Genetic support for the Berengia Ice Bridge colonization

[Kai]

of North America.

New DNA analysis of ethnic groups living in the Altay Mountains (see map) revealed a unique genetic mutation that also occurs in modern-day northern Native Americans.

A possible link between Siberians and Native Americans is an "age-old question" that was first raised by European explorers in the New World, said study leader Theodore Schurr, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

That's because some of those early explorers had also been to Asia, and they noticed physical similarities between the two populations.

...

The scientists received written consent to take DNA samples from nearly 500 people, many of whom were living in remote areas and had never met Americans. As part of ongoing genetic research, the team had previously taken samples from close to 2,500 Native Americans in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

Depending on the location and individual preferences, the researchers collected DNA via cheek swabs, mouthwash samples, or blood samples.

In their analyses of Altay and Native American DNA, the scientists focused on two parts of the human genome: mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down through mothers, and the Y chromosome, which is passed down through fathers....

Over time, mutations accumulate in these part of the genetic code that can help scientists pinpoint when populations branched off and migrated to new places, said Schurr, who is also the North American director for the National Geographic Society's Genographic Project, which is conducted independently from the Altay DNA project. (The Society owns National Geographic News.)

In the case of the Altay people, the scientists found a mutation in one paternal lineage that arose about 18,000 years ago—a genetic marker that's also found in modern-day Native Americans.

The finding dovetails with previous studies, including some by Schurr, that found a shared mutation in the two groups' mtDNA, one that arose around the same time as the newfound Y chromosome mutation.

As we talked about this before on these forums and the discussion was controversial (albeit less so than discussions on drug legalization ethics), I should mention that this is support, not confirmation, that other populations in East Asia also show these traits, and that molecular clock dating is notorious for large confidence intervals. Algorithm calibration for these tests at best uses a good series of fossil evidence, and at worst is a just so story of average mutation rates.

According to anthropologist Connie Mulligan, the new paper—to be published in the February 10 issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics—offers the most detailed genetic picture yet of ethnic Altay peoples.

Yet she thinks Shurr is "a little overly specific" in saying that Native Americans' founding DNA comes from the Altay region.

"I would broaden [that] to say [it's] that general region of central East Asia," said Mulligan, of the University of Florida in Gainesville.

That's because the mitochondrial and Y chromosome mutations that Schurr identified are also found together elsewhere in Asia, for instance, in China and Mongolia, she said.

The bottom line is that it's important to keep other Asian "populations in the running, and [it] means we should do dating studies on those populations as well," Mulligan said.

Stephen Zegura, a professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Arizona in Tucson, thinks Schurr and colleagues have a strong case for pinpointing Altay. But he added that, ultimately, it'll be difficult to tease out exactly how the New World was peopled.

"We don't have definitive information, like remains of people from the Beringia land bridge with ancient DNA," he said.

"This is one of the problems—we have hypotheses, but we don't have strong confirmation."

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There are still actual scientists who buy the Bering Ice Bridge theory? I thought that had been debunked so hard it's mother's head spun. Last I read, the theory was that there are groups of Asians who share genetic traits with NA's because they had boats and did trade up north thar, but that the main settlement point was something like 45,000 years ago down south somewhere.

[Kai]

There are still actual scientists who buy the Bering Ice Bridge theory? I thought that had been debunked so hard it's mother's head spun. Last I read, the theory was that there are groups of Asians who share genetic traits with NA's because they had boats and did trade up north thar, but that the main settlement point was something like 45,000 years ago down south somewhere.

Apparently it is not dead, and there may be something to it.

It's interesting how you dismiss the Berengia hypothesis, yet support for any of the hypotheses has not definitively rejected the others at this point. I can find no resource that so firmly rejects either hypothesis as you have here. If there is such an article I would like to see it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Sorry, that was my Native side speaking, not my scientist side. But seriously, everything I've read in archaeology over the last ten years has left me with the distinct impression that most archaeologists consider the land bridge hypothesis of primary settlement, for which there was never any physical evidence, pretty dismissable because the dates of more recently discovered settlements would have people settling both northeast Asia and the east coast of North America simultaneously. The whole "bridge" hypothesis was based on the premise that people didn't have boats that early, anyway; the land bridge was invented as a means of explaining how people got here if we didn't have boats. We don't have any evidence one way or another whether people had boats, other than increasing finds of settlements that are significantly older than expected, in widely varied locations. And while the evidence at Topper isn't conclusive at this point, if it does turn out that there were humans in North Carolina 50,000 years ago, that really changes things. It's important to note that archaeologists haven't been looking for evidence of older settlements because it was assumed there weren't any, and that has changed rapidly in the last few years.

[Kai]

Sorry, that was my Native side speaking, not my scientist side. But seriously, everything I've read in archaeology over the last ten years has left me with the distinct impression that most archaeologists consider the land bridge hypothesis of primary settlement, for which there was never any physical evidence, pretty dismissable because the dates of more recently discovered settlements would have people settling both northeast Asia and the east coast of North America simultaneously. The whole "bridge" hypothesis was based on the premise that people didn't have boats that early, anyway; the land bridge was invented as a means of explaining how people got here if we didn't have boats. We don't have any evidence one way or another whether people had boats, other than increasing finds of settlements that are significantly older than expected, in widely varied locations. And while the evidence at Topper isn't conclusive at this point, if it does turn out that there were humans in North Carolina 50,000 years ago, that really changes things. It's important to note that archaeologists haven't been looking for evidence of older settlements because it was assumed there weren't any, and that has changed rapidly in the last few years.

True. I wonder if we can agree that current evidence predicts the original North Americans came, by some means, from East Asia, predating European settlement by at least 20 thousand years. I know many Native Americans dislike the colonization theories, as their religion would have them believe they have been here since the beginning of creation, but humans did originate in Africa, which means the Americas would have had to be colonized at some point. There is no evidence of hominids of any species in the western hemisphere prior to 100,000 years ago.

I agree that there is no evidence of mode of transportation. All we have of the Clovis are stone and bone artifacts. Any wood or hide water vessels, if they were used, are long gone. Perhaps I myself have been too hasty to assume they walked.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Sorry, that was my Native side speaking, not my scientist side. But seriously, everything I've read in archaeology over the last ten years has left me with the distinct impression that most archaeologists consider the land bridge hypothesis of primary settlement, for which there was never any physical evidence, pretty dismissable because the dates of more recently discovered settlements would have people settling both northeast Asia and the east coast of North America simultaneously. The whole "bridge" hypothesis was based on the premise that people didn't have boats that early, anyway; the land bridge was invented as a means of explaining how people got here if we didn't have boats. We don't have any evidence one way or another whether people had boats, other than increasing finds of settlements that are significantly older than expected, in widely varied locations. And while the evidence at Topper isn't conclusive at this point, if it does turn out that there were humans in North Carolina 50,000 years ago, that really changes things. It's important to note that archaeologists haven't been looking for evidence of older settlements because it was assumed there weren't any, and that has changed rapidly in the last few years.

True. I wonder if we can agree that current evidence predicts the original North Americans came, by some means, from East Asia, predating European settlement by at least 20 thousand years. I know many Native Americans dislike the colonization theories, as their religion would have them believe they have been here since the beginning of creation, but humans did originate in Africa, which means the Americas would have had to be colonized at some point. There is no evidence of hominids of any species in the western hemisphere prior to 100,000 years ago.

I agree that there is no evidence of mode of transportation. All we have of the Clovis are stone and bone artifacts. Any wood or hide water vessels, if they were used, are long gone. Perhaps I myself have been too hasty to assume they walked.

I absolutely agree that current evidence indicates colonization from Africa or Asia, though the dates make Asia shaky as a source of the first colonization. There is also evidence of ongoing waves of colonization rather than a single crossing, and the Clovis settlement is widely acknowledged to be far from the earliest at this point.

I think you might be curious to find that many Natives are pretty comfortable with colonization theories that have their ancestors arriving by sea or migrating from the south. The We'gyet stories pretty directly tell of colonization by boat from Asia. There are many religions and many origin stories, but a great many of them involve a vast ocean or an ancestral displacement from the south, many (not all) a great deal longer than ten thousand years ago.

[Kai]

Sorry, that was my Native side speaking, not my scientist side. But seriously, everything I've read in archaeology over the last ten years has left me with the distinct impression that most archaeologists consider the land bridge hypothesis of primary settlement, for which there was never any physical evidence, pretty dismissable because the dates of more recently discovered settlements would have people settling both northeast Asia and the east coast of North America simultaneously. The whole "bridge" hypothesis was based on the premise that people didn't have boats that early, anyway; the land bridge was invented as a means of explaining how people got here if we didn't have boats. We don't have any evidence one way or another whether people had boats, other than increasing finds of settlements that are significantly older than expected, in widely varied locations. And while the evidence at Topper isn't conclusive at this point, if it does turn out that there were humans in North Carolina 50,000 years ago, that really changes things. It's important to note that archaeologists haven't been looking for evidence of older settlements because it was assumed there weren't any, and that has changed rapidly in the last few years.

True. I wonder if we can agree that current evidence predicts the original North Americans came, by some means, from East Asia, predating European settlement by at least 20 thousand years. I know many Native Americans dislike the colonization theories, as their religion would have them believe they have been here since the beginning of creation, but humans did originate in Africa, which means the Americas would have had to be colonized at some point. There is no evidence of hominids of any species in the western hemisphere prior to 100,000 years ago.

I agree that there is no evidence of mode of transportation. All we have of the Clovis are stone and bone artifacts. Any wood or hide water vessels, if they were used, are long gone. Perhaps I myself have been too hasty to assume they walked.

I absolutely agree that current evidence indicates colonization from Africa or Asia, though the dates make Asia shaky as a source of the first colonization. There is also evidence of ongoing waves of colonization rather than a single crossing, and the Clovis settlement is widely acknowledged to be far from the earliest at this point.

I think you might be curious to find that many Natives are pretty comfortable with colonization theories that have their ancestors arriving by sea or migrating from the south. The We'gyet stories pretty directly tell of colonization by boat from Asia. There are many religions and many origin stories, but a great many of them involve a vast ocean or an ancestral displacement from the south, many (not all) a great deal longer than ten thousand years ago.

Why would the dates make first colonization from Africa more stable than Asia? The distance is further, and assuming they didn't go through Asia, the Indian ocean is a vast barrier with few islands. South Pacific island hopping makes far more sense, but those colonization events were much later. Costal travel makes more sense. Therefore, hopping across from Northeast Asia to North America.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Sorry, that was my Native side speaking, not my scientist side. But seriously, everything I've read in archaeology over the last ten years has left me with the distinct impression that most archaeologists consider the land bridge hypothesis of primary settlement, for which there was never any physical evidence, pretty dismissable because the dates of more recently discovered settlements would have people settling both northeast Asia and the east coast of North America simultaneously. The whole "bridge" hypothesis was based on the premise that people didn't have boats that early, anyway; the land bridge was invented as a means of explaining how people got here if we didn't have boats. We don't have any evidence one way or another whether people had boats, other than increasing finds of settlements that are significantly older than expected, in widely varied locations. And while the evidence at Topper isn't conclusive at this point, if it does turn out that there were humans in North Carolina 50,000 years ago, that really changes things. It's important to note that archaeologists haven't been looking for evidence of older settlements because it was assumed there weren't any, and that has changed rapidly in the last few years.

True. I wonder if we can agree that current evidence predicts the original North Americans came, by some means, from East Asia, predating European settlement by at least 20 thousand years. I know many Native Americans dislike the colonization theories, as their religion would have them believe they have been here since the beginning of creation, but humans did originate in Africa, which means the Americas would have had to be colonized at some point. There is no evidence of hominids of any species in the western hemisphere prior to 100,000 years ago.

I agree that there is no evidence of mode of transportation. All we have of the Clovis are stone and bone artifacts. Any wood or hide water vessels, if they were used, are long gone. Perhaps I myself have been too hasty to assume they walked.

I absolutely agree that current evidence indicates colonization from Africa or Asia, though the dates make Asia shaky as a source of the first colonization. There is also evidence of ongoing waves of colonization rather than a single crossing, and the Clovis settlement is widely acknowledged to be far from the earliest at this point.

I think you might be curious to find that many Natives are pretty comfortable with colonization theories that have their ancestors arriving by sea or migrating from the south. The We'gyet stories pretty directly tell of colonization by boat from Asia. There are many religions and many origin stories, but a great many of them involve a vast ocean or an ancestral displacement from the south, many (not all) a great deal longer than ten thousand years ago.

Why would the dates make first colonization from Africa more stable than Asia? The distance is further, and assuming they didn't go through Asia, the Indian ocean is a vast barrier with few islands. South Pacific island hopping makes far more sense, but those colonization events were much later. Costal travel makes more sense. Therefore, hopping across from Northeast Asia to North America.

Or from West Africa to Brazil.  That's not all that far.  You couldn't get me to do it, but I'm not a stone age badass.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Sorry, that was my Native side speaking, not my scientist side. But seriously, everything I've read in archaeology over the last ten years has left me with the distinct impression that most archaeologists consider the land bridge hypothesis of primary settlement, for which there was never any physical evidence, pretty dismissable because the dates of more recently discovered settlements would have people settling both northeast Asia and the east coast of North America simultaneously. The whole "bridge" hypothesis was based on the premise that people didn't have boats that early, anyway; the land bridge was invented as a means of explaining how people got here if we didn't have boats. We don't have any evidence one way or another whether people had boats, other than increasing finds of settlements that are significantly older than expected, in widely varied locations. And while the evidence at Topper isn't conclusive at this point, if it does turn out that there were humans in North Carolina 50,000 years ago, that really changes things. It's important to note that archaeologists haven't been looking for evidence of older settlements because it was assumed there weren't any, and that has changed rapidly in the last few years.

True. I wonder if we can agree that current evidence predicts the original North Americans came, by some means, from East Asia, predating European settlement by at least 20 thousand years. I know many Native Americans dislike the colonization theories, as their religion would have them believe they have been here since the beginning of creation, but humans did originate in Africa, which means the Americas would have had to be colonized at some point. There is no evidence of hominids of any species in the western hemisphere prior to 100,000 years ago.

I agree that there is no evidence of mode of transportation. All we have of the Clovis are stone and bone artifacts. Any wood or hide water vessels, if they were used, are long gone. Perhaps I myself have been too hasty to assume they walked.

I absolutely agree that current evidence indicates colonization from Africa or Asia, though the dates make Asia shaky as a source of the first colonization. There is also evidence of ongoing waves of colonization rather than a single crossing, and the Clovis settlement is widely acknowledged to be far from the earliest at this point.

I think you might be curious to find that many Natives are pretty comfortable with colonization theories that have their ancestors arriving by sea or migrating from the south. The We'gyet stories pretty directly tell of colonization by boat from Asia. There are many religions and many origin stories, but a great many of them involve a vast ocean or an ancestral displacement from the south, many (not all) a great deal longer than ten thousand years ago.

Why would the dates make first colonization from Africa more stable than Asia? The distance is further, and assuming they didn't go through Asia, the Indian ocean is a vast barrier with few islands. South Pacific island hopping makes far more sense, but those colonization events were much later. Costal travel makes more sense. Therefore, hopping across from Northeast Asia to North America.

Because East Asia was itself just being colonized at around the same time as the earliest colonizations in the Americas, and the earliest colonizations in the Americas appear to be along the Eastern seaboard.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Sorry, that was my Native side speaking, not my scientist side. But seriously, everything I've read in archaeology over the last ten years has left me with the distinct impression that most archaeologists consider the land bridge hypothesis of primary settlement, for which there was never any physical evidence, pretty dismissable because the dates of more recently discovered settlements would have people settling both northeast Asia and the east coast of North America simultaneously. The whole "bridge" hypothesis was based on the premise that people didn't have boats that early, anyway; the land bridge was invented as a means of explaining how people got here if we didn't have boats. We don't have any evidence one way or another whether people had boats, other than increasing finds of settlements that are significantly older than expected, in widely varied locations. And while the evidence at Topper isn't conclusive at this point, if it does turn out that there were humans in North Carolina 50,000 years ago, that really changes things. It's important to note that archaeologists haven't been looking for evidence of older settlements because it was assumed there weren't any, and that has changed rapidly in the last few years.

True. I wonder if we can agree that current evidence predicts the original North Americans came, by some means, from East Asia, predating European settlement by at least 20 thousand years. I know many Native Americans dislike the colonization theories, as their religion would have them believe they have been here since the beginning of creation, but humans did originate in Africa, which means the Americas would have had to be colonized at some point. There is no evidence of hominids of any species in the western hemisphere prior to 100,000 years ago.

I agree that there is no evidence of mode of transportation. All we have of the Clovis are stone and bone artifacts. Any wood or hide water vessels, if they were used, are long gone. Perhaps I myself have been too hasty to assume they walked.

I absolutely agree that current evidence indicates colonization from Africa or Asia, though the dates make Asia shaky as a source of the first colonization. There is also evidence of ongoing waves of colonization rather than a single crossing, and the Clovis settlement is widely acknowledged to be far from the earliest at this point.

I think you might be curious to find that many Natives are pretty comfortable with colonization theories that have their ancestors arriving by sea or migrating from the south. The We'gyet stories pretty directly tell of colonization by boat from Asia. There are many religions and many origin stories, but a great many of them involve a vast ocean or an ancestral displacement from the south, many (not all) a great deal longer than ten thousand years ago.

Why would the dates make first colonization from Africa more stable than Asia? The distance is further, and assuming they didn't go through Asia, the Indian ocean is a vast barrier with few islands. South Pacific island hopping makes far more sense, but those colonization events were much later. Costal travel makes more sense. Therefore, hopping across from Northeast Asia to North America.

Or from West Africa to Brazil.  That's not all that far.  You couldn't get me to do it, but I'm not a stone age badass.

Yes... I haven't read anything about Pedra Furada recently, but I know the Africa to Brazil hypothesis has been floated quite a bit, and is consistent with both oral history and current archaeological findings.

[Kai]

I am very surprised, because this is the first I've heard about it. And that's still, at shortest distance, 1900 miles of Atlantic Ocean to cross.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think they found settlement artifacts last year in Texas which pushed the early habitation dates back even further.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I am very surprised, because this is the first I've heard about it. And that's still, at shortest distance, 1900 miles of Atlantic Ocean to cross.

True, but it has the added advantage of not being full of huge chunks of ice.

Assume some reed monstrosity averaging 4MPH.  500 hours, or just a hair under 3 weeks.  It could be done by stone age people with difficulty.  It could be done by bronze age people fairly easily.

Of course, one storm and everyone's dead, but you wouldn't have to get lucky more than once or twice.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I am very surprised, because this is the first I've heard about it. And that's still, at shortest distance, 1900 miles of Atlantic Ocean to cross.

True, but it has the added advantage of not being full of huge chunks of ice.

Assume some reed monstrosity averaging 4MPH.  500 hours, or just a hair under 3 weeks.  It could be done by stone age people with difficulty.  It could be done by bronze age people fairly easily.

Of course, one storm and everyone's dead, but you wouldn't have to get lucky more than once or twice.

The Inuit cross 500 miles or more in dugouts with regularity, and have been doing so pretty much as long as they've been there.

Also, I was unaware of this, but apparently whether Stone Age people had boats isn't even disputed. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16archeo.html

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I am very surprised, because this is the first I've heard about it. And that's still, at shortest distance, 1900 miles of Atlantic Ocean to cross.

True, but it has the added advantage of not being full of huge chunks of ice.

Assume some reed monstrosity averaging 4MPH.  500 hours, or just a hair under 3 weeks.  It could be done by stone age people with difficulty.  It could be done by bronze age people fairly easily.

Of course, one storm and everyone's dead, but you wouldn't have to get lucky more than once or twice.

The Inuit cross 500 miles or more in dugouts with regularity, and have been doing so pretty much as long as they've been there.

Also, I was unaware of this, but apparently whether Stone Age people had boats isn't even disputed. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16archeo.html

No argument here.  I'm just saying that the Atlantic crossing is just as likely as the Bering crossing, IMO.

And nothing says they didn't BOTH happen.