PDA

View Full Version : Kennewick Man Was Native American



Angela
18-01-15, 16:48
Thanks to Dienekes for the heads up...

http://www.dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/01/kennewick-man-was-native-american.html

According to information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, preliminary genetic testing shows that Kennewick Man was indeed Native American, ending years of controversy.

This is the link to the original newspaper article:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2025488002_kennewickdnaxml.html

Dienekes' take on it:
The recent publication of the Kostenki-14 genome, which has been described as morphologically Australoid, but appears to be genetically European should make us wary of interpreting phenotypes of early specimens in terms of the much later human populations. In the case of Europeans, it seems that the Caucasoid genetic lineage existed even before full Caucasoid morphology had evolved (at least in some specimens of Upper Paleolithic Europeans, as others had clear Caucasoid morphology).

I would not be surprised if the same was true for Native Americans, that is, the typical morphology of recent Native Americans was not present in their earliest predecessors, who, nonetheless, were part of the same evolving lineage of humans in the Americas. The Anzick-1 genome from the Clovis culture and several mtDNA results have not really turned up anything "exotic" in ancient inhabitants of the Americas, so it seems that the hypothesis of recent Native Americans being descended from a wave of people that replaced earlier inhabitants is losing ground with each new discovery.

Here is the reconstruction:
http://media.tri-cityherald.com/smedia/2014/08/25/14/15/1bkJ3P.AuSt.13.jpg

I'm rather conflicted about using the Freedom of Information Act for this kind of thing. The scientists have a property interest in their work, and it would be better for everyone if the tests were completed before publication of the results.

Aberdeen
18-01-15, 20:07
Interesting, but I'll wait for the data before buying into any school of thought about Kennewick Man, who in any case was a single example and may not be typical. I doubt if most early Amerindians had a face that looked as European as that.

LeBrok
18-01-15, 20:30
Interesting, but I'll wait for the data before buying into any school of thought about Kennewick Man, who in any case was a single example and may not be typical. I doubt if most early Amerindians had a face that looked as European as that.
Consecutive waves of invaders from Asia changed their morphology somewhat. I think what they want to say is, that there was continuity from Kennewick man to modern Natives without replacement of population.

bicicleur
18-01-15, 22:21
Thanks to Dienekes for the heads up...

http://www.dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/01/kennewick-man-was-native-american.html

According to information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, preliminary genetic testing shows that Kennewick Man was indeed Native American, ending years of controversy.

This is the link to the original newspaper article:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2025488002_kennewickdnaxml.html

Dienekes' take on it:
The recent publication of the Kostenki-14 genome, which has been described as morphologically Australoid, but appears to be genetically European should make us wary of interpreting phenotypes of early specimens in terms of the much later human populations. In the case of Europeans, it seems that the Caucasoid genetic lineage existed even before full Caucasoid morphology had evolved (at least in some specimens of Upper Paleolithic Europeans, as others had clear Caucasoid morphology).

I would not be surprised if the same was true for Native Americans, that is, the typical morphology of recent Native Americans was not present in their earliest predecessors, who, nonetheless, were part of the same evolving lineage of humans in the Americas. The Anzick-1 genome from the Clovis culture and several mtDNA results have not really turned up anything "exotic" in ancient inhabitants of the Americas, so it seems that the hypothesis of recent Native Americans being descended from a wave of people that replaced earlier inhabitants is losing ground with each new discovery.

Here is the reconstruction:
http://media.tri-cityherald.com/smedia/2014/08/25/14/15/1bkJ3P.AuSt.13.jpg

I'm rather conflicted about using the Freedom of Information Act for this kind of thing. The scientists have a property interest in their work, and it would be better for everyone if the tests were completed before publication of the results.

he looks more like Christopher Columbus ;-)

JS Bach
18-01-15, 22:24
Sounds exciting. We finally hopefully will see the dna results after all these years, and have some more light shone on some of these early population movements into the Americas. I can’t wait to run it through the admixture calculators, and other online tests.

Angela
19-01-15, 01:18
he looks more like Christopher Columbus ;-)

Well, they've tried to make him everything else under the sun, so why not Native American?http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/grin.png

Seriously, maybe I should have explained that the reconstruction is from a physical anthropologist who published a book on the remains, not from Willerslev's group. Originally, there were some claims he was Caucasian; however, after more extensive x-rays and imaging, ( shades of the Oetzi analyses) the anthropologist stated that Kennewick Man most resembles the Ainu (and their ancestors the Jomon) and Polynesians.

I think the point is, as Dienekes pointed out, that the morphology of ancient people may be misleading as to ancestry....

holderlin
19-01-15, 07:52
I hope he had red hair, blue eyes, and a Y-Haplogroup that doesn't make any sense. Just to piss people off.

holderlin
19-01-15, 08:34
This would amuse me greatly

holderlin
19-01-15, 09:00
http://i.imgur.com/HgkOwcX.jpg

















Kennewick Bro

JS Bach
20-01-15, 03:40
Any predictions for the Ydna and mtdna haplogroups of Kennewick man?

I'll go with C1 for mtdna and I guess Q-M3 for the Y. That's just because I read that researchers performing the DNA analysis “feel that Kennewick has normal, standard Native American genetics,” Otherwise, I'd like to say X2a and R1b-M269.

Nanda gikendaan
25-01-15, 23:45
Well, back in 1999 they said his DNA was "D". But they attributed that finding to contamination.

So if he has a different haplogroup that will be proven true.

JS Bach
31-01-15, 05:43
Well, back in 1999 they said his DNA was "D". But they attributed that finding to contamination.

So if he has a different haplogroup that will be proven true.

I think he may well belong to D. Three of the other ancient Native American skeletons belonged to D: Anzick1 (12,500 ybp); Paleo-Eskimo from Greenland (4,000 ybp); and the teenage girl found in the underwater cave in Mexico (13,000 ybp). (although some people take issue with Anzick1's date)

Also, James Chatters has said: “The result from Kennewick is the same one we’re getting from the other early individuals,”

I'll still go with saying C1, though.

holderlin
19-06-15, 00:08
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature14625.html#affil-auth

Haven't even read the abstract.

JS Bach
19-06-15, 05:05
Any predictions for the Ydna and mtdna haplogroups of Kennewick man?

I'll go with C1 for mtdna and I guess Q-M3 for the Y. That's just because I read that researchers performing the DNA analysis “feel that Kennewick has normal, standard Native American genetics,” Otherwise, I'd like to say X2a and R1b-M269.

So I was right about the Q-M3 but wrong about the mtdna. Although I did say I'd like to say X2a: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature14625.html#ref24 Very interesting paper to ponder.

The closest match for the Y seems to be in NorthWestern Europe (Q-L804), and the closest match for the mtdna seems to be Europe as well, along with the Middle East and North Africa (the closer branches of X2). Although the Principal Components plot shows the closer matches being in Siberian populations, rather than European populations. And the Algonquin tribes are among the closest matches using other statistics.

Also of note is his basal position of X2a on the X2a branch (negative for X2a1 and X2a2.) This suggests that maybe X2a isn't that much older than him (8,500 ybp). And if that turns out to be the case then maybe R1b-M269 could be old enough to have come over with X2.

Also interesting were the EDAR mutations found in some of the 8,000 ybp samples in Motala Sweden. I wonder if they matched Kennewick Man.

holderlin
19-06-15, 09:16
So I was right about the Q-M3 but wrong about the mtdna. Although I did say I'd like to say X2a: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature14625.html#ref24 Very interesting paper to ponder.

The closest match for the Y seems to be in NorthWestern Europe (Q-L804), and the closest match for the mtdna seems to be Europe as well, along with the Middle East and North Africa (the closer branches of X2). Although the Principal Components plot shows the closer matches being in Siberian populations, rather than European populations. And the Algonquin tribes are among the closest matches using other statistics.

Also of note is his basal position of X2a on the X2a branch (negative for X2a1 and X2a2.) This suggests that maybe X2a isn't that much older than him (8,500 ybp). And if that turns out to be the case then maybe R1b-M269 could be old enough to have come over with X2.

Also interesting were the EDAR mutations found in some of the 8,000 ybp samples in Motala Sweden. I wonder if they matched Kennewick Man.

Yeah you called it mang. Interesting about his mtDNA/age in relation to M269, but I think there's a huge proximity hurdle to overcome here during the time in question. R was and is highly dispersed though, and M269 looks to have branched off in the steppe. L804 looks to have come to Europe far later with Altaic peoples in the 1st centuries AD, but the EDAR mut in Motala right near the region of highest modern L804 in Europe is really interesting. Although the mutations weren't present at the frequencies of East Asians, and of course Motala was I2 and all WHG/SHG. We're also ignoring the fact that a small group of M269 should have IEanized all of North America, introducing horses, cattle, red hair, and bronze.

In spite of my wish of R1a autosomally indistinguishable from modern day West Africans, with red hair, this is really good for the effort. Now remaining Native Americans will be encouraged to get tested so they can be proud of which ancient ancestor they most resemble and we'll learn more about the peopling of the Americas in the process, which little more than a decade ago was thought unknowable. Absolutely fascinating.

In a no doubt futile and thus pointless attempt to theorize proto-language groups: It looks like Kennewick was some sort of proto-Salish, which given the additional affinity to Algic speaking people would imply an upstream proto-Salig :wary2:. I would have guessed Penutian, but KM lived on a diet nearly entirely composed of Marine biomass, which fits perfectly with that the Salish culture subsisted primarily on a marine economy. The marine life was so abundant in the Puget Sound area that the Salish had evolved a highly complex social stratification, complete with what looked an awful lot like a caste system, without farming. This speaks to the value of the region, and how early this was discovered if Kennewick does represent continuity in the region, and it really looks like that. The southern correlations make sense too, because the easiest path to South America is along the Pacific Ocean. Looks more mayan than Aztec, and Uto-Aztecan came later from the great basin, which is all consistent at least. Hmm

JS Bach
05-07-15, 02:44
The southern correlations make sense too, because the easiest path to South America is along the Pacific Ocean.

According to this page: http://www.y-str.org/p/ancient-dna.html Kennewick Man belongs to Q-M199, which is downstream of Q-M3 and is only found in South America.
I took a sneak look at some admixture runs of Kennewick Man from a link on his page. There were four Dodecad v3 runs made, and I averaged them. Those averaged results, displayed here with Anzick 1 were:



Dodecad v3


Kennewick Man Average




Anzick 1




East_European


4.26




8.58




West_European


17.72




10.70




Mediterranean


0.07




-




Neo_African


0.40




0.63




West_Asian


1.51




-




South_Asian


2.56




8.79




Northeast_Asian


46.45




48.67




Southeast_Asian


22.59




21.66




East_African


0.00




-




Southwest_Asian


0.07




-




Northwest_African


2.91




-




Palaeo_African


1.48




0.94





The Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian results look close, as do the Neo-African and Palaeo-African. However, the West European, East European and South Asian results look significantly different. Kennewick Man looks more West European. I wonder if haplogroup X has something to do with that. The recent ancient East European results that have mtdna C (e.g. the Mesolithic Karelia one) are showing a sizable Amerindian component in some of the calculators. I know these algorithms can guess at some of these categories if they don’t have enough of the more recently derived SNPs, but the difference in the table here still looks marked to me. I also hope they followed an unbiased procedure in discarding SNPs they thought were due to contamination. If they discarded SNPs they thought were too European, that might have deflated the European component. I’m not saying that that happened though.

JS Bach
01-08-15, 03:07
The autosomal DNA sample from Kennewick Man is available on Gedmatch.com as Kit Number: F999970. I ran the admixture results there for several different calculators and got the following results:

For the Eurogenes Hunter_Gatherer vs. Farmer Admixture Proportions, it picks up 3.84% Mediterranean Farmer DNA in Kennewick Man. This is absent in Anzick 1, the Palaeo-Eskimo from Greenland, and the Mal’ta boy.



Population
Kennewick
Man
Anzick 1
Palaeo-
Eskimo
Mal'ta
Boy


Anatolian Farmer
-
1.23%
0.12%
-


Baltic Hunter Gatherer
7.87%
3.27%
10.46%
51.08%


Middle Eastern Herder
-
-
0.18%
-


East Asian Farmer
3.77%
2.37%
10.77%
-


South American Hunter Gatherer
65.34%
84.01%
9.11%
19.97%


South Asian Hunter Gatherer
-
-
3.38%
25.02%


North Eurasian Hunter Gatherer
15.28%
7.91%
59.44%
3.24%


East African Pastoralist
-
-
2.39%
-


Oceanian Hunter Gatherer
0.58%
0.69%
-
0.43%


Mediterranean Farmer
3.84%
-
-
-


Pygmy Hunter Gatherer
-
0.48%
-
0.25%


Bantu Farmer
3.30%
-
4.16%
-


However, this Mediterranean Farmer component doesn’t seem to appear in Eurogenes15 or the Dodecad v3 or K12b calculators.


Dodecad v3 shows Kennewick Man as having 9% more West European than Anzick 1, and 1% less East European.





Dodecad v3




Kennewick Man




Anzick 1




Palaeo-Eskimo






East_European




7.62




8.58




5.25






West_European




19.75




10.70




7.87






Mediterranean






0.11






Neo_African




2.3




0.63




3.61






West_Asian









South_Asian




6.63




8.79




3.4






Northeast_Asian




44.83




48.67




56.39






Southeast_Asian




18.05




21.66




18.43






East_African






1.63






Southwest_Asian









Northwest_African






0.38






Palaeo_African




0.82




0.94




2.93






This result looks fairly consistent with the Eurogenes 15 and Dodecad K12b calculators as well.



Eurogenes15
Kennewick
Man
Anzick 1


North_Sea
2.77%
0.95%


Atlantic
7.20%
0.14%


Baltic
0.53%
0.08%


Eastern_Euro
6.58%
3.52%


West_Med
-
-


West_Asian
-
-


East_Med
-
-


Red_Sea
-
-


South_Asian
-
-


Southeast_Asian
0.16%
1.63%


Siberian
10.06%
4.58%


Amerindian
68.90%
88.51%


Oceanian
-
0.34%


Northeast_African
-
0.26%


Sub-Saharan
3.79%
-







Dodecad K12b
Kennewick
Man
Anzick 1


Gedrosia
8.51%
7.83%


Siberian
31.26%
33.51%


Northwest_African
-
-


Southeast_Asian
4.74%
6.32%


Atlantic_Med
-
-


North_European
24.14%
17.80%


South_Asian
2.58%
4.41%


East_African
-
-


Southwest_Asian
-
-


East_Asian
26.64%
29.05%


Caucasus
-
-


Sub_Saharan
2.13%
1.08%









Maybe Kennewick Man’s mtdna X2 crossed the Atlantic some 11,000-or-so ybp and brought along with it this West European component / other similarly-named components.

MOESAN
01-08-15, 17:11
Some schools of thinkings here too? but to criticize and metrics and auDNA:
1- we share by force some ancient non mutated DNA with the whole humanity, current as ancient (we share a lot also with animals!)
2- concerning metrics, almost ALL the valuable anthropologists of past knew that it is roughly said among 'europoids' that the most of ancient cranial features have been kept with; the most "brutal"like 'europoids' show the most of "family air" with 'veddoids' and 'australoids', except the nose and somewhat the prognatism evolution; a German scholar I forgot his name call that the 'median ligne' of human evolution; black subsaharian African show a lot of new features compared to past, as 'east-asian' do, on an other direction; I'm not amazed superficial analysis of cranial features of Kennewick concluded he was 'europoid' (in America it was almost predictible: complex of the colonizator).
the same was believed in ancient time for Ainoos; as Ainoos, Kennewick would be an ancient form of east-asians physically less evolved (small number?). That doesn't prove Kennewick is part of the lignage which gave birth to ALL Amerindians... Things are on the move about the matter.
by evidence the most ancient traits kept by every branch of humanity are partly common, no surprise; phoenotypical traits as well as DNA;
&: concerning Kostenki14, I said it seemed more 'cromagnoid' than 'australoid' to me; it was a bet(lack of several angles helas) - rather less "primitive" than most of 'combe-capelloid-brünnoid' types. this reconstitution of the Kennewick seems a bit biased: the free jutting to high, and hte lack of muscles on the jaw, too narrow for a 'life' pictures concerning a man of these periods (personal thought, without guarantee).

arvistro
01-08-15, 17:19
I noticed Gedrosia and lack of Caucasus in both samples.

Hauteville
01-08-15, 18:22
He got a significant Caucasoid DNA on autosomal results.

Paleoguy
01-08-15, 19:00
If Kennewick man had European admixture, it could only have come through Solutrean people. The Solutreans Clovis ancestors were mostly wiped out by Kennewick's man time. But if such a migration did occur, the best genetic mixture to detect such presence would be WHG not present day Europeans, who carry much Eurasians and Neolithic DNA. Can someone do a WHG or better La Brana comparison?

Tomenable
02-08-15, 12:24
He got a significant Caucasoid DNA on autosomal results.

^ His ancestors came from areas between Lake Baikal, Altai Mountains and Yenisei River, which were inhabited by Caucasoids:

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/11/ancient-dna-from-malta-and-afontova-gora-a-full-account/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4105016/

https://www.academia.edu/7110954/Upper_Palaeolithic_Siberian_genome_reveals_dual_an cestry_of_Native_Americans-_Supplemental


(...) This suggests that populations related to contemporary Western Eurasians had a more north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought. Furthermore, we estimate that 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from this ancient population. (...) Gene flow from the MA-1 [Mal'ta] lineage into Native American ancestors could explain why several crania from the First Americans have been reported as bearing morphological characteristics that do not resemble those of east Asians2, 13. Sequencing of another south-central Siberian, Afontova Gora-2 dating to approximately 17,000 years ago14, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures as MA-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum. Our findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans. (...)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4105016/bin/nihms583477f1.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF1UO0-cHLs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF1UO0-cHLs

Tomenable
02-08-15, 12:30
Mongoloids are defined by mutation EDAR 370A, which evolved perhaps some 30,000 years ago:

93% of all Han Chinese have it, and this mutation is believed to be responsible for many of typical East Asian features:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectodysplasin_A_receptor


(...) is thought to be responsible for a number of differences between these populations, including the thicker hair, more numerous sweat glands, smaller breasts, and dentition characteristic of East Asians.[5] (...) The 370A mutation arose in humans approximately 30,000 years ago, and now is found in 93% of Han Chinese and in the majority of people in nearby Asian populations. (...)

Interestingly, many of Scandinavian hunter-gatherers had this Mongoloid mutation, implying a prehistoric gene flow from East Asia:

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/03/13/016477


(...) The derived allele [370A] in the Motala samples lies on the same haplotype as in modern East Asians (Extended Data Figure 4) implying a shared origin. The statistic f4 (Yoruba, Scandinavian hunter-gatherers, Han, Onge Andaman Islanders) is significantly negative (Z=-3.9) implying gene flow between the ancestors of Scandinavian hunter-gatherers and Han so this shared haplotype is likely the result of ancient gene flow between groups ancestral to these two populations. (...)

If you find any Mongoloid features in Swedes or Poles, they are likely from those prehistoric Motala-like (SHG) hunters:

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2012/04/prehistoric-scandinavians-genetically.html

And not from Medieval Mongol invasions of Europe - "No Mongolian admixture in Poland":

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2013/03/no-mongolian-admixture-in-poland.html

Tomenable
02-08-15, 15:21
His ancestors came from areas between Lake Baikal, Altai Mountains and Yenisei River
^ Those were these two Ice Age refugia (people from those refugia, later migrated both to America, and to Western Eurasia):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4869-Revisiting-the-issue-of-quot-Ice-Age-refugia-quot-in-the-context-of-WHG-SHG-EHG-ancestries/page4


The important thing that we have learned from the recent spate of ancient DNA results is that ANE and Y-DNA R did not come from an ice age refuge in Europe. The refuge was in Siberia. Any hunter-gatherer in Europe with an element of ANE had ancestors from Siberia. This includes EHG and SHG. Foragers with ANE and Y-DNA R did not arrive in Europe until long after the Ice Age maximum.

I hope this map makes matters clear:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5340&d=1438172427

I should have added ANE to Y-DNA R in my key.

(...)

I look at DNA samples in their cultural context.

The regions I outlined in red contain hunter-gatherer sites that survived the LGM. These refuge areas were relatively protected in the Ice Age. The coniferous forest refuge near Lake Baikal includes the Mal'ta site (24,000 years ago) with a boy carrying ANA and Y-DNA R. Early pottery was present in the Lake Baikal region - the type that arrived in the Samara region on the Volga c. 7000 BC.

The refuge around the upper Yenisei river was sheltered by mountains. It includes the site at Afontova Gora, with a male carrying ANE (17,000 years ago). This site had pressure blade-making technology. This complex technique was most probably handed down within families and so would have spread by migration. Like pottery, it arrived between the Urals and the Caspian in the Mesolithic. It also reached Lapland by a more northerly route about 5836 BC.

The major barrier was the expanded Caspian, which butted up against the Urals, as David Anthony pointed out in The Horse, The Wheel and Language. It was not completely impassible, but it seems that the bands of hunter-gatherers who clustered around the Yenisei and Lake Baikal were more tempted to roam from their refuge after the climate improved.
It seems to me people are a bit resistant to all the evidence pointing to R not being anywhere in Europe until the Mesolithic. As you note, the evidence is for refugia in south-central Siberia/Altai and thereabouts as where both R and Q wintered out the LGM. Due to archaeological considerations and the huge geographical gap between that part of Asia and the Gravettians in Europe, I certainly feel R1 couldnt be in two places at the same time during the LGM. AFAIK evidence of contact between east-central Siberia/Altai and Europe is absent (we all looked hard for it) before and during the LGM and indeed until after the Younger Dryas IMO.
Even though the art of the culture that the Mal'ta boy belonged to is different from the true Gravettian art of Europe I still find it interesting that the Mal'ta boy belongs to mtDNA haplogroup U just like the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Europe although of a different subclade. Haplogroup U sure seems to have spread far and wide very early on.

Paleoguy
02-08-15, 18:48
If X2a came from the Atlantic with a Solutrean migration than why isn't anyone testing the Kennewick man for any WHG ancestry?

Paleoguy
02-08-15, 19:39
JS Bach, if you want to test the Atlantic hypothesis of X2a, why aren't you looking if his autosomal DNA has any WHG. The Pal eolithic population of Iberia and France would have had WHG like population 20,000 years ago, not the modern stuff.

JS Bach
02-08-15, 22:19
Afontova Gora 2 was 45% West European on Dodecad v3, and the Mal'ta boy was 35% West European there. What was West European doing there anyway? Interesting question. Afontova Gora 2 also had 20% Gedrosia and the Mal'ta boy had 25% Gedrosia. So I think those West European and Gedrosia components are related. How come Anzick 1 had 9% less West European and only less than 1% less Gedrosia than Kennewick Man though is a puzzle. (Kennewick Man had 8.51% Gedrosia and Anzick 1 had 7.83% Gedrosia.) Maybe the portion of Kennewick Man's genome that came with mtdna X2 came with a population that was high in West European and relatively low in Gedrosia -- much like the Ancient West European Hunter Gatherers.

Tomenable
02-08-15, 23:24
What was West European doing there anyway?

Originating, perhaps ??? :grin:

You should ask Dienekes Pontikos about this because it's his calculator. These calculators are using their own artificially constructed categories and comparing similarities. For example in Eurogenes K19, Mal'ta boy scored almost 33% Lithuanian. As for Gedrosia, IMO it should not be separated from Caucasus (separating them leads to impossible results, like for example one group scoring two-digit Gedrosian and almost none Caucasian, while neighbouring group scoring almost no Gedrosian and two-digit Caucasian):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31452-Gedrosian-Caucasian-a-single-admixture

http://abload.de/img/malboy_k19qyzbt.png

I can see that massive migration of mixed Paleolithic Lithuanian-Chipewyans into Siberia! :grin: :laughing:

In reality, however, it was the other way around:



So ANE is an ancient Component which compromises mostly North European, Caucasus_Gedrosia, Amerindian and some ASI genes.
That is the wrong way around. ANE is an ancient component which has contributed to various modern populations, including Amerindian, European and IE speakers outside Europe. When we only had the modern populations to judge from, it was anybody's guess where certain elements in ADMIXTURE actually came from. Now we have a Palaeolithic sample from Siberia (MA1) = ANE, some Mesolithic samples from Europe = WHG, and some early farmer samples from Europe = EEF, which we can deduce are not 100% Near Eastern early Neolithic in origin, but part WHG and part Near Eastern early Neolithic, as mixture had taken place in Europe.
Also if you use Eurogenes 15, then Mal'ta boy scores 38% Eastern European, 7% Baltic, 20% South Asian, 19% Amerindian and 16% North Sea. Does it mean, that Mal'ta boy's ancestors came from Europe, South Asia and America? NO! It means that his descendants went to those places. So we should better not confuse the sink with the spout! :cool-v: :good_job:

Tomenable
02-08-15, 23:50
Here some new paper about Native Americans (the picture is getting more and more complex and confusing!):

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/07/20/science.aab3884.full


How and when the Americas were populated remains contentious. Using ancient and modern genome-wide data, we find that the ancestors of all present-day Native Americans, including Athabascans and Amerindians, entered the Americas as a single migration wave from Siberia no earlier than 23 thousand years ago (KYA), and after no more than 8,000-year isolation period in Beringia. Following their arrival to the Americas, ancestral Native Americans diversified into two basal genetic branches around 13 KYA, one that is now dispersed across North and South America and the other is restricted to North America. Subsequent gene flow resulted in some Native Americans sharing ancestry with present-day East Asians (including Siberians) and, more distantly, Australo-Melanesians. Putative ‘Paleoamerican’ relict populations, including the historical Mexican Pericúes and South American Fuego-Patagonians, are not directly related to modern Australo-Melanesians as suggested by the Paleoamerican Model.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature14895.html


Genetic studies have consistently indicated a single common origin of Native American groups from Central and South America1, 2, 3, 4. However, some morphological studies have suggested a more complex picture, whereby the northeast Asian affinities of present-day Native Americans contrast with a distinctive morphology seen in some of the earliest American skeletons, which share traits with present-day Australasians (indigenous groups in Australia, Melanesia, and island Southeast Asia)5, 6, 7, 8. Here we analyse genome-wide data to show that some Amazonian Native Americans descend partly from a Native American founding population that carried ancestry more closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders than to any present-day Eurasians or Native Americans. This signature is not present to the same extent, or at all, in present-day Northern and Central Americans or in a ~12,600-year-old Clovis-associated genome, suggesting a more diverse set of founding populations of the Americas than previously accepted.

About possible Australo-Melanesian admixture:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/07/20/science.aab3884.full.pdf


The data presented here are consistent with a single ini-tial migration of all Native Americans and with later gene flow from sources related to East Asians and, more distant-ly, Australo-Melanesians. From that single migration, there was a diversification of ancestral Native Americans leading to the formation of ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ branches, which appears to have taken place ca. 13 KYA within the Americas. This split is consistent with the patterns of unip-arental genomic regions of mtDNA haplogroup X and some Y chromosome C haplotypes being present in northern, but not southern, populations in the Americas (18, 62). This di-versification event coincides roughly with the opening of habitable routes along the coastal and the interior corridors into unglaciated North America some 16 KYA and 14 KYA, respectively (63, 64), suggesting a possible role of one or both these routes in the isolation and subsequent dispersal of Native Americans across the continent.

We found that some American populations, including the Aleutian Islanders, Surui, and Athabascans are closer to Australo-Melanesians compared to other Native Americans, such as North American Ojibwa, Cree and Algonquin, and the South American Purepecha, Arhuaco and Wayuu (fig. S10). The Surui are, in fact, one of closest Native American populations to East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, the latter including Papuans, non-Papuan Melanesians, Solo-mon Islanders, and South East Asian hunter-gatherers such as Aeta (fig. S10). We acknowledge that this observation is based on the analysis of a small fraction of the whole ge-nome and SNP chip genotype datasets, especially for the Aleutian Islander data that is heavily masked due to recent admixture with Europeans (28), and that the trends in the data are weak.

Nonetheless, if it proves correct, these results suggest there may be a distant Old World signal related to Australo-Melanesians and East Asians in some Native Americans. The widely scattered and differential affinity of Native Americans to the Australo-Melanesians, ranging from a strong signal in the Surui to much weaker signal in north-ern Amerindians such as Ojibwa, points to this gene flow occurring after the initial peopling by Native American an-cestors.

However, how this signal may have ultimately reached South America remains unclear. One possible means is along a northern route via the Aleutian Islanders, previously found to be closely related to the Inuit (39), who have a rela-tively greater affinity to East Asians, Oceanians and Den-isovan than Native Americans in both whole genome and SNP chip genotype data-based D-tests (table S10 and figs. S10 and S11). On the basis of archaeological evidence and mtDNA data from ancient and modern samples, the Aleu-tian Islands are hypothesized to have been peopled as early as ca. 9 KYA by ‘Paleo-Aleuts’ who were succeeded by the ‘Neo-Aleuts’, with present-day Aleutian Islanders potentially resulting from admixture between these two populations (52, 53). Perhaps their complex genetic history included in-put from a population related to Australo-Melanesians through an East Asian continental route, and this genomic signal might have been subsequently transferred to parts of the Americas, including South America, through past gene flow events (Fig. 1). Evidence for this gene flow is supported by diCal2.0 and MSMC analyses showing a weak but recent gene flow into South Americans from populations related to present-day Northeast Asians (Koryak) (Fig. 2C and table S11C), who might be considered a proxy for the related Aleu-tian Islanders.

The detection of an Australo-Melanesian genetic signal in the Americas, however subtle, returns the discussion to the Paleoamerican model, which hypothesizes, on the basis of cranial morphology, that two temporally and source-distinct populations colonized the Americas. The earlier population reportedly originated in Asia in the Late Pleisto-cene and gave rise to both Paleoamericans and present-day Australo-Melanesians, whose shared cranial morphological attributes are presumed to indicate their common ancestry (23). The Paleoamericans were, in turn, thought to have been largely replaced by ancestors of present-day Amerindi-ans, whose crania resemble modern East Asians and who are argued to be descendants of later arriving Mongoloid populations (14, 23, 26, 54). The presence of Paleoamericans is inferred primarily from ancient archaeological specimens in North and South America, and a few relict populations of more recent age, which include the extinct Pericúes and Fuego-Patagonians (24, 25, 55).

The Paleoamerican hypothesis predicts that these groups should be genetically closer to Australo-Melanesians than other Amerindians. Previous studies of mtDNA and Y chro-mosome data obtained from Fuego-Patagonian and Paleo-american skeletons have identified haplogroups similar to those of modern Native Americans (55–57). Although these results indicate some shared maternal and paternal ancestry with contemporary Native Americans, uniparental markers can be misleading when drawing conclusions about the de-mographic history of populations. To conclusively identify the broader population of ancestors who may have contrib-uted to the Paleoamerican gene pool, autosomal genomic data are required.

We, therefore, sequenced 17 ancient individuals affiliated to the now-extinct Pericúes from Mexico and Fuego-Patagonians from Chile and Argentina (28), who, on the basis of their distinctive skull morphologies, are claimed to be relicts of Paleoamericans (23, 27, 58, 59). Additionally, we sequenced two pre-Columbian mummies from northern Mexico (Sierra Tarahumara) to serve as morphological con-trols, since they are expected to fall within the range of Na-tive American morphological cranial variation (28). We found that the ancient samples cluster with other Native American groups and are outside the range of Oceanian ge-netic variation (28) (Fig. 5 and figs. S32, S33, and S34). Simi-larly, outgroup f3 statistics (47) reveal low shared genetic ancestry between the ancient samples and Oceanians (28) (Figs. S36, S37), and genome-based and masked SNP chip genotype data-based D-statistics (46, 47) show no evidence for gene flow from Oceanians into the Pericúes or Fuego-Patagonians (28) (fig. S39).

As the Paleoamerican model is based on cranial mor-phology (23, 27, 58, 59), we also measured craniometric data for the ancient samples and assessed their phenotypic affin-ities to supposed Paleoamericans, Amerindians and world-wide populations (28). The results revealed that the analyzed Fuego-Patagonians showed closest craniometric affinity to Arctic populations and the Paleoamericans, while the analyzed female Pericúes showed closest craniometric affinities to populations from North America, the Arctic re-gion and Northern Japan (table S15). More importantly, our analyses demonstrated that the presumed ancestral ancient Paleoamerican reference sample from Lagoa Santa, Brazil (24) had closest affinities to Arctic and East Asian popula-tions (table S15). Consequently, for the Fuego-Patagonians, the female Pericúes and the Lagoa Santa Paleoamerican sample, we were not able to replicate previous results (24) that report close similarity of Paleoamerican and Australo-Melanesian cranial morphologies. We note that male Pericúes samples displayed more craniometric affinities with populations from Africa and Australia relative to the female individuals of their population (fig. S41). The results of analyses based on craniometric data are, thus, highly sen-sitive to sample structure and the statistical approach and data filtering used (51). Our morphometric analyses suggest that these ancient samples are not true relicts of a distinct migration, as claimed, and hence do not support the Paleo-american model. Similarly, our genomic data also provide no support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas.

And from the second study:

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/07/2015/genetic-studies-link-indigenous-peoples-in-the-amazon-and-australasia


The team named the mysterious ancestor Population Y, after the Tupí word for ancestor, “Ypykuéra.”

Reich, Skoglund and colleagues propose that Population Y and First Americans came down from the ice sheets to become the two founding populations of the Americas.

“We don’t know the order, the time separation or the geographical patterns,” said Skoglund.

Researchers do know that the DNA of First Americans looked similar to that of Native Americans today. Population Y is more of a mystery.

“About 2 percent of the ancestry of Amazonians today comes from this Australasian lineage that’s not present in the same way elsewhere in the Americas,” said Reich.

However, that doesn’t establish how much of their ancestry comes from Population Y. If Population Y were 100 percent Australasian, that would indeed mean they contributed 2 percent of the DNA of today’s Amazonians. But if Population Y mixed with other groups such as the First Americans before they reached the Americas, the amount of DNA they contributed to today’s Amazonians could be much higher—up to 85 percent.

To answer that question, researchers would need to sample DNA from the remains of a person who belonged to Population Y. Such DNA hasn’t been obtained yet. One place to look might be in the skeletons of early Native Americans whose skulls some researchers say have Australasian features. The majority of these skeletons were found in Brazil.

From the first study again:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/07/20/science.aab3884.full.pdf


Fig. 1. Origins and population history of Native Americans. (A) Our results show that the ancestors of all present-day Native Americans, including Amerindians and Athabascans, derived from a single migration wave into the Americas (purple), separate from the Inuit (green). This migration from East Asia occurred no later than 23 KYA and is in agreement with archaeological evidence from sites such as Monte Verde (50). A split between the northern and southern branches of Native Americans occurred ca. 13 KYA, with the former comprising Athabascans and northern Amerindians and the latter consisting of Amerindians in northern North America and Central and South America including the Anzick-1 individual (5). There is an admixture signal between Inuit and Athabascans and some northern Amerindians (yellow line); however, the gene flow direction is unresolved due to the complexity of the admixture events (28). Additionally, we see a weak signal related to Australo-Melanesians in some Native Americans, which may have been mediated through East Asians and Aleutian Islanders (yellow arrows). Also shown is the Mal’ta gene flow into Native American ancestors some 23 KYA (yellow arrow) (4). It is currently not possible for us to ascertain the exact geographical locations of the depicted events; hence, the positioning of the arrows should not be considered a reflection of these. B. Admixture plot created on the basis of TreeMix results (fig. S5) shows that all Native Americans form a clade, separate from the Inuit, with gene flow between some Native Americans and the North American Arctic. The number of genome-sequenced individuals included in the analysis is shown in brackets.

Siberians (similar to West Eurasians) and East Asians ("Mongoloids") contributed to colonization of the Americas:

http://i59.tinypic.com/5bsn46.jpg


Fig. 5. The Paleoamerican model. (A) Principal Component Analysis plot of 19 ancient samples combined with a worldwide reference panel, including 1,823 individuals from (6). Our samples plot exclusively with American samples. For plots with other reference panels consisting of Native American populations, see fig. S32. Population structure in the ancient Pericú, Mexican mummy and Fuego-Patagonian individuals from this study. Ancestry proportions are shown when assuming six ancestral populations (K = 6). The top bar shows the ancestry proportions of the 19 ancient individuals, Anzick-1 (5), and two present-day Native American genomes from this study (Huichol and Aymara). The plot at the bottom illustrates the ancestry proportions for 1,823 individuals from (6). Our samples show primarily Native American (ivory, >92%) and Siberian (red, ca. 5%) ancestry. For the plot with K=13, see fig. S33.

http://i62.tinypic.com/ra7tbq.jpg

============================

And here is the newly discovered piece - Australo-Melanesian contribution to Native Americans:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/images/nature14895-f1.jpg

[B]This Australo-Melanesian component is only present in native South Americans, not in North Americans:

Amazon Indians such as the Karitana have the highest level of this component:


We found that some American populations, including
the Aleutian Islanders, Surui, and Athabascans are closer to
Australo-Melanesians compared to other Native Americans,
such as North American Ojibwa, Cree and Algonquin, and
the South American Purepecha, Arhuaco and Wayuu (fig.
S10). The Surui are, in fact, one of closest Native American
populations to East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, the
latter including Papuans, non-Papuan Melanesians, Solomon
Islanders, and South East Asian hunter-gatherers such
as AetaWe found that some American populations, including
the Aleutian Islanders, Surui, and Athabascans are closer to
Australo-Melanesians compared to other Native Americans,
such as North American Ojibwa, Cree and Algonquin, and
the South American Purepecha, Arhuaco and Wayuu (fig.
S10). The Surui are, in fact, one of closest Native American
populations to East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, the
latter including Papuans, non-Papuan Melanesians, Solomon
Islanders, and South East Asian hunter-gatherers such as Aeta

And a comment from Tamilgangster from Anthrogenica:


Phenotypically speaking Amazon Indians show very strong resemblance to SE asian populations, North American Indians who lack the paleoamerican Admixture though have a completely different phenotype.

Where does ANE fit into this?
ANE mixed into the population 23KYA during the native american split from East Asians. This predated the divergence between Northern and Southern Groups 13kya. This means that ANE levels should be constant and the main factor that distinguishes ANE level would be how mixed they are with paleoamericans.

This Means that North American Tribes should score more ANE, but on Eurogenes K7 South American Tribes, score more ANE. THe reason for this is that the non East Asian component from Karitiana is used as an ANE proxy. Karitiana have one of the highest levels of Paleoamerican component, therefore much of the oceanian like admixture found in Paleoamericans is showing up as ANE on other test. Based on this its likely that the high levels of ANE in south asians is due to noise from ASI and also that much of the ANE/EHG found in Europe, siberia, and central asia is getting unnoticed.

JS Bach
03-08-15, 00:59
Originating, perhaps ??? :grin:



Yes, some of West European did originate there, it looks like. Maybe, or even perhaps probably, most of it did. The Atlantic component in Eurogenes15 looks pretty indigenous to Europe to me, though.

Interestingly though, Kennewick Man has 7.2% Atlantic in Eurogenes15; whereas Anzick 1 has 0.14%.

Also, in the Eurogenes_ANE K7 calculator, Kennewick Man has 16.27% of the Western Hunter-Gatherer/Unknown Hunter-Gatherer component, while Anzick 1 just has 5.15%.



Population
Kennewick Man
Anzick 1


ANE
29.12%
34.01%


ASE
-
3.52%


WHG-UHG
16.27%
5.15%


East_Eurasian
48.66%
55.30%


West_African
0.36%
0.08%


East_African
5.59%
1.95%


ENF
-
-

LeBrok
03-08-15, 01:22
If X2a came from the Atlantic with a Solutrean migration than why isn't anyone testing the Kennewick man for any WHG ancestry?
That's right, the connection exists only through ANE ancestry, not through WHG. Nothing to do with solutreans.

Paleoguy
04-08-15, 00:43
Yes, some of West European did originate there, it looks like. Maybe, or even perhaps probably, most of it did. The Atlantic component in Eurogenes15 looks pretty indigenous to Europe to me, though.

Interestingly though, Kennewick Man has 7.2% Atlantic in Eurogenes15; whereas Anzick 1 has 0.14%.

Also, in the Eurogenes_ANE K7 calculator, Kennewick Man has 16.27% of the Western Hunter-Gatherer/Unknown Hunter-Gatherer component, while Anzick 1 just has 5.15%.



Population

Kennewick Man

Anzick 1



ANE

29.12%

34.01%



ASE

-

3.52%



WHG-UHG

16.27%

5.15%



East_Eurasian

48.66%

55.30%



West_African

0.36%

0.08%



East_African

5.59%

1.95%




ENF

-

-





Thanks JS Bach, I joined this forum just to ask someone to tests Kennewick's DNA for WHG mixture. Thanks for taking the initiative on your own. You didn't see my posts because they were held back for moderator approval.

Paleoguy
04-08-15, 01:33
That's right, the connection exists only through ANE ancestry, not through WHG. Nothing to do with solutreans.


At 16% not likely at all. It is true that WHG has some ANE taint, at least the WHG from 9,000 years ago that we are using as a compass for European Paleolithic genetic heritage, 9000 years ago after the ice age had ended and gene flow from Eurasia resumed into Europe through R1 haplogroups. A distilled WHG from Cro-Magnons around 20,000 years ago would barely have any ANE in it.

To get to the point, it is highly unlikely a whopping 16% WHG in Kennewick is ANE noise. Show me any modern Amerindian population that comes even close to such ratio.