Slashdot Mirror
Ancient DNA Reveals a Completely Unknown Population of Native Americans (sciencealert.com)
schwit1 shares the findings of a new study of 11,500-year-old bones: Sunrise girl-child ("Xach'itee'aanenh T'eede Gaay") lived some 11,500 years ago in what is now called Alaska, and her ancient DNA reveals not only the origins of Native American society, but reminds the world of a whole population of people forgotten by history millennia ago. "We didn't know this population existed," says anthropologist Ben Potter from the University of Alaska Fairbanks. "It would be difficult to overstate the importance of this newly revealed people to our understanding of how ancient populations came to inhabit the Americas." In a new study published this week, the team reports that a genetic analysis of sunrise girl-child's DNA shows she belonged to a forgotten people called the Ancient Beringians, unknown to science until now. Before now, there were only two recognized branches of early Native Americans (referred to as Northern and Southern). But when the researchers sequenced sunrise girl-child's genome -- the earliest complete genetic profile of a New World human to date -- to their surprise it matched neither.
Given the nature of this field of research -- and the scope of the new findings -- it's unlikely the new hypotheses will remain uncontested for long. But in the light of all the new evidence researchers are uncovering, it's clear the first settlers of America carried a more diverse lineage than we ever realized. "[This is] the first direct evidence of the initial founding Native American population," Potter says. "It is markedly more complex than we thought." The findings are reported in the journal Nature.
Given the nature of this field of research -- and the scope of the new findings -- it's unlikely the new hypotheses will remain uncontested for long. But in the light of all the new evidence researchers are uncovering, it's clear the first settlers of America carried a more diverse lineage than we ever realized. "[This is] the first direct evidence of the initial founding Native American population," Potter says. "It is markedly more complex than we thought." The findings are reported in the journal Nature.
Sent a DNA sample to ancestry.com for my family tree, they sent back an envelope of seeds with a note "start over".
sigh
They've long known that there were at least two waves of immigration to the Americas, and long suspected there was at least a third wave before that one.
This seems to be a solid confirmation of that third wave, but not actually a 'new' discovery.
The real question is how did they know Xach'itee'aanenh T'eede Gaay was her name? The next time you bring your pet to the veterinarian give them this as your pet's name. They will look at you a little bit differently.
How do we know they were called "the Ancient Beringians"?
#DeleteChrome
two recognized branches of early Native Americans (referred to as Northern and Southern)
North American is best American!
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
This archaeological finding trumps them ALL. https://www.theonion.com/archa...
>average coverage of approximately 17 times
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
they were genocided so fast there didnt even leave a trace o dna behind?
Native American oral history states that they have always resided in the Amercias. They didn't come from somewhere else. Your science can't trump history.
This has intrigued me for years. Can some explain or point me to a reference that explains the following.
It's widely believed Americas was settled by people's crossing the Bering Straights and migrating out. If that is the case then why are the seemingly more advanced/developed civilizations located in central or south America. It seems counter intuitive that the further away regions are more developed.
Those DNA-testing companies sell more con than science.
That’s what Inside Edition discovered when they had a set of triplets send their saliva to Ancestry.com and 23andMe for DNA testing. Although the triplets all came from the same womb, they got wildly different results from both companies. The DNA test results had the triplets differing from each other by more than 10%, which is a greater difference than the 7% genetic difference between humans and monkeys, the 3.1% difference in DNA between humans and orangutans, and the 1.2% difference between humans and chimps. (See “Animals That Share Human DNA Sequences“)
Indeed, genetics experts say the DNA-testing companies prey on gullible people by pinpointing your biological origins on a map with spurious specificity:
Anthropologist Deborah Bolnick of the University of Texas at Austin calls “fraudulent” companies that claim DNA testing will tell you where you came from.
Anthropologist Jonathan Marks of the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, says that instead of tracing our genetic past, what we get is a scientific scam: “It sure looks like science. Well, it is science. It’s done by scientists, and it’s done on DNA samples. And it produces real data.” But these companies simply don’t have enough comparative information to pinpoint a gene on a world map.
Morgan not only confirms what the anthropologists say — that the DNA tests are not as accurate and precise as they are claimed to be — he also reveals other problems, such as test results being “tweaked” to conform with the customer’s expectations because “It pays to suck up to the people who pay you,” and test samples being contaminated because the customers sent their saliva mixed with other substances, such as food or saliva from another person.
Most egregiously, Morgan also confides that his DNA testing company has faked African ancestry for customers deemed to be racists:
“I only know of two times somebody wanted to be tested for being another ethnicity because they didn’t like that ethnicity. Both times, [they were] white people not wanting to believe they had black ancestors. []
[W]hat we did was add ‘ That way we weren’t lying, and they [the “racist’ customers] would both be wondering how much under a percentage point was. We always try to round to the nearest number because we sometimes hear about percentage points, but for them, we leave it open to whether it’s a one or a zero. []
[One customer] wrote to us asking what that meant, and we wrote back that it meant it was under 1 percent. And we were not saying zero. Unless they got another test, that was going to bother them. Maybe they weren’t 100 percent Caucasian [] this way it leaves it open, and they’ll always be wondering.“
Apparently it is news to people that the Irish have Semitic and North African admixture, that Slavs are a quarter Asian, and that all of Southern Europe is shot through with Mediterranean outliers.
Alternative Right.
The same group of violent, primitive Asians who later invaded most of the known world, only to have their rule collapse within two generations? No wonder people called them "savages."
Alternative Right.
...but it's Anasazi.
Apparently it is news to people that the Irish have Semitic and North African admixture
This is true even of their traditional languages. Irish is Indo-European, while Semitic languages are in the unrelated Afro-Asiatic family. Yet the Celtic languages of Britain and Ireland share several key grammatical features with Semitic languages. Perhaps these features were shared alongside the mixture of genes.
Ahem. North America is Canada. The rest of you live in that place called America.
Must you?
How about Northish America?
If North America is Canada then what's North America?
Wrong mythology:
Native tribes were created with the earth, right where they were found by the white people, living in perfect harmony with nature, numbered in hundreds of millions, enjoying medical science that has still not been matched.
What they're going to find is why the Native American organizations have VOCIFEROUSLY fought any dna testing of other paleo-samples: we're going to "discover" that the Native Americans that WE refer to as original inhabitants of the New World are in fact just the last-previous swarm of people that came, kicked the shit out of whoever was there before, and wiped them out.*
*thus showing that they did the same (or worse) than the Caucasians did to them, deeply damaging their 'victimization' franchise and permanent worldwide sympathy vote.
-Styopa
If North America is Canada then what's North America?
Canada...
Clearly, this is proof that Jesus came to America, saved the white indians, who were wiped out by the brown people (because all the hardships are just tests by god to see if you were worthy). Praise Xenu or whatever it is they worship.
Look, we're not living in some hippy commune and I don't believe they were either. How the hell do they figure out that this girl's name was "Sunrise" when the anthropologist quoted in the article says we didn't even know this culture existed?
And yet so quickly we understand their language and the names they gave their children?
How did they figure out her name or her first cousin's name? How do they know they were cousins? Were there written records to go by? Or perhaps these were just names given affectionately by the archaeologists digging up their bones - who never meant to suggest that those were their actual names, but just chose them out of a need to identify them other than by whatever reference number anthropologists use.
We've all heard of Lucy", right?
Does anyone actually think her name was "Lucy"? I do have to admit "Lucy" is much more appealing than "AL 288-1". It's easier to remember too. I just don't believe that was her real name.
It may be related to a pre-clovis grave found in Mexico last summer.
Although the triplets all came from the same womb, they got wildly different results from both companies.
The fact is, this is normal! They are siblings and siblings often share less than 25% of their DNA with each other. Each person receives half of their autosomal DNA from their mother and half from their father. But the DNA doesn't come in "halves", it comes in little bits, a bit from here and a bit from there, so siblings definitely do not get all the same DNA.
In theory, siblings can share almost none, or almost all, of their autosomal DNA. The process is entirely random and on average, it is 25% shared (0.5 x 0.5). This is a simple problem in probability which one can't expect any journalist (let alone the average person) to understand.
As for the marketing aspects of DNA tests, well, Ancestry's marketing techniques speak for themselves. There are, however, respectable and honest DNA testing companies out there, one's with actual research scientists on staff who work closely with the genealogical community and the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (isogg.org). Check it out. (Disclaimer -- I have been testing my own and others' DNA since 2007, though never with Ancestry. Can't recommend them at all.)
They use markers which attach to known sections of dna. The ancestry companies know the ancestral geographical distribution of these markers.
The Indian child study sequenced dna and compared it to other sequences.
The real study done by the Today Show found rather similar results among the triplets and three ancestry companies tested. This is kind of remarkable considering the tests were independently developed.
Here is a reference https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Identical-Triplets-Test-DNA-Kits-Accuracy-Today-461282873.html
The preliminary analysis of Kennewick Man using skeletal dimensions, 9500 year old north american remains, could not place in any known race. It was only when DNA analysis got better on tinynsamples was KM found to be related to native americans.
Seriously? They thought they had it all worked out and then this?
Fortunately the climate scientists are much better and _they_ have everything figured out.
Yeah trollish. But the point is this: there is still a boatload of stuff that remains unknown. Assuming in any scientific discipline that 'we've pretty much got it all figured out' should be interpreted as a sign that they don't.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Tautology.