Ancient DNA points to additional New World migration

I don't know whether this has been discussed or posted as news in here. if it has been, then i would request the moderators to please delete/close the thread.

A 4,000-year-old Greenland man just entered the scientific debate over the origins of prehistoric populations in the Americas. A nearly complete sequence of nuclear DNA extracted from strands of the long-dead man’s hair — the first such sequence obtained from an ancient person — highlights a previously unknown and relatively recent migration of northeastern Asians into the New World about 5,500 years ago, scientists say. An analysis of differences, or mutations, at single base pairs on the ancient Greenlander’s nuclear genome indicates that his father’s ancestors came from northeastern Siberia, report geneticist Morten Rasmussen of the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen and his colleagues in the Feb. 11 Nature. Three modern hunter-gatherer groups in that region — the Nganasans, Koryaks and Chukchis — display a closer genetic link to the Greenland individual than do Native American groups living in cold northern areas of North America, Rasmussen says.

Source - Science news




DNA from the 4,000-year-old man found near a Saqqaq site closely links him with the Nganasans, Koryaks and Chukchis, suggesting a Siberia-to-Greenland migration.

An Artist's impression of how this ancient man would have looked.



The DNA contained mutations that offered clues to what he looked like. These genetic hints informed this artist's reconstruction of the man's face.




DNA analyses have hinted at a number of possible dates and patterns for the peopling of the Americas.

***************************************************************

So where does this leave us, thinking about the accepted theories of migration to the new world??

Personally, I think ancient people had migrated to America many many times before Chris Columbus got there. I think the only difference was that it was not recorded very well. Have you ever wanted a fresh start?

The "accepted theories" are all bunk. This much we know now.

Since you seem really interested in the topic, I would like to share with you one of my deeper research threads I created about this very subject.

It is called "Native America- The First Melting Pot".

In this thread I discuss the links between ancient India and South America, Japan and western North America, and Africa and Eastern South America. There is a little more covered but I offered some striking evidence to support my claims.

IMHO the clincher was the fact that the Easter Island language is directly identical to the Indus valley civilization scripts. Also on Easter Island we find plant life that is cultivated by mankind that is ONLY found at Lake Titicaca in South America.

Anyways here is the link. I hope you enjoy it.


Oh yeah, I also added references to studies on DNA which proves that these cultures did have ancient migrations/contract with the Americas. The DNA evidence is incredibly revealing and stunning.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 9-6-2010 by muzzleflash]

reply to post by muzzleflash

Oh yeah, I also added references to studies on DNA which proves that these cultures did have ancient migrations/contract with the Americas. The DNA evidence is incredibly revealing and stunning.

Awesome... This is why ATS is so good. Thank you Muzzleflash.

I think it's an interesting find. Thanks for posting.

As for the "accepted theories", well, I have to agree with muzzleflash. You ask most people about such things and the answer is the Land Bridge theory (Beringia), which was proven to be completely false years ago . . . I mean just look at the concentration of diverse linguistic groups coming from south to north . . .

I'll admit that it's quite possible some peoples came from the East. To this day, I still can't quite reconcile the similarities between the Irish clan system and the Haudenosaunee clan system. Which came first? Did the Haudenosaunee influence the Irish or the other way around?

However, IMHO, the more important question relates to a certain subtext present in almost every theory I have ever read about "where the Indians came from" -- it's a matter of measuring sticks really . . . you take a standard European history class in highschool and where do you start? The Romans, right? Up they came, converting/enslaving/influencing the various warring tribes . . . the tribes settle, war some more and a few centuries later you have Europe in its infancy. Now, we turn to a lesson on the history of Native Americans and bam! Where to begin? Oh, right, 30 000 years ago when a lucky few crossed the Bering Strait and began migrating on southwards. It bugs the heck out of me, this apparent need to render the inherent right First Nations people have to their land null and void.

What does this mean to other migration theories? I don't know but I'd be interested in hearing your take on it!

Nice Find. S&F.

I wish they would have mentioned how many base pair of the DNA have mutated or changed compared to modern human DNA.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Conclusion]

Double post.

2nd line.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Conclusion]

reply to post by Mekezl


I am not sure what kind of European history you were taught in the school you attended. If it started with the Romans, that is!

Enlighten me then. At what year did the Romans start holding the Olympic Games? When did they build the Pyramids? When did they develop their alphabet, without outside influences of course! When did they navigate the North Sea? How did they manage to occupy the whole of the Persian Empire? Of which Roman parent did Socrates, Plato and Aristoteles were? Was Ramesses II (aka Ramesses the Great) born in Rome or some place else? Which Roman mathematician used proof of a theorem for the first time in human history (that we know of)? How many Romans died in the Battle of Marathon? What about Thermopylae?

Should I assume that your knowledge of migration theories is on the same level as your knowledge of European history?

reply to post by Maegnas


Uh-huh.

I guess I wasn't clear enough -- I wasn't stating that European history begins with the Romans; I was putting forth a question in regards to how history is presented. Most of antiquity, with the exception of the waning years of the Roman Empire, the Egyptians, Persians, Sumerians -- all of these are "Ancient History".

Why does the history of North America begin 30 000 years ago?

But this is becoming a bit of a digression, it seems . . .

Having reread the article again, I'm wondering if this could be evidence that points toward the idea that some of the ancient Siberian peoples travelled across what is now the Arctic Circle (directly to Greenland)?

It confirms some of the migration theories that we discussed in my anthropology classes that were based on linguistics rather than genetics.

Recent new finds are starting to indicate that humans may have been in the Americas as early as 40,000-45,000 BC. Meadowcraft Rock Shelter in Pennsylvania is dated to 16,200 BC. I knew that there were sites dated to 20,000 years BP in South America, but a fellow shovelbum on a dinosaur dig this weekend was talking about the Topper site ( en.wikipedia.org... ) which shows presence between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago.

But the article you found is a very nice one. S&F!

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Byrd]

Originally posted by Mekezl
Why does the history of North America begin 30 000 years ago?

Because that's the earliest "hard evidence" (dated, confirmed, etc) that's available. The Topper site is still controversial but may push it back to a more believable 50,000 years ago.

The problem is our land is heavily settled, so much of the possible available evidence has been ploughed over by tractors, paved over, landfilled over, shopping mall-ed over... and so forth. It's difficult to find sites because there's really not much of the land that hasn't been turned to modern use.

Byrd,

Let us wait for some more confirmation on this. A piece of charcoal and some rock flints (that others deem natural instead of human made) is not proof enough - it is an indication though to dig deeper and look for more of those pieces of evidence to make one's case. Based on your "persistence" for peer review, in other threads, how was this statement reviewed by Goodyear's peers? Because in the link you provided it doesn't look good for him (although it is not exactly clear what is the basis of others challenging his dates) and stone is always somewhat tricky to determine what is natural and what man made. I mean, if you wonder in the Rockies for a long time you can come with a complete collection of "tools" but those will be (a) modern in age and (b) naturally occurring since the Rockies are disintegrating slowly and their "bones" are shattering - producing a multitude of flints and stone pieces that resemble tools.

He really needs to dig deeper.

Mekezl,

I don't how History is taught in countries that measure their own in centuries, I know that if you study history in any school in Italy, Greece, Israel, Egypt you will see that what others call "ancient" history and pass it by faster than you can say "history" is a vast part in these countries (and NOT the only part! ;>). don't judge by your own example please (if I misjudged you, I apologize)

being Metis in Canada
we travel on the ice
we travel by kayak
we travel by canoe

every once in a while you get folks or tribes that just go gypsy
the apache I think are the only southern natives that are liguisticly related to the dene of the north west territories
they had to travel that far to find a room to stay


we never did need a land bridge

I heard an interview on the radio
there are elephant mounds on the OHIO
japanese DNA in the algonqiun
1000s of red haired european skeletons
in the falls of the ohio on the ohio river
kitchi wana the ojibwa mANitou is also
en man lu anna on the antidiluvian sumerian king list
he is either name
depending on which tablet you happen to be reading

they dug up a whole chinese city near Vancoever a couple of years ago
abandoned just as columbus arrived
left DNA in the poulation there too


[edit on 10-6-2010 by Danbones]

Originally posted by Maegnas
Let us wait for some more confirmation on this. A piece of charcoal and some rock flints (that others deem natural instead of human made) is not proof enough - it is an indication though to dig deeper and look for more of those pieces of evidence to make one's case.

Actually, I do agree. I think it's very "iffy" data, but the Topper site was something new for me, and I found it interesting. My fellow shovelbum mentioned one other site (also controversial), which I didn't find much material on. It's my personal belief (not upheld by any data) that humans may have been here in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.

But that's a personal belief. I like reading stuff that confirms it, but I'm always willing to admit when it's "iffy."

And this is "iffy."