Native Americans and Northern Europeans More Closely Related Than Previously Thought

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Recently on another topic, which I cannot remember, I posted that I thought this to be true.


Using genetic analyses, scientists have discovered that Northern European populations -- including British, Scandinavians, French, and some Eastern Europeans -- descend from a mixture of two very different ancestral populations, and one of these populations is related to Native Americans.


www.sciencedaily.com...


According to Nick Patterson, first author of the report, "There is a genetic link between the paleolithic population of Europe and modern Native Americans. The evidence is that the population that crossed the Bering Strait from Siberia into the Americas more than 15,000 years ago was likely related to the ancient population of Europe."

To make this discovery, Patterson worked with Harvard Medical School Professor of Genetics David Reich and other colleagues to study DNA diversity, and found that one of these ancestral populations was the first farming population of Europe, whose DNA lives on today in relatively unmixed form in Sardinians and the people of the Basque Country, and in at least the Druze population in the Middle East. The other ancestral population is likely to have been the initial hunter-gathering population of Europe. These two populations were very different when they met. Today the hunter-gathering ancestral population of Europe appears to have its closest affinity to people in far Northeastern Siberia and Native Americans.


Human Migration Map



It always seemed logical to me.







After years of looking at petroglyphs pictographs, similarities in cultures, it is pretty obvious we are all connected.

Global Petroglyph Map

Thanks to the internet, we have been able to assemble this growing collection from amateurs and professional archaeologists and to make side-by-side comparisons.
Petroglyphs from Argentina.

Petroglyphs from Brazil.

Petroglyphs from Chile.

Petroglyphs from Iraq.

Petroglyphs from Italy.

Petroglyphs from Spain.

Petroglyphs from Nambia.

Petroglyphs from California.

Petroglyphs from Greece.

Petroglyphs from Georgia.

Petroglyphs from Scandanavia.

Petroglyphs from India.

Petroglyphs from Ireland.

Petroglyphs from
Colorado, USA.
www.viewzone.com...




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Very interesting.

You go back far enough and we are all descendants of the same ancient relatives.

I am truly amazed at the diversity in the human species today, not just physical differences, but cultural, social and spiritual ones.

The questions I always come back to is; How do some groups of our ancient ancestors get to X location and in X amount of time ahead of other groups.

The land bridge theory always seemed like a limited theory to me.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Here's the link to the abstract on that report

Link




The most striking finding is a clear signal of admixture into northern Europe, with one ancestral population related to present-day Basques and Sardinians and the other related to present-day populations of northeast Asia and the Americas. This likely reflects a history of admixture between Neolithic migrants and the indigenous Mesolithic population of Europe, consistent with recent analyses of ancient bones from Sweden and the sequencing of the genome of the Tyrolean “Iceman.”



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Hi,
You beat me to it, I have been compiling the same info for a similar thread.

Here's a link to a similar study
digital.library.adelaide.edu.au...
And an analysis of it by an anthropologist.

It’s sometimes the case that whole-genome analysis reveals molecular patterns that are indiscernible using haploid genetic systems such as mtDNA and Y-DNA. For instance, no evidence for “archaic admixture” (Neandertals and Denisovans) has been reported so far to match the whole-genome signatures thereof. The situation with the so-called “Amerindian admixture” in (West) Eurasia is similar: first detected by both professional geneticists and genome bloggers using STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE analyses of autosomal markers, “Amerindian admixture” was further confirmed in a whole-genome study. But until recently neither mtDNA nor Y-DNA had anything to offer by way of corroborating the diploid data. The smaller effective population size of haploid systems, the small size of human populations in the pre-agropastoral age as well as the limited sampling of modern populations are the obvious explanations for the discrepancy. Ancient haploid DNA is the surest way to confirm or disprove the patterns of “admixture” detected in the whole-genome analyses of modern human populations.


The source,
anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...

The implications of these papers is astounding, they imply that there was an episode of migration from the new world to the old world.
That combined with other research into neandrthal and denisovans admixture into modern human populations indicates a new world origin for native Americans.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hey Hans,
Have you been to Dr. Dzielbel's blog site?

If you haven't I think you'll find it interesting.
anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...

There's lots of discussion and links to published papers.
Even if one doesn't subscribe to the theories espoused there its still full ofots of info open for interpretation.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Much evidence , both in the form of ancient structures, and linguistic remains point to the idea of a world wide culture and civilistaion way back there in the far past.
The ancient herew written on a Colorado rock is our first clue....
The world wide collection of pyramids the second clue.....
I have no doubts what we have been taught in school is mere propaganda.......



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


Yes very interesting one table from that link of yours which makes what you're saying clearer



This in retrospect makes sense, to the people then it was all one piece of land and they wandered back an forth



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
Much evidence , both in the form of ancient structures, and linguistic remains point to the idea of a world wide culture and civilistaion way back there in the far past.
The ancient herew written on a Colorado rock is our first clue....
The world wide collection of pyramids the second clue.....
I have no doubts what we have been taught in school is mere propaganda.......


Actually no that's not what this new evidence shows, its shows mixing and movment of people in ways not previously realized. In what we are talking about here 'Hebrew' is late to the party.....pyramids were built by different civilizations and cultures thousands of years apart

Sorry Civilization 'x' remains un-evidenced - still



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I think when you look at a cross section of disciplines, archeology, anthropology, odontology, linguistics and various cultural aspects, I think its clear that a strictly out of Africa scenario is essentially dead.
There is a paper that looks at the divergence of the two ancestral physically modern human populations, African pygmies and native Americans( a really obscure brazilian tribe). Thier interpretation is that these two groups represent basal population and everybody else is am admixture of both.
Somewhere in one of the discussions, one of the writers makes a case for the clovis people being true native Americans, descendants of a early human, ie neanderthal or HE, that speciated in behaviourly modern humans in the new world.
edit on 3-12-2012 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks10
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I think when you look at a cross section of disciplines, archeology, anthropology, odontology, linguistics and various cultural aspects, I think its clear that a strictly out of Africa scenario is essentially dead.
There is a paper that looks at the divergence of the two ancestral physically modern human populations, African pygmies and native Americans( a really obscure brazilian tribe). Thier interpretation is that these two groups represent basal population and everybody else is am admixture of both.


My understanding is that this mixing occurs after the initial waves of migration out of Africa - as I see it know the old world was a shifting mass of humans moving all over - and now we've added in the new world as a feeder too.

The paper you mentioned above do you have a link to that?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


These new studies clearly call for re examination of sites like calico, valsequillo, pendejo and early sites in SA.
Its clear that HSN, and HE made deep into northeast Asia, HSN adapted to arctic life, and they both had the ablility to build boats, so its not a stretch to think that they made it to the new world.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by punkinworks10
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I think when you look at a cross section of disciplines, archeology, anthropology, odontology, linguistics and various cultural aspects, I think its clear that a strictly out of Africa scenario is essentially dead.
There is a paper that looks at the divergence of the two ancestral physically modern human populations, African pygmies and native Americans( a really obscure brazilian tribe). Thier interpretation is that these two groups represent basal population and everybody else is am admixture of both.


My understanding is that this mixing occurs after the initial waves of migration out of Africa - as I see it know the old world was a shifting mass of humans moving all over - and now we've added in the new world as a feeder too.

The paper you mentioned above do you have a link to that?


Here you go Hans

The greatest divergence between South American Indians and Sub-Saharan Africans means that the proverbial primary split between Africans and non-Africans is wrong. It’s South American Indians and Sub-Saharan Africans that constitute the primary split, with all other continental populations falling in-between

The source
anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
Much evidence , both in the form of ancient structures, and linguistic remains point to the idea of a world wide culture and civilistaion way back there in the far past.
The ancient herew written on a Colorado rock is our first clue....
The world wide collection of pyramids the second clue.....
I have no doubts what we have been taught in school is mere propaganda.......



Great minds and all that
the "europeans" being referenced are what were once known as "dark whites" but as the millenarian cultural hijacking perpetrated by what i refer to as "the psychopaths of transcaucasia" proceeds the evidence keeps getting covered up

if you're well traveled in europe especially the northern parts you may have noticed or heard references regarding distinctions between southern europeans from northerns [also references of S E. being "lazy and shiftless"]

you have to dig ever deeper to find references to :

The Heliolithic Culture of Brunet Peoples outline-of-history.mindvessel.net...

The Mediterranean or Iberian division of the Caucasian race had a wider range in early times, and was a less specialized and distinctive type than the Nordic. It is very hard to define its southward boundaries from the Negro, or to mark off its early traces in Central Asia from those of early Mongolians. Wilfred Scawen Blunt[1] says that Huxley “had long suspected a common origin of the Egyptians and the Dravidians of India, perhaps a long belt of brown-skinned men from India to Spain in very early days”.
t is possible that this “belt” of Huxley’s of dark-white and brown-skinned men, this race of brunet-brown folk, ultimately spread even farther than India; that they reached to the shores of the Pacific, and that they were everywhere the original possessors of the Neolithic culture and the beginners of what we call civilization. It is possible that these Brunet peoples are so to speak the basic peoples of our modern world. The Nordic and the Mongolian peoples may have been but northwestern and northeastern branches from this more fundamental stem. Or the Nordic race may have been a branch, while the Mongolian, like the Negro, may have been another equal and distinct stem with which the brunet-browns met and mingled in South China. Or the Nordic peoples also may have developed separately from a Paleolithic stage.

At some period in human history (see Elliot Smith’s The Migrations Of Early Culture) there seems to have been a special type of Neolithic culture widely distributed in the world which had a group of features so curious and so unlikely to have been independently developed in different regions of the earth, as to compel us to believe that it was in effect one culture. It reached through all the regions inhabited by the brunet Mediterranean race, and beyond through India, further India, up the Pacific coast of China, and it spread at last across the Pacific and to Mexico and Peru. It was a coastal culture not reaching deeply inland.




This peculiar development of the Neolithic culture, which Elliot Smith called the heliolithic [2] culture, included many or all of the following odd practices:

circumcision,
the very queer custom of sending the father to bed when a child is born, known as the couvade,
the practice of massage,
the making of mummies,
megalithic monuments[3] (e.g. Stonehenge),
artificial deformation of the heads of the young by bandages,
tattooing,
religious association of the sun and the serpent, and
the use of the symbol known as the swastika (see Figure 115: The Swastika) for good luck. This odd little symbol spins gaily round the world; it seems incredible that men would have invented and made a pet of it twice over.

Elliot Smith traces these associated practices in a sort of constellation all over this great Mediterranean-India Ocean-Pacific area. Where one occurs, most of the others occur. They link Brittany with Borneo and Peru. But this constellation of practices does not crop up in the primitive homes of Nordic or Mongolian peoples, nor does it extend southward much beyond equatorial Africa.



Figure 116: Relationship of Human Races (Diagrammatic Summary)

For thousands of years, from 15,000 to 10,000 B.C., such a heliolithic culture and its brownish possessors may have been oozing round the world through the warmer regions of the world, drifting by canoes often across wide stretches of sea. It was then the highest culture in the world; it sustained the largest, most highly developed communities. And its region of origin may have been, as Elliot Smith suggests, the Mediterranean and North African region. It migrated slowly age by age. It must have been spreading up the Pacific Coast and across the island stepping-stones to America, long after it had passed on into other developments in its areas of origin.



funny how hanslune mentions a civilization X [to deny it, he also never responded to a prior inquiry regarding them]
even more laughable : THERE IS NO WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE on the subject, only a footnote [quoting wells, the source I've linked to] under dravidian civilization
edit on 3-12-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added pics



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 





funny how hanslune mentions a civilization X [to deny it, he also never responded to a prior inquiry regarding them]


Sorry I may have missed your question please link to it. I use civilization 'x' now instead of Atlantis as there are a few other common possibilites often thought about or referenced in these threads


even more laughable : THERE IS NO WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE on the subject, only a footnote [quoting wells, the source I've linked to] under dravidian civilization


Then create one, its not that difficult, old discarded theories tend to not get wikipedia articles - unless someone writes them......



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



Absolutely fascinating thread, Ish.

Some things I have thought about regarding this are:

- are they insinuating that Europeans were partially descended from Amerinds? Or vice versa?

- Is there s difference in the above, really? Or rather, could you tell which way the genetic information was flowing?

- How far across each continent would we be seeing the scatter of concentration?

- Do we see Neandertal DNA in the Amerind culture?

- Do we see Denisovian DNA in Amerinds? How about Europeans?

- and on a total side note, has anyone ever done a study to determine the mixing of other protohuman races into the human lineage?

I know you, yourself, don't have these answers. But perhaps there is a member of ATS that can illuminate my ignorance on the topic.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


Wait....there is actually a site called "Pendejo"? Where is this place? I MUST go visit!



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


Wait....there is actually a site called "Pendejo"? Where is this place? I MUST go visit!


Pendejo Cave

Book on the cave

Pendejo



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


who named it that?

as a bilingual individual I find it hilariously amusing.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Hey there BFFT




- Do we see Neandertal DNA in the Amerind culture?

- Do we see Denisovian DNA in Amerinds? How about Europeans?

- and on a total side note, has anyone ever done a study to determine the mixing of other protohuman races into the human lineage?

Yes
Amerinds have a higher percentage of HSN DNA than anyone else, and the people of the sahul/sunda have a higher percentage of denisovan DNA, ie the south east asians, melanesians, austronesian and aboriginal Australian peoples.
Here is a study and discussion on that subject and the last paragraph
of the analysis,

There is a symmetry between the excess of “Denisovan” alleles in Papuans and the shortage of “Neandertal” alleles in Europeans (both archaic species being closely related to each other), with Northeast Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia and the New World forming a “hub” with both paleobiological and genetic attestations of an “archaic” hominin source. There is also clear parallelism between the east-to-west decrease in the fraction of autosomal “Neandertal” ancestry and the presence of the “Amerindian” component (mislabeled as “East Eurasian” component by Dienekes) in Western Eurasia. It seems possible that Denisova Cave tells us a story of modern human origins from an East Eurasian hominin, a relative of Neandertals and Denisovans, who speciated into “us” in an isolated refugium such as America and then migrated back into the Old World (see out-of-America II). As early humans were migrating west to Europe and Africa, they lost some of that hominin ancestry and, in Africa, mixed with local archaics who contributed ancestral chimp alleles into a gene pool that had previously been largely composed of derived, or “modern,” as it were, alleles.

The source

anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hanslune
 


who named it that?

as a bilingual individual I find it hilariously amusing.

Ya I thought its was pretty hilarious myself.
Pendejo cave is one of those enigmatic sites in the US.
There is evidence of " proto ceramics" in the form of clay that was hauled from the river below to the cave and used to line a fire pit.





top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join