Slashdot Mirror
Ancestry Surprises From New Genetics Analysis Method
An anonymous reader commends a recently published study involving a new way to analyze genetic variation in human populations (full article published in PLOS Genetics): "[S]cientists from Ireland, the UK and the US analysed 2,540 genetic markers in the DNA of almost 1,000 people from around the world whose genetic material had been collected by the Human Genome Diversity Project. The results include a number of surprises... the Yakut people of northern Siberia were found to have received a significant genetic contribution from the population of the Orkney Islands, which lie off the coast of Scotland... there must have been a period of gene flow from northern Europe to east Asia. The study also shed light on the peopling of the Americas, as the results suggest that the native populations of north and south America have different origins."
A lot of people didn't want to give up on the idea that the arctic bridge was the only way people got to the Americas, when it made much more sense that some people could've traveled the ocean to settle here.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Well, there's anthropological evidence that there were several migrations from Asia to the Americas, namely, two island-hopping sea routes and one over the land bridge in the north. This just sort of confirms this idea.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Probably one of the best sources I can think of off the top of my head is the book, Guns Germs and Steel. The book gives a great in depth look at the origins of man, and the crops/domesticated animals we eat as well as lots of maps showing movements through the ages. It's a pretty long read though, but well worth it. The book also goes well into why the decendants of those from Europe and Asia control the world today and not those in Africa, North America or Oceana.
Remember that there is a difference between using mitochondrial DNA (the studies you cited) and autosomal DNA (this study). With mitochondrial DNA, the only information that you get is along the maternal line, so you're missing a lot of the data. Looking back 20 generations, for example, you're only looking at one ancestor out of about a million. It would be possible for two groups to come over but only one be reflected in the maternal line.
You'd be wrong there.
Depends on what period of history and what area you're talking about, actually.
There's evidence of Jewish presence in China as early as the 7th century. There were reports in the 9th century of Christian, Muslims, and Jews killed in a massacre in the 9th century. And Marco Polo reported encountering Jews in China in the 13th century. They lived mostly in Kaifeng, where a synagogue was built in the 11th century.
However, it wasn't until the 15th century that Jews in China had much recognition by the local government. In 1421, Jews were finally allowed to take the civil service test. The population in Kaifeng was discovered by European Christians in the 17th century, who used their version of the Torah to crosscheck it against the versions being used in Europe. They were identical.
So... yeah. Not many Jews, but there are signs dating back to the 7th century that Jews were present.
'Course, that's not nearly early enough to match up with Mormon scripture.
Recently, ancient chicken DNA from South America was found to be most closely related to Polynesian chickens. I believe it was specifically chickens from Tonga, which is close to Easter Island. Previously, there was some dispute because carbon dating of the oldest chicken skeletons suggested they were a couple of hundred years older than the Spanish had arrived.
So it probably did occur something like you suggest, even if the human populations were wiped out by local tribes and show no genetic mixing.
We see things as they are right now, and just presume that the clock was frozen before the last few centuries. So, we see black people in Africa and Chinese people in China and assume they were always there. They weren't, they displaced someone to get there. It's just been forgotten.
Not that this makes any of it 'right' or 'justified', nor does it make it 'wrong' or 'unjustified'. These are the facts. Make of them what you will.
The theory I am most familiar with is that it's to do with land distribution and early technology. Early technology was largely plant and animal based. That technology spread easily east-west because of broadly similar climate, but didn't spread well north-south because of climate changes. Eurasia provided a massive east-west area, but Africa, India, Polynesia and so on were relaively isolated in the east-west direction. That means that technology advanced faster in the north than in the south. Add in the general human tendancy of the powerful oppressing the weak and hey, presto! White (and Yellow) colonialism. No racial causes, just the luck of the draw in who was in the right place at the right time.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?