Higher-resolution analyses of the European admixture in Chinchorro DNA

Genetiker

Regular Member
Messages
48
Reaction score
20
Points
0
On my blog I've posted the first of a series of higher-resolution analyses of the European admixture in Chinchorro DNA. Here's an excerpt from the post:

Below is a plot for a higher-resolution K = 4 admixture analysis that includes a Chinchorro mummy sample from Chile dated to 3972–3806 BC. This analysis uses a much larger number of transversion SNPs for all samples than my earlier admixture analyses. While most of my admixture analyses have used 1,067 transversion SNPs for the Chinchorro sample, and my previous high-resolution admixture analyses used 2,055 transversion SNPs for the sample, this analysis uses 26,982 transversion SNPs for the sample.

Higher-resolution K = 4 analysis of the European admixture in Chinchorro DNA
 
In 3500 BC this requires an explanation beyond paleosiberian/paleoasian migrations across Beringia/Pacific.

My first thought would be seafaring Mesopotamians/Levantines.
 
K = 9, 10, and 11 analyses:

Higher-resolution K = 9 analysis of the European admixture in Chinchorro DNA

Higher-resolution K = 10 analysis of the European admixture in Chinchorro DNA

Higher-resolution K = 11 analysis of the European admixture in Chinchorro DNA

An excerpt from the K = 11 post:

The sum of the non-Amerindian component percentages in this analysis is 41.49%, which is consistent with the K = 8, 9, and 10 analyses.

The Chinchorro sample has 1.536 times more of the plain blue component than the light blue component, unlike the Spanish admixture in Mestizos, where there's significantly more of the light blue component than the plain blue component.

The trace amount of the pine green component in the Chinchorro sample is inconsistent with modern contamination, as all modern Europeans have a significant amount of this component.

The presence of the purple component in the Chinchorro sample is also inconsistent with modern contamination.

If one ignores the absence of the plain green component in the Chinchorro sample, then pre-LGM Europeans remain one possible source of its European admixture.

If one ignores the presence of the purple component in the Chinchorro sample, then European hunter-gatherers with some early European farmer admixture could be another possible source of its European admixture.

I haven't yet been able to produce the set of components that I usually get for higher K values with the larger dataset, but I'll keep working on it.
 
Thanks for posting this, Genetiker.

It's very strange though that 6000 year-old mummies from Chile should have European admixture. I can't think of any reasonably likely scenario that would have brought European DNA to Chile that long ago. That makes me wonder if that DNA sample hasn't been contaminated by a modern individual who handled the sample. However even that isn't supported by the percentages non-Amerindian admixture in red. At K11, apart from the red, there is about half of dark blue (Mesolithic European), one third of light blue (Neolithic farmer), 20% of purple (from Indonesia!) and a tiny bit of teal (Steppe/Chalcolithic Iran). The European proportions don't fit any modern European population. It is closest to Neolithic Ukraine maybe. There is too little teal for it to be modem, and too little light blue for it to be Iberian in origins. A real mystery.
 
Thanks for sharing your incredible work flow it's exciting to think that the the secrets of existence continue to seep out no matter how many we thought had been exposed. The tools kits that took us to this point are the reason that were still connected to the process. Thanks for opening the lock to another ride to spark or curiosity and challenge out own thinking about thinking.
 
is there only DNA available from this Cinchorro mummy, or is there also DNA from older mummies?
 
Test should be repeated and similar age mummies tested too. Preferably by other scientists. Too incredible to be true.
 
Test should be repeated and similar age mummies tested too. Preferably by other scientists. Too incredible to be true.

This definitely needs to happen.

I know this isn't a hard science, but the skeletons also looked more west eurasian from what I understand, which at the very least shouldn't be ignored. There were also claims of chestnut hair I believe, but I don't think hair color to the naked eye on a 6000 year old mummy is reliable.
 
It's very strange though that 6000 year-old mummies from Chile should have European admixture. I can't think of any reasonably likely scenario that would have brought European DNA to Chile that long ago.

One relevant consideration here would be the paleobotanical evidence, that has been studied extensively for many years. In particular, you can look at this,



S. A. Wells, 'American Drugs in Egyptian Mummies'.



Just google the above ref. So these things are well demonstrated. There are whole books about this.
 
Looks similar

Ket people doll :
Of great importance to Kets are dolls, described as "an animal shoulder bone wrapped in a scrap of cloth simulating clothing."
[19] One adult Ket, who had been careless with a cigarette, said, "It's a shame I don't have my doll. My house burnt down together with my dolls."[20] Kets regard their dolls as household deities, which sleep in the daytime and protect them at night.[21]
Dolls_of_the_Ket_people.jpg


A Chinchorro mummy
Chinchorro-mummy-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting this, Genetiker.

It's very strange though that 6000 year-old mummies from Chile should have European admixture. I can't think of any reasonably likely scenario that would have brought European DNA to Chile that long ago. That makes me wonder if that DNA sample hasn't been contaminated by a modern individual who handled the sample. However even that isn't supported by the percentages non-Amerindian admixture in red. At K11, apart from the red, there is about half of dark blue (Mesolithic European), one third of light blue (Neolithic farmer), 20% of purple (from Indonesia!) and a tiny bit of teal (Steppe/Chalcolithic Iran). The European proportions don't fit any modern European population. It is closest to Neolithic Ukraine maybe. There is too little teal for it to be modem, and too little light blue for it to be Iberian in origins. A real mystery.

I think it does make sense, considering the Auburn haired mummies discovered. Consider too samples of New World crops in Egyptian mummies.

Also, to me, it seems blatantly obvious that the civilisation of Amerindians has to have come from an exogenous source. In fact, I am strongly of the belief that all civilisation has been spread, rather than truly independently developed. Looking at the link below, what is the chance that all civilisations in Eurasia developed through contact (except the first one, obviously), yet civilisation in the Americas was organic? And roughly on the same timescale as the development of civilisation in Eurasia (considering that before agriculture, humans existed as hunter gatherers for countless thousands of years without any progress - yet at roughly the same time (give or take a few thousand years) civilisation sprang out of nowhere in multiple places independently - ludicrous!)

If this is the case, why is it such a surprise to see ancient Caucasoid-influenced remains?

5ff33d7f520d26199f454ad7d6a029c7.jpg


Also consider this (not necessarily Solutrean, but please, do not trust every study you see! I am not suggesting to go against the scientific method, but consider how incredibly political this all is!!!):

338790f5331906a1f7949392ab1076eb.jpg


There simply is just too much evidence to ignore, in my opinion. This list I have just given isn't even close to exhaustive.

One thing I will add, though, is the following:

WHY HAVEN'T THERE BEEN MORE STUDIES ON THE Y DNA R1 (almost certainly R1b) AND MTDNA X OF AMERINDIANS!
 
"And roughly on the same timescale as the development of civilisation in Eurasia (considering that before agriculture, humans existed as hunter gatherers for countless thousands of years without any progress - yet at roughly the same time (give or take a few thousand years) civilisation sprang out of nowhere in multiple places independently - ludicrous!)"

but the geographic distribution isn't random at all if you look at the map you gave. look at the degrees of latitude. just look at crete, mesopotamia, indus and china. do you think its random that they are all between 20 and 40°.
civilizations emerged in places where living was easier and where the climate was good for farming. then people started to settle down and started to think about other things than just how to survive. they also started to invest more recources in building houses of stone.
the reason why it just started a few thousand years ago might be that there were always massive climate changes that made this impossible. the climate right now is unusally stable. one can only hope this changes soon in the future.

actually civilization is not something special once you have a high enough population density and live friendly climates that enable you to settle down.
 
"And roughly on the same timescale as the development of civilisation in Eurasia (considering that before agriculture, humans existed as hunter gatherers for countless thousands of years without any progress - yet at roughly the same time (give or take a few thousand years) civilisation sprang out of nowhere in multiple places independently - ludicrous!)"

but the geographic distribution isn't random at all if you look at the map you gave. look at the degrees of latitude. just look at crete, mesopotamia, indus and china. do you think its random that they are all between 20 and 40°.
civilizations emerged in places where living was easier and where the climate was good for farming. then people started to settle down and started to think about other things than just how to survive. they also started to invest more recources in building houses of stone.
the reason why it just started a few thousand years ago might be that there were always massive climate changes that made this impossible. the climate right now is unusally stable. one can only hope this changes soon in the future.

actually civilization is not something special once you have a high enough population density and live friendly climates that enable you to settle down.

Sure, you need a hot climate, but what about the common timeframe? And the red-haired skeletons?
 
Why did Genetiker delete his post? Some form of coercion?

Thanks for posting this, Genetiker.

It's very strange though that 6000 year-old mummies from Chile should have European admixture. I can't think of any reasonably likely scenario that would have brought European DNA to Chile that long ago. That makes me wonder if that DNA sample hasn't been contaminated by a modern individual who handled the sample. However even that isn't supported by the percentages non-Amerindian admixture in red. At K11, apart from the red, there is about half of dark blue (Mesolithic European), one third of light blue (Neolithic farmer), 20% of purple (from Indonesia!) and a tiny bit of teal (Steppe/Chalcolithic Iran). The European proportions don't fit any modern European population. It is closest to Neolithic Ukraine maybe. There is too little teal for it to be modem, and too little light blue for it to be Iberian in origins. A real mystery.

You should stick your neck out and write a post about this, it’s worth the attention. The complete lack of attention given is almost suspicious to me, but I won’t rush to conspiracy... although, I could see how these results would be sensitive.

And if anybody doesn’t believe in the possibility of conspiracy (not necessarily maliciously), check this out:

IYaUfIg_d.jpg
 
In 3500 BC this requires an explanation beyond paleosiberian/paleoasian migrations across Beringia/Pacific.

My first thought would be seafaring Mesopotamians/Levantines.

This is in another thread, but I found some preprint datasheet with a bunch of Y DNA and mtDNA calls - one of the Chinchorro mummies was put on E1b1a1a1c2c3c, which is definitely wrong, but does that not make it likely that it was at least Y DNA E? Would make sense considering the Y DNA of e.g. the Guanches.
 

This thread has been viewed 16263 times.

Back
Top