe, The]

If you haven't seen it yet, watch (or read, I suppose) "Journey of Man."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Journey_of_Man:_A_Genetic_Odyssey
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html

It provides a great grounding in the science and methodology, and the documentary is narrated by the scientist who did much of the research (a rare treat).

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[northnomad]

I believe your talking about this gentleman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

Re:Native?

[Red Flayer]

Yes, like Europeans, Chinese sailors inadvertently passed/carried diseases, which in the case of Chinese, wiped out 10,000s of Natives. However, the difference is the Chinese didn't come here to STAY, invade, expurgate, demolish, or hijack an existing, thriving human ecosystem (competitive and warring, true), nor to subject the Natives.

That alone speaks VOLUMES about wisdom, humility, and more.

Not really. You should finish reading that book, or perhaps read it a little more in-depth. It speaks VOLUMES about how massive expeditions became politically taboo in China due to economic concerns and power struggles within the royal family.

As for China's attitude towards other "less developed" cultures, I think you've quite a bit of reading to do. China's relations with other states in the 15th century was varied, and assimilation/domination of other cultures was definitely within their repertoire.

What about those French Native Americans?

[sckeener]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml

So I guess this study conflicts with the OP....

Stone Age Columbus - programme summary

Who were the first people in North America? From where did they come? How did they arrive? The prehistory of the Americas has been widely studied. Over 70 years a consensus became so established that dissenters felt uneasy challenging it. Yet in 2001, genetics, anthropology and a few shards of flint combined to overturn the accepted facts and to push back one of the greatest technological changes that the Americas have ever seen by over five millennia.

The accepted version of the first Americans starts with a flint spearhead unearthed at Clovis, New Mexico, in 1933. Dated by the mammoth skeleton it lay beside to 11,500 years ago (11.5kya), it was distinctive because it had two faces, where flakes had been knapped away from a core flint. The find sparked a wave of similar reports, all dating from around the same period. There seemed to be nothing human before Clovis. Whoever those incomers were around 9,500BC, they appeared to have had a clean start. And the Clovis point was their icon - across 48 states.

An icon that was supremely effective: the introduction of the innovative spearpoint coincided with a mass extinction of the continent's megafauna. Not only the mammoth, but the giant armadillo, giant sloth and great black bear all disappeared soon after the Clovis point - and the hunters who used it - arrived on the scene.

But from where? With temperatures much colder than today and substantial polar ice sheets, sea levels were much lower. Asia and America were connected by a land bridge where now there's the open water of the Bering Strait. The traditional view of American prehistory was that Clovis people travelled by land from Asia.

This version was so accepted that few archaeologists even bothered to look for artefacts from periods before 10,000BC. But when Jim Adavasio continued to dig below the Clovis layer at his dig near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he found blades and blade cores dating back to 16,000BC. His findings were dismissed as erroneous; too astonishing to be credible. The Clovis consensus had too many reputations behind it to evaporate easily. Some archaeologists who backed Adavasio's conclusions with other similar data were accused of making radiocarbon dating errors or even of planting finds.

Decisive evidence would have to come from an independent arena. Douglas Wallace studies mitochondrial DNA, part of the human chromosomes that is passed unchanged from mother to daughter. It only varies when mistakes occur in the replication of the genetic code. Conveniently for Wallace's work (piecing together a global history of migration of native peoples) these mistakes crop up at a quite regular rate. The technique has allowed Wallace to map the geographical ancestry of all the Native American peoples back to Siberia and northeast Asia.

The route of the Clovis hypothesis was right. The date, however, was wrong - out by up to 20,000 years. Wallace's migration history showed waves of incomers. The Clovis people were clearly not the first humans to set foot across North America.

Dennis Stanford went back to first principles to investigate Clovis afresh, looking at tools from the period along the route Clovis was assumed to have taken from Siberia via the Bering Strait to Alaska. The large bifaced Clovis point was not in the archaeological record. Instead the tools used microblades, numerous small flint flakes lined up along the spear shaft to make its head.

Wallace's DNA work suggested migration from Asia to America but the Clovis trail contradicted it. Bruce Bradley stepped in to help solve this dichotomy, bringing with him one particular skill: flintknapping and the ability to read flint tools for their most intimate secrets.

He spotted the similarity in production method between the Clovis point and tools m

Re:What about those French Native Americans?

[pln2bz]

I have to agree, based upon my own reading, that the idea that man did not reach the Americas prior to 12,000 years ago is little more than orthodoxy at this point. There is ample evidence that points to alternative conclusions. If you doubt this, and are not afraid to challenge your own beliefs in this regard, then read Charles Ginenthal's "The Extinction of the Mammoth". Regarding the excerpt you post here:

An icon that was supremely effective: the introduction of the innovative spearpoint coincided with a mass extinction of the continent's megafauna. Not only the mammoth, but the giant armadillo, giant sloth and great black bear all disappeared soon after the Clovis point - and the hunters who used it - arrived on the scene.

This is a gigantic over-simplification. Ginenthal removes *ANY* doubt whatsoever in his analysis that the mammoths were not killed by people. The reasons are numerous. His logic is impeccable. I would argue that no rational person could read that book and come out of it still believing that the mammoths were slaughtered by people. Perhaps most damning of all is the fact that the list of species that went extinct with the mammoths include animals that man could not have possibly killed off -- including 10 classes of North American birds, small burrowing rodent-like animals in Alaska (the American badger and the black-footed ferrets), the tiny Aztlan rabbit, mullosks and even frogs! We're not talking about diminished populations here. We're talking about total eradication from their native areas of the time.

In the words of Charles Lyell himself, "we know how tedious a task it is in our times, even with the aid of firearms to exterminate a noxious quadruped ..." As for the rabbits, well they tend to f*ck like rabbits! How man managed to wipe out species of birds with no firearms remains a legitimate open question.

What's also particularly damning is the fact that other fairly large fauna completely escaped the apparently ruthless Clovis hunters. There is little support for the notion that these people came in here and just wiped out everything that was worth hunting. The extinction event was highly selective. In particular, the musk oxen survived, which is highly enigmatic because these creatures will allow the entire herd to be obliterated if just one within their self-defensive circle is killed. They'll just stand there and take it. Why did those creatures survive? Why would the Clovis people specifically target the mammoths, which arguably possess woolly matting (8 inches), thick skin (another inch) and thick fat (an additional 6 inches) that is completely impenetrable to spear heads? Driving large herds of mammoths over cliffs would require hundreds, if not thousands, of hunters -- numbers which do not accurately portray the Clovis populations. If using spears, the prey would not instantly die. It would have to be trailed for many miles before you even had a chance of it bleeding itself to death. The arguments against the proposed kill-off scenario are actually far too numerous to list. What you see here is just a small sample of Ginenthal's explanation. Ultimately, every possible kill-off scenario is essentially unsupported by the evidence.

In truth, the extinction *OF* the mammoth was in truth an extinction event that *INVOLVED* the mammoth and numerous other creatures that man could not have possibly killed off.

What is particularly telling about the whole Clovis thing, in my own opinion, are the actions of Hrdlicka and the infamous "Clovis Police". Words to the wise: BUYER BEWARE when it comes to controversial issues within the natural sciences. If you sense any impropriety whatsoever, look into it with an open mind, as there is a long and detailed history of anthropologists defending their theories using completely unethical tactics. It can be hard for honest people to understand it, but many people in the field are far more interested in making sure that their theories survive the test of time than in finding the truth. If you think I'm full of it, then read Ginenthal's book and decide for yourself!

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[thexdane]

actually that is correct, there is evidence of other groups coming over here before the bering strait migration. they do come from what would become southern france. i'm sorry but i forget the name of the discovery channel show called stone age columbus

the jist of the show is they followed the ice cap to north america, much in the same way the inuit do today when hunting in the arctic. they landed on the east coast and lived there and migrated around a bit.

the cool part about the show was they showed an inuit lady a bone needle and said "this is 30 000 years old" and she looked at them and picked one off the table and said "i made this yesterday". the cool part was they looked identical

Re:Land bridge vs ?

[CodeShark]

No, not that. Just more breadth in the science that says "we believe this hypothesis is correct because it is exclusive for testable reasons x,y, and z".

An "testable" reason, for example might be a "working with DNA from Mayan mummy #abc (IIRC the Mayans are considered a lost civilization, right?) that has been dated to X hundred years b.c. was found to have the same markers as related to the steppe people from Siberia etc." combined with "these markers are unique because...." where the "because" is fairly exclusive in terms of the genetics involved, that is, something along the lines of "the Steppe peoples and their mummies (pun intended) all have Gene xyz variants, and almost no or no other peoples and their mummies have that unique genetic signature"

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[thisissilly]

Also, there is evidence of early contact with Polynesia (pre-Columbus), thanks to (of all things) chicken DNA.

Re:It doesn't mean they were the only people here

[alan_dershowitz]

You are talking about the Kennewick Man, which is believed to be of an ethnic group that modern Native Americans descended from over the past several thousand years. The controversy was regarding its alleged caucasoid features combined with its dating before the Bering migration. IIRC the forensic artist reconstructing the face was watching an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, noticed some resemblance in bone structure to Capt. Picard, and more or less made the model look like that.

It has the amazing ability to make anyone associated with it act like an asshole, as represented by white supremacist groups claiming that white people colonized the continent before the Native Americans; and Native American groups attempting to prevent research on the skull by asserting tribal affiliation despite the fact that it doesn't look like any modern Indian, and could not possibly be a former member of any existing tribe. They object to research possibly in part in fright of an invalidation of their origination claim to the continent, but also because of a general (and somewhat justified, based on Native American history) distrust of the impartiality of white man science. I am going to go out on a trollish limb here, but their passed-down "history" is unfalsifiable mythological fiction, and just because science has screwed over Indians doesn't mean they have the right to have their fake history uncritically accepted by the scientific community when it comes to Native American origins. they don't know where the skull came from, but at least scientists have the tools to find out, unlike someone just waving their hands and saying "discussion over, it's a Blackfoot and we were still here first" (or whatever.) By all accounts it was NOT a white man, but it wasn't a modern Indian either, it seems.

If I am wrong about any of this, please correct me. But I highly recommend reading the book "Skull Wars" regarding this skull and the historical reasons for Native American distrust of scientific method with regards to Native American anthropology and history. It will likely make you angry, but you will understand more the Native American position on this even if you don't entirely agree with it. This is the position I am in now.

Re:If only...

[vux984]

you completely ignored the absolute truth of my statement that the oceans have been rising since the last ice age.

Probably because the absolute truth about that absolute truth is that it is irrelevant.

With or without the minute contribution to the ocean levels by climate change, the peoples who are relocating because their lands were within inches of sea level would have to do so in future decades anyway, because sea levels will continue to rise with or without man's contribution.

Again, No. The oceans have been rising since the last ice age because the polar ice is melting and the glaciers have been retreating since then. But THIS much ice doesn't usually melt; and the ocean's don't usually rise this much.

In other words, the people who have to move right now due to rising oceans would be just fine, if this was -any- other inter-ice-age period in recorded history.

So, no, they shouldn't 'have to move in future decades anyway'. The ice that is melting NOW, didn't melt after the Ice Age before it, nor the ice age before that, nor even the ice age before that, and on down the line.

This ice doesn't normally melt between Ice Ages! Get it?! But its melting NOW!

Not ALL the ice on the planet melts between Ice Ages. The glaciers retreat, but they only retreat so far. You knew that didn't you? Well THIS time the Ice that doesn't get melted between Ice Ages is melting.

And as a result the oceans are rising MORE *IN TOTAL* than they normally rise between ice ages.

Unfounded Conclusions

[E 99]

Unlike what is claimed in the summary, the study makes no claims about the "first humans" in the Americas, only about the ancestry of the existing descendants of early settlers.

IMHO, it is a stretch to use the analysis they did for making conclusions about migration routes and so forth. We're talking about an analysis of general DNA diversity after over 10,000 years of empires, wars, and extinctions of many lineages.

1) We know there existed in the south, especially the extreme south, morphological diversity non-existent in the north. Some examples are the "giants" Magellan and others saw in Patagonia -- even if you discount his reports, the most conservative estimates still put them at 6 1/2 feet tall, which is still "giant" by comparison to everything else at the time; There is another extinct race -- whose bones we actually have, not based on reports of others -- from the same region, with thick bones, large vertebrae, and prominent browridge, almost as if they were a cross with neanderthals.

2) Analysis of the Y-chromosome DNA distribution and the mitochondrial DNA distribution, show a much different, and apparently unrelated, distribution between the male ancestry of the current populations, and the female ancestry. As with most of Asia and Europe, the female ancestry in the region is older, which stands to reason as with new invasions, female populations are kept, while male populations are killed off and replaced by the invaders. Except, in the Americas, the last successful invaders seem to have a significantly different genetic history than the original females.

3) Certainly, there were migrations over the Bering Strait. There's lots of evidence for that. But IMHO, the only reasonable conclusion is that there were also migrations by sea to the west coast of South America around the same time. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support it, and the only argument against is that people 10kya were too "primitive" to navigate the ocean -- which is nothing but "cave man" prejudice.

only surviving populations

[m2943]

That's only the surviving population; it doesn't tell you whether there were previous migrations that didn't survive, or small previous migrations that just completely got absorbed in the last big one.

People that are hypothesizing previous migrations (and there is some archaeological evidence) generally also assume that those populations died out, were killed, or were absorbed by the "native Americans".

Re:Native?

[stdarg]

Please, tell what systemic advantages I've enjoyed as a white person in the US, without knowing anything else about me. If you can't name a specific one that I've had for certain, how about a list of advantages, at least one of which is 100% guaranteed to apply to me.

I'm genuinely curious because I find it hard to believe that you can come up with a list that would apply to every single white person in the country, including 3-year-old orphans, prison inmates, and the guy down at the local rehab center who calls himself "Fuzzy" and has an intense fear of the police.

The Topper Site

[Terrigena]

The "Topper Site" has radiocarbon dates to about 45,000 B.P. This indicates there were previous migrations. Over the course of 30,000 years, the genetic marker discussed in this study would have integrated itself into the entire population, regardless of when the root migration took place. I'm afraid the conclusions drawn by the researchers are not accurate, and do not reflect the latest archaeological data available.