Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 33 of 33

Thread: Kennewick Man Was Native American

  1. #26
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    01-08-15
    Location
    USA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    11

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Probably E

    Country: Germany - Sachsen



    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.

  2. #27
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    04-01-14
    Posts
    119

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z8
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K

    Country: Canada



    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.

  3. #28
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,646

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    What was West European doing there anyway?
    Originating, perhaps ???

    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...ngle-admixture



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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Manco
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterRoshi
    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!

  4. #29
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,646

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Here some new paper about Native Americans (the picture is getting more and more complex and confusing!):

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ea...e.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...ture14895.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/ea...b3884.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....nd-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/ea...b3884.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:



    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.


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

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



    [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.

  5. #30
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    04-01-14
    Posts
    119

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z8
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K

    Country: Canada



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    Originating, perhaps ???
    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 - -

  6. #31
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoguy View Post
    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.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  7. #32
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    01-08-15
    Location
    USA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    11

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Probably E

    Country: Germany - Sachsen



    Quote Originally Posted by JS Bach View Post
    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.

  8. #33
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    01-08-15
    Location
    USA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    11

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Probably E

    Country: Germany - Sachsen



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •