Genome analysis pins down arrival and spread of first Americans

The original Americans came from Siberia in a single wave no more than 23,000 years ago, at the height of the last Ice Age, and apparently hung out in the north -- perhaps for thousands of years -- before spreading in two distinct populations throughout North and South America, according to a new genomic analysis.
The findings, which will be reported in the July 24 issue of Science, confirm the most popular theory of the peopling of the Americas, but throws cold water on others, including the notion of an earlier wave of people from East Asia prior to the last glacial maximum, and the idea that multiple independent waves produced the major subgroups of Native Americans we see today, as opposed to diversification in the Americas. This Ice Age migration over a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska is distinct from the arrival of the Inuit and Eskimo, who were latecomers, spreading throughout the Artic beginning about 5,500 years ago. The findings also dispel the idea that Polynesians or Europeans contributed to the genetic heritage of Native Americans.

Thats interesting enough but it seems for now that ancient European or Africans migrants is a bust but hold on it goes on to say

One surprise in the genetic data is that both populations of Native Americans have a small admixture of genes from East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, including Papuans, Solomon Islanders and Southeast Asian hunter gatherers.

Read more at: archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.jp...
Follow us: @ArchaeoNewsNet on Twitter | groups/thearchaeologynewsnetwork/ on Facebook

I had always thought that the later Olmec figures if not Africans could be related to Australo-Melanesians seems my guess was on point.

This really ignores the Solutrean artifacts that need to be factored in?

originally posted by: Caver78
This really ignores the Solutrean artifacts that need to be factored in?

What they are saying is genetically it doesn't fit, now maybe the artifacts just resembled each other with no connection. then again the process is still on going, who knows what surprises may pop up next.

This is not to say that there were not later contacts; there invariably were, and archaeological evidence that shows there wee does not diminish these latest findings. Did Japanese reach the Pacific shore? Sure. Did Europeans arrive a whole lot earlier than Columbus and Erickson? Quite probably. Did Africans reach Brazil? Egyptians? Anecdotally, probably. But the significant population of aboriginal peoples, the vast majority by far, arrived just like anthropologists have been saying for decades.

Aliens nothwithstanding.

One surprise in the genetic data is that both populations of Native Americans have a small admixture of genes from East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, including Papuans, Solomon Islanders and Southeast Asian hunter gatherers.

I thought we already knew that peoples inhabited the North 'American" continent from parts east. The story I got when I was a but a lil one had them come over the Bering Sea land/ice 'bridge'…

Make of that what you will… did we move the goal posts again?

Of course the fact they have found a part Neanderthal hybrid and sites at the 30,000-60,000 ranges with potential site in the 200,000 range makes me sceptical.
And then there are the Denisovian Sasquatch in the Pacific North West.
a reply to: Spider879

Great stuff...thank you

reply to: Spider879

originally posted by: starswift
Of course the fact they have found a part Neanderthal hybrid and sites at the 30,000-60,000 ranges with potential site in the 200,000 range makes me sceptical.
And then there are the Denisovian Sasquatch in the Pacific North West.
a reply to: Spider879

Got any sources for those claims? FYI, another term for "part Neanderthal hybrid" is 'modern human'...

originally posted by: intrptr

One surprise in the genetic data is that both populations of Native Americans have a small admixture of genes from East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, including Papuans, Solomon Islanders and Southeast Asian hunter gatherers.

I thought we already knew that peoples inhabited the North 'American" continent from parts east. The story I got when I was a but a lil one had them came over the Bering Sea land/ice 'bridge'…

Make of that what you will… did we move the goal posts again?

That part of the story hasn't changed. It's the time frame of the arrival of humans in the Americas that has been a big question mark for years. Especially since Clovis First was "retired" from insurmountable evidence of people here prior to 13 ka

I met a Neanderthal woman once.
So my guess is there is more going on in heaven and earth than we may be aware of.
I could supply sources but I'm not interested, I'd have to go back to the library and look up my reading history.
That would be time consuming and unrewarding.
I assure you it came from respectable scientists of the highest order and they had based it on field research which is probably somewhat available in some form or other online, perhaps in scholarly papers.
My contribution was not a conclusion as science needs at least three sources for new archeological anthropology discovery and then needs to debate those discoveries for the next 50 years before it is generally accepted and to define meaning.
A lot of modern genetic research is questionable for very simple reasons as well.
So I pose it in the form of a story or anecdote.
The cognoscenti get it, and will discover the material themselves if it interests them enough.
A word to the wise is sufficient.
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: intrptr

One surprise in the genetic data is that both populations of Native Americans have a small admixture of genes from East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, including Papuans, Solomon Islanders and Southeast Asian hunter gatherers.

I thought we already knew that peoples inhabited the North 'American" continent from parts east. The story I got when I was a but a lil one had them came over the Bering Sea land/ice 'bridge'…

Make of that what you will… did we move the goal posts again?

That part of the story hasn't changed. It's the time frame of the arrival of humans in the Americas that has been a big question mark for years. Especially since Clovis First was "retired" from insurmountable evidence of people here prior to 13 ka

If we know, what are the earliest dated bones in "North American" continent? And are those older or younger than Inuit?

Thanks for any responses…

a reply to: intrptr

Much older than the Inuit. They've only been in their habitat for 5-6 KA Kennewick Man for example is dated to about 9ka and there are remains found in the Yucatan that are about 12ka

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: starswift
Of course the fact they have found a part Neanderthal hybrid and sites at the 30,000-60,000 ranges with potential site in the 200,000 range makes me sceptical.
And then there are the Denisovian Sasquatch in the Pacific North West.
a reply to: Spider879

Got any sources for those claims? FYI, another term for "part Neanderthal hybrid" is 'modern human'...

Actually no.....there are neanderthal remains they haven't figured out who they have mixed with ....yet. Google some of the French websites an use google translate.

originally posted by: starswift
I met a Neanderthal woman once.

Could you tell me where you met her? Maybe give me her contact info? Once I have my surgery in September, my sabbatical will likely end shortly thereafter and I'm more than willing to drop my research into cohabitation of Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the Levantine Valley in favor of turning my attention towards your Neanderthal friend. She would totally make my career so hook me up with some digits huh?


I could supply sources but I'm not interested, I'd have to go back to the library and look up my reading history That would be time consuming and unrewarding.
Well isn't that convenient. Thanks for screwing me on blowing my entire career up and making Svante Paabo look like yesterdays news.

I assure you it came from respectable scientists of the highest order and they had based it on field research which is probably somewhat available in some form or other online, perhaps in scholarly papers.

Assurances and probablies... the stuff good science is made from! Well you've got me hooked!

My contribution was not a conclusion as science needs at least three sources for new archeological anthropology discovery and then needs to debate those discoveries for the next 50 years before it is generally accepted and to define meaning.
Not only was it not a conclusion, it wasn't actually a contribution if you're so vehemently unwilling to cource your citations here. And where are you getting these numbers from? 50 years of debate prior to acceptance is just an arbitrary made up number. In the mid 90's I got laughed at for insisting that HSS could successfully breed with HN and now today, it's an undeniable fact. I'm not 50 so the research and debate wasn't 50 years.

A lot of modern genetic research is questionable for very simple reasons as well.
How so? Could you elaborate? Or do I have to work off of your assurance that it is so?

So I pose it in the form of a story or anecdote.
an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay? Absolutely true.

The cognoscenti get it, and will discover the material themselves if it interests them enough.
We're not talking about performance art or a theater presentation, cognoscenti isn't applicable here. And yes, I'm being pretentious because so were you by throwing out a word and using it out of context.

A word to the wise is sufficient.

Not when discussing a scientific subject it isn't.

Loved your response.
Performance art in it's own right.
I could hook you up but...
; )
I'm not engaging in debate, I just have stories that need to be told.
Sometimes the audience is indifferent or hostile.
Too far outside their experience and comfort zone.
I get it. As long as they have a few manners, as you do.
At least you challenged the Neanderthal, which at least shows you are critically engaged.
A requirement of a good audience.
She was aware she had a large amount of Neanderthal genes if the bumper sticker "Neanderthals, they are among us still" was any indication. She had married into a Native American population but where her ancestors came from she did not say.
The morphological expression unlike any I had ever seen in any modern populations, and I have traveled a lot.
What her ancestry was and tracing back where and through what geographic domains would be enlightening, no doubt.
The mechanism for perpetuating isolated gene pools within large modern populations would be amazing.
When I see a mystery, I let it be, the reason certain events unfold in your life is due to trust and because the great spirit wanted you to.
And can I be wrong, no doubt.
But I wonder, does posting on ATS qualify as scientific debates, amongst various pseudonyms and acronyms?
a reply to: peter vlar

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: intrptr

One surprise in the genetic data is that both populations of Native Americans have a small admixture of genes from East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, including Papuans, Solomon Islanders and Southeast Asian hunter gatherers.

I thought we already knew that peoples inhabited the North 'American" continent from parts east. The story I got when I was a but a lil one had them came over the Bering Sea land/ice 'bridge'…

Make of that what you will… did we move the goal posts again?

That part of the story hasn't changed. It's the time frame of the arrival of humans in the Americas that has been a big question mark for years. Especially since Clovis First was "retired" from insurmountable evidence of people here prior to 13 ka

If we know, what are the earliest dated bones in "North American" continent? And are those older or younger than Inuit?

Thanks for any responses…

The oldest dated human bone in the new world is a human femur, dated to 17k from the Witt site in Cal.
It has been forgotten about and or ignored for nearly 50 years.

The next oldest is Arlington springs woman @ 13kyo,

The Arlington Springs Man was later re-examined in 1989 by Orr's successors at the museum, Dr. John R. Johnson and Don Morris. The two came to the initial assessment that the Arlington Springs Man was actually the "Arlington Springs Woman". Radiocarbon dating determined that the remains dated to 13,000 years BP,[2] making the remains potentially the oldest-known human skeleton in North America.

Arlington Springs Woman

a reply to: punkinworks10

Thanks for posting those! I totally forgot about the Witt site. It isn't something I've heard about at all in years.

Id like to point out that two different groups came up with different interpratations of the same data, on group comes up with a divergence date of 15k with multiple waves, and the other 23K with only one migration.
Both dates are in direct contradiction to the physical evidence, sites all over the Americas show people were here well before that.
Topper, calico hills , meadowcroft, cactus hill , pendejo cave, Witt , Burnham OK, Snowmass CO, Texas street SD, Monte Verde, dozens of Brazilian sites, Castroville ca, China lake ca, all have layers that predate the earlier estimate and most have layers that predate the older older estimate.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: punkinworks10

Thanks for posting those! I totally forgot about the Witt site. It isn't something I've heard about at all in years.

From the meager online info about Witt, it's clear that it is one of the most important sites I'm North America, the shell midden gives dates going back 62k years, The best I line source about it is a report by an well respected icthyologist, whose work has been pivotal to the understanding of the channel island sites.
I'll dig up the pdf by the fish guy,
It a shame that when the site was first excavated n the sixties they we're only focused on the Clovis lithics , which are at the top of the assemblage.
I was just out that way , on a moto ride today, Amd went by a couple of old Yokuts sites in the hills west of there.