It would be fantastic if it were true. But all other evidence besides this admixture points to it not being true including your initial post , and there are other options that still make sense. That is much easier. I have a good track record on these things, often when almost everyone else was wrong. You might ask yourself why. In this particular case, it is incredibly difficult to account for the lack of evidence for human occupation before a certain date.
If the admixture were found isolated along the west coast, then maybe it would make clearer sense. But even among the ancient mtDNA genomes from Peru, Chile and Argentina, along with a few ancient whole genomes, there is no indication that they was this admixture in those locations for the last 10, years. So either the pure populations of the Andaman-like people were in those locations earlier, and the populations were replaced by people who arrived 12, years ago, or they were never there.
If they were there, and admixture occurred there and not in the Amazon , then it could have anywhere else in the Americas, and even in Beringia. If admixture occurred in the Amazon, then you have to explain how they got to such a difficult place while leaving no trace anywhere along the way. I just went back and read several of your older posts on the Indo-European expansion. Whenever you get something right, you usually dismiss all the things that you got wrong as minor. Of course this is true of most people who constantly go out on a limb while sticking their neck out.
The recent ancient DNA has shown that in human history, the simplest answer rarely turns out to be the correct answer. The simplest answer to this South American question is that a population of Andaman-like people lived in the Amazon before the Amerindians got there. This is false. There is a lot of skeletal evidence that the first settlers of the americas had a cranial morphology more in line with Africans, Australians and Melanesians.
The best example is the second oldest skull found in the Americas nicknamed Lucia and the graveyard of 37 found close to her and of the same time period. The skulls pretty clearly indicate they did not come from the later Amerind populations that swept over the Americas. And specifically not in its relationship to the Andamanese or Papuans. Am I right in presuming that? I am simply refuting Franks contention that their is no evidence to support the an earlier arrival from another location other than Beringia. Interpretation of skulls is notoriously subject to the eye of the beholder, so without DNA it is still just a hypothesis.
All odd skull shapes tested so far are Native Americans. With all the evidence against it, you have to ask what agenda are you pushing? Is it to discredit Native Americans? Or to strip their identities as indigenous people of America, there is no evidence for other races of Negritos in America. There is no evidence otherwise.
Or they could of had the boat making skills from the start. We know the Chumash Indians were living on the Channel Islands off Santa Barbara California, by 14, years ago, they were the only North American Indians who had a true seafaring maritime culture, as opposed to Clovis culture.
They were the only ones who created planked boats for deep sea fish, they traveled out miles to Santa Cruz island. The only way you win is that they obtain a completely unadmixed ancient genomic DNA sequence from bones found anywhere in the Americas that match the component found in these modern people from South America? And for me to win I would need what? A sample from Beringia that also has this genomic signature? I know there are some artifacts and remains which make archaeologists believe there was a pre-Amerind group in the Americas.
Just presume some time after South America was pretty much full of Amerinds, a small group of Austro-Melanesians happened ashore somewhere — almost certainly on the Pacific coast. They might have vanished without a trace, but they happened to admix on a minor level with a population which took up horticulture and moved into the Amazon basin. Then much later comes the Columbian Exchange, with the source groups on the Pacific Coast if they even still existed dying out completely. The Puritans got in early and had a chance to grow exponentially for centuries: this matters.
One must always keep the possibility of a period of exponential growth in mind when thinking about these questions, although nobody does. One boat would be a drop in a bucket that probably contains hundreds of thousands of Brazilian Amerindians. The other thing to remember is that there were no armies, no way to tap the strength of numbers of a whole population.
Conflict was local. Suppose that group A had become fairly common in South America, with tens of of thousands of members, or even more. Then group B arrives, and on a local basis, beats the crap out of A. The way in which the Neanderthals all swarmed the encroaching anatomically modern humans? The Thule could have admixed, at any level from a lot to zero: they apparently chose zero. Groups like this used to live in Indonesia, before the Malays originally from South China came and stepped on them.
I think that the admixture from the original hunter-gatherers in Indonesia is something like a few percent. Same basic story for Southeast Asia — dark short locals, Australo-Melanesians, mostly replaced by invaders from the North. Immigration is a modern thing. Conquest and slaughter rape, pillage, then burn was more typical in prehistory.
If a population preceded the Amerindians into the Americas, there is no particular reason for them to have any Amerindian admixture at all. It does seem like some of the Botocudo were Polynesians. They certainly were post-Columbian, but were dated to a time before any Polynesians were brought to South America via the slave trade, meaning they presumably hoofed it the long way, over the Andes. Perhaps they were traveling during a time that plagues had disrupted the population centers of South America already however, which would have made the journey easier.
Regardless, I know the original paper said the admixture could be no more recent than 4, years ago. But neither paper has really looked into whether this Andaman-like ancestry could be explained by Polynesian admixture from what I can gather. In the post-Columbian world, there was apparently widespread outright depopulation in the Amazon. Witness, for example, that Papuan agriculturalists survived contact with Austronesians and later Westerners with minimal demographic effect. In contrast, despite having pigs and chickens, a lot of Polynesian groups had massive levels of death from disease upon contact with the West.
I would guess that immunodiversity plays a big role in resiliency — and the Amerinds were basically the human version of the Irish Potato Famine. Any group which had some outside admixture would be expected to be slightly more robust. And indeed, that seems to be what we see. The Na-Dene Navajo stopped collapsing demographically in the early s, and started expanding their population rapidly — while their Peublo neighbors languished. Similarly, It might be that any level of foreign admixture in the Amazon — whether ancient or of recent Polynesian provenance — would be selected for so long as some immune system genes came along for the ride.
If the admixture were from Polynesians, Polynesians would be a better match than Andamanese islanders. But that is not the case. By AD, both Bot15 and Bot17 were already deceased with a probability of 0. Every event generates lots of not-too-likely bits of data. If you want, you can focus on those not-too-likely bits of data and try explain the event away. Even easier, considering that some of the data will actually be incorrect. Francis Drake pillaged Spanish shipping on the South American coast in the 16th century.
If it refers to trade across the Pacific, it must surely be wrong too. When did the Manila galleons sail? I knew that statement about trade was wrong, but what matters is contact with Polynesia, and that was fairly late. The Spanish mission to Tahiti happened in and In multiple places, I have heard that the Portuguese made voyages that were essentially secret: supposedly Magellan had foreknowledge about the Straits from voyages of that kind. Even prairie rats get together in big conglomerations.
Follow The Wind: Tales From The Caddy Yard 9780684815756 Cómo Descargar Gratis el Libro ePub y PDF
Like lemmings. Lack of time-binding would mean the army skills were lost after a generation, but it strikes me as something that was invented, lost, reinvented, re-lost; like hominids and fire. The Gauls and the other Celts of Northern Europe are not at all comparable to primitive hunter-gatherers. As far as the Romans were concerned, the Celts and Gauls might as well been Hunter gatherers.
Follow the Whales Berengia (Siberia) to Tierra del Fuego, South America (Paperback)
They were not more advances as the Meso-Americans or the high civilations of South America. They were pretty much savage barbarians, and cannot compare to some Native Americans. Of course you are obviously biased for some reason. Brennus besieged the hill, and finally the Romans asked to ransom their city. Brennus demanded 1, pounds kg of gold and the Romans agreed to his terms.
The Romans complained to Brennus about the issue. This is also fairly plausible, particularly if the pseudo-Andamanese had some trait that made them selectively less fit than the main wave of Amerinds, causing a potentially higher level of initial introgression to decline over time. For example, suppose that the pseudo-Andamanese needed more salt and omega-3 in their diet to stay healthy than Amerinds as an adaptation to coastal fish eating living, and only a few people with pseudo-Andamanese descent were still living by the time that the selective fitness impairing genes had been purged from the gene pool.
Of course, this scenario is more than hypothetical. It is what happened in the case of Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture in modern humans. You seem to say that the Andamanese-ish only lived in South America. How much time before the Amerinds show up? Is it plausible that they did populate everything, but were completely supplanted everywhere else, while managed to contribute a little to the gene pool in the places that they were best adapted?
Why do you believe that the Andamanese-ish came by sea, rather than Beringia? Because you need to be a big game hunter to live in the Arctic? And then they would have wiped out the megafauna? Or because the final trace was in Brazil leading back to the previous question? If you came much earlier than the Amerindians, you had to to come by sea, because there was no ice-free corridor yet. The first Amerinds may well have used boats. Megafauna with no evolutionary experience of humans were exterminated every time modern humans showed up.
But you are admitting the Andamanese-ish as an exception to that. You put them in South America before the Amerinds, not causing extinctions. So why not spreading to North America not causing extinctions? But if they started on the Pacific coast, they must have been adequately adapted to that. They found an open niche, and did passably well, at least until a better competitor showed up. The real question is what was the problem or problems that prevented the Andamanese-ish from prospering like the Amerinds. The place was a paradise for the first arrivers. Far more so than in Asia or Europe where life had evolved to avoid hominid hunters.
Homo Erectus would have spread far and wide leaving behind evidence of stone tools. The only sea route that would be possible would be via the Beringian and Pacific Coast. No society on Earth had the maritime capacity necessary to cross the South Pacific until the Austronesians came along. Could the Andamanese-like component have come from an archaic proto-Andamanese or pre-Andamanese population living somewhere other than Australasia?
Could the lack of ecological dominance simply reflect a lack of immunological dominance? The Amerindian population itself has a very small inventory of genes. Any oceanic group probably had a very small population size. Who knows what those initial settlers were up against in terms of pathogens in a whole new world?
How long would it take to go from a beachcomber existence to driving megafaunal extinctions and was there really enough time to make the transition before the Amerinds arrived? If the expansion proceeded from the east coast rather than the west as improbable as that might be , might the discovery of the Amazon River have slowed the transition? Even if the spread was from the west, over the Andes, is there any chance that a riverine lifestyle along the Amazon held a lot more appeal to these earliest arrivals than a life on the plains?
The Andamanese-like component in question is highly diverged from the Andaman Island people. Probably by 20, years or more. The name only reflects the closest found relative, which is actually not close at all. It seems likely that the ancestors of all these groups developed some kind of coastal lifestyle with boats.
Only a few times did they abandon those boats to become land dwellers. Closerr than anyone else, anyhow. That is so weak. How many human skeletally inferenced hypotheses have been confirmed by ancient DNA? Greg mentioned three lines of evidence which support his inference. Yet in your reply to him, you focus on just one line of evidence. In fact, his own lines of evidence say that they are only the closest known relatives. But the relationship still dates back , years. Yes, and he gave three lines of evidence to support his inference. You chose to isolate the one line of evidence you believed to be the weakest and ignore the others.
Yes, so what? A sketchy line is still better than no line at all. So Greg has been careful about how he describes these people. If your point is that these proto-Andaman Islanders were not likely to have been anything like the Andaman Islanders we know today — or even like the Andaman Islanders we hypothesize about who lived seven thousand years ago — who cares?
Not all of them. Anyway, there are relict populations who share with Onge via admixture analysis e. Since the Negritos of Malaysia like the Semang are not insular do not live on islands you are mistaken. Greg made no such claim. His only point was that the sliver of DNA found in the area east of the Andes was more closely related to the Andaman Islanders than it is to any other group we see today. So stop nattering on in a blinkered way about trivialities when he is trying to make a broader point. And that we have zero clue where the full blooded ancestors of these Andaman-like people were ever living.
They are probably 50, years distant from the South American group. This was not a recent split. On the order of a half a percent.
Tierra del Fuego - Wikipedia
Has to be long enough after after the splits of various groups in Eurasia to be able share unique drift history with the Onge. This is absolutely laughable. More robustly, Temuan, Kensiu etc. Speakers of the Tupi languages apparently have the highest fraction of this Andamanese-like component and the Tupi urheimat is postulated to be in southwestern Brazil.
Greg might know. The whole altitude thing is the catch: could an Andamanese-like population have crossed? Are there enough valleys? Could merely making it across these mountains have been one of the factors that would have retarded population growth and inhibited megafaunal extinction? What did this part of the world look like when the Andamanese came? I like the information you provide, but you go too far with your inferences.
Just keep in perspective just how little we know, it seems to me that everybody looking at tiny tiny glimpses of our past jump to way too many conclusions. The Andamanese-like people were pushed aside very easily by the population that originated from Beringia. We know that much and not much more. There is a lot of lost history between today and 13, years ago. That is where the last pygmies and the last hunter gatherer groups hang on in Africa.
I would guess that the Andamanese had some beneficial genes for coping in the tropics that the Amerinds benefitted from. This may or may not be proven but Amerinds came from one of the coldest places on earth humans have ever successfully lived, Beringia during the last ice age. I am curious as to how these large Andean lakes fared during the last Ice Age. I would have assumed the whole region was high, dry and cold but apparently evidence suggests otherwise:.
Then, about 15, years ago, the Altiplano underwent a significant change. A dry era was launched, which continued for the next 2, years, causing Lake Titicaca to drop significantly. Estimate for the Han 7. Due to statistically significant asymmetry between relatedness of EHG Eastern European Hunter Gatherers to Han-Onge, even though this was not found in the earlier MA1 sample used for Ancient North Eurasian ANE, or Sibermen if you prefer , and particular when using one of the paleolithic European samples they now have in their modeling though there is a fuller set of paleolithic Europeans that this could be cross tested with in Fu et al Probably the earlier MA1 sample was divergent somehow in the ancestral tree from the ANE later in history that tended to leave descendants.
So with that in mind, you wonder what exactly it means for the Native Americans with the strongest ANE affinity, Karitiana Indians, to also have an extra Onge like affinity. A stronger affinity to both parts of the rough cline on which Han are on, then less affinity to the Han themselves.
So, that will be important in the next stage of refining their modeling of Native Americans and East Asians, and how exactly ANE and Onge-like South East Asian populations have differentially contributed to them. And than AG2.
Table of contents
Testing AG3 would be a priority. Well spotted. Perhaps extra Onge affinity in the Amerind population most related to MA-1 will be more related to population structure in Siberia than has been appreciated. I think it is more likely that one or two Andamanese type individuals showed up by boat in Berginia shortly before everyone moved out to the Americas and joined up with a tribe that happened to be at the vanguard ahead of everyone else in the migration and hence denied a chance to admix with them until they finally hit the end of the road and stopped. This pretty simple fluke scenario seems more plausible than inventing an entire mass migration and culture for which we have no other evidence.
Anyhow, it should fairly easy to check your silly scenario: one can do some some detailed analysis of the anomalous fraction of Amazonian DNA and eventually get better estimates of when and how many inviduals. If you read this blog, which you do, you might also remember what Doug Jones mentioned about linguist Joanna Nichols finding linguistic strata linking Australo-Melanesia and southern South America.
A Population History of the North American Indians
Because her own speculation is that the head-marked possessive noun phrases in some populations around the Pacific coast are because of a related linguistic history over 35, years old. By this standard, all languages in Eurasia could be grouped into obvious clusters. It is not convincing data. It is a correlation with a very small number of subjective data points. I doubt that any other serious linguist alive would give it any weight. In fact, in the last 15 years, none have. With all due respect, linguists have not exactly covered themselves with glory over the last 15 years.
If the Na-Dene arrived a mere or years ago, is it possible that they had hearsay knowledge of Chinese ideas such as the cyclical calendar, ideographic writing etc and reinvented them as they imagined them to be? Plenty of them HAVE writing. The highest frequency is We hear of trade, treaties, marriage alliances and Chinese politicians fleeing to exile among the Di. The Chinese version of the winged totem pole now build with stone is still very prominent, probably from the pre-historic proto populations,.
That said, I have no problem considering the scenario that there was an ANE-admixed group living somewhere in the range of modern Manchuria in the Mesolithic. The other branch migrates southward and intermixes with indigenous groups, forming the nexus of Proto-Sino-Tibetan. Comparative mythology seems to be an active field, especially wrt dragon. Currently there are hot debates about this paper,. Is that reflected in the folklore? This guy from Harvard seems to be attacking the dragon myth paper on genetic ground rather than cultural ground.
Upper Paleolithic Siberians have nothing to do with Indo Europeans 10,, years later, besides distantly shared ancestry. The same is true for Corded Ware. You see over-representation of Indo-European Y-chromosomes compared to their autosomal contribution in both southern Europe and India. The EEF accounts for the majority of autosomal ancestry in southern Europe, but the characteristic EEF y-chromosome haplotypes are almost gone. Conversely Scandinavia with high Yamnaya seems mostly dominated by haplogroup I which is of ambiguous origins.
True of Balkan regions too. The really dramatic outstripping of autosomal by y seems more Western generally, as a regional thing, than Southern generally. The most dramatic imbalances between y-dna R and Yamnaya component are in Spain. Could they have been fishers that followed the coast south? During the ice age the coast was a hundred miles underwater where I live. They are dredging up stuff like campsites now. The local Indians could support good sized towns just on the salmon, seals, whales etc. Some southeast asian fishers are still like that. If OoA went counter clockwise round the Himalayas, picked up some useful brain genes from Yetis in the far north which then flowed back the way they came all the way back to Africa then there would likely be some relics of the first population tide tucked away in various remote spots.
If an Andamanese-like population with DOS 1. If there was a back migration of people with DOS 2. But how did the Andaman-like group get to Brazil? Across the tropical Pacific and over the Andes? Or north around the kelp forest and back down? Or from Africa and across the Atlantic? All seem really implausible, both in the achievement of getting there and the lack of traces left in all of the regions between where they must have crossed.
In all due respect these are excellent analyses and all , I think you are missing the main point. This is a side track of a side track.
I was exaggerating the distance toward the Negrito side of the admixture, which carried the Denisovan admixture. When humans first crossed from Asia into Alaska, they eventually populated almost all of the Americas, all the way to Chile, Florida and even eastern Canada. What caused them to migrate so far? It's puzzling to think, they had no transport, not even horses, yet they spread out so far. I also wonder why so many primitive people stayed where it was so cold. So many people went south where it was warmer. Why did so many humans remain where it's freezing?
Is there a book not too hard to find of course that talks about how and why humans spread out so much in the Americas? People follow food. They follow seasons. It is not impossible to walk 4, miles in a year if you can feed yourself along the way. Last edited by Ruth4Truth; at PM.. Is it easy to sail in an ancient boat to the South America from Australia?
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth. Tierra del Fuego was populated by a group from Australia, archaeological evidence and, now, DNA, evidence have confirmed. From there, people migrated north into Brazil, and eventually, some of them made it to Central America, according to the DNA trail.
Also, Tom Dillehay, who did the work in Chile that came up with the 30,ooo yBP date, originally said he found evidence at the same or nearby site, dating back 45K years. It was so early epoch that there were still many Neanderthals. How could the ancient man arrive to the south part of the South America in this historical period? We can see only thousands miles of water. Hulsker They're believed to have arrived by boat.
Originally Posted by Hulsker Humans did not arrive in New Zealand until after AD. Aborigines Aborigines had no tradition of traveling in the open ocean. They did not receive dugout canoe technology until the past few centuries. Currents are irrelevant - there is zero possibility that the Americas were settled directly from New Zealand or Australia.
Was there a period when the landbridge theory was mostly accepted? It's what they taught us when we were kiddies. Originally Posted by Mircea. It's also known the the X-Haplogroup, based almost entirely in Alaska and northern Canada used boats. The principal deity of the Inuit was Sedna, a sea goddess, and there are many tales explaining how she created the various sea creatures, especially mammals like whales, narwhal, walrus and seals.
The "Land-Bridge Theory" is pretty much dead , as common sense would dictate, the area of the Bering Strait would have been heavily glaciated an impassable on foot. We obtained radiocarbon dates, pollen, macrofossils and metagenomic DNA from lake sediment cores in a bottleneck portion of the corridor.
We find evidence of steppe vegetation, bison and mammoth by approximately Our findings reveal that the first Americans, whether Clovis or earlier groups in unglaciated North America before Our chronology supports a habitable and traversable corridor by at least 13, cal y BP, just before the first appearance of Clovis technology in interior North America, and indicates that the corridor would not have been available for significantly earlier southward human dispersal.