Slashdot Mirror


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."

2 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. Vikings by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 0, Redundant

    . Few can argue that Columbus is the first non-native person to set foot on the Americas since the original migration

    Actually, there's a pretty solid chance the Vikings made it to Canada for a bit. So they beat Chris by almost 500 years.

  2. Re:Native? by pinguwin · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Point 3: Columbus was not the first non-native, plain and simple. That the Norse were there is more 'extensive evidence', they were there, period, proven evidence. They lived their, set up homes and gardens, and hunted. Now the last part of your statement is correct, the Norse didn't have lasting impacts, except maybe on their own society (and truthfully, one could argue that many of the indian tribes won't have a lasting impact, in a thousand years, will you be able point to their influence? That is *NOT* trolling). But the first part of your statement is incorrect.

    Personally, I'm not even sure that what we consider 'native' are really natives. No one knows who is 'really native' and who arrived somewhere to find someone else already there. Look at the archeaological record and often the people there 150 years ago, weren't there 500-1000 years ago. Societies are fluid, whether it be due to disease, environment, or conquest. Review Kennewick man (9k y.o. skeleton found in Washington). The 'native' tribes tried to claim him as their own but it was ruled that they couldn't prove ownership as there is no evidence that the specific native tribes were there thousands of years ago. Someone was, but who it was is unknown at this time and may never be known.

    I'm not passing judgement on any group or set of beliefs, I'm just making the point of that word 'native' isn't neccesarily easy to define.