“Who We Are: #6 The Americas

In the Pre-Columbian settling of the Americas, there were early layers and late layers. Let’s talk first about the early layers. Some of this is from archaeology, some from genetics (including ancient genetics), a little from linguistics. The Reich lab has played a major role in the genetic work.

The population that accounts for the vast majority of Native American ancestry, which we will call Amerinds, came into existence somewhere in northern Asia. It was formed from a mix of Ancient North Eurasians and a population related to the Han Chinese – about 40% ANE and 60% proto-Chinese. Is looks as if most of the paternal ancestry was from the ANE, while almost all of the maternal ancestry was from the proto-Han. [Aryan-Transpacific ?!?] This formation story – ANE boys, East-end girls – is similar to the formation story for the Indo-Europeans.
This new population ended up in Beringia, a land that is today the shallow Bering Sea between Alaska and Siberia, then exposed because of the low sea levels of the Ice Age. It wasn’t easy to proceed further into North America, since the path was blocked by ice sheets, and apparently the Beringians hung out there for thousands of years.

But then the ice began to retreat. The Beringians managed to get past the glaciers – probably by following a path from one unglaciated patch to the next along the Canadian west coast. The idea that they waited until an inland ice-free corridor opened up seems to be mistaken: we keep finding remains that are too old to fit that scenario.

Those early Amerindians split into two close but distinguishable populations: one that occupied parts of eastern North America (Algonquians), the other now occupying central and South America. Those Amerinds spread rapidly through the two continents, and, for the most part, they’re still where they landed. There were some regional expansions, but nothing like the vast population/language expansions in the Old World – nothing like the Bantu or Indo-European or Hamitic-Semitic expansions. In many area, the Amerindian populations today are largely descended from the people that lived there 8,000 or more years ago.

This resulted in a pattern of many deeply diverged languages, rather than a few very wide-spread language families, as seen in the Old World. Reich thinks this vindicates Joseph Greenberg’s work on classifying the native languages of the Americas. Greenberg thought the many languages in the Americas split into only three families: Eskimo-Aleut, Na-Dene (spoken along the northern Pacific coast of the US, interior northern Canada, and the American Southwest ( Navajo) – a later migration – and Amerind (everyone else). This scheme fits what we find in the genes: just three migrations and three language families. Greenberg’s method, “mass comparison” works. Another point: Greenberg thought that there was a very distant relationship between Amerind and Indo-European. If correct, that suggests that Indo-European primarily originated from a language of the eastern mostly-ANE hunters, not from a population in the Caucasus or or northern Iran. Which also accords with work suggesting Kartvelian influences on PIE, rather than origins – also with PIE having a sister relationship with Uralic. Just saying.

Back to the new world. This picture was nice and simple, but there was a fly in the ointment. Isn’t there always? A Brazilian anthropologist, Walter Neves, had studied a number of old skeletons in Brazil that looked different. The most famous of these was Luzia Woman, about 11.500 years old. Neves and others thought that she ( and other similar skeletons) looked more like Australo-Melanesians than Amerindians. Reich is dismissive of Neves’ scientific credentials – ” If I don’ know it, it’s not knowledge” – but Neves was on to something important. One of Reich’s students, Pontus Skoglund, looked more closely at native American genetic data to look for traces of a different ancestral group. He found them. Parenthetically, I’ve heard that other people had seen something weird in those Amazonian genetic samples even earlier, but seem to have thought it was too weird to publish

Some populations of Brazilian Indians were genetically closer to Australasians than to other world populations – the general group that Neves and other anthropologists had said the old Brazilian skeletons resembled. The population with the greatest affinity were the Andaman islanders, short dark people that live on islands between India and Burma.

Several of the Amazonian tribes they looked at had this admixture, at a few-percent level: the Surui, Karitiana, and Xavante. It has since been found in some other groups in or near the Amazonian basin.

Some obvious attempts at an explanation don’t work. That genetic trace isn’t from Polynesians – not a good genetic match, and the admixture is old, while the Polynesian expansion into the Pacific is recent.

The pattern of the populations that don’t have this pseudo-Andamanese admixture is illuminating. You don’t see it in the eastern branch of Amerindians, You don’t see it most of the current southern branch ( i.e. central America and South America west of the Andes). You don’t see it in ancient members of the southern branch (The Clovis-complex Anzick-1 skeleton from Montana, about 12.6k years old). You don’t see it in a Beringian that was left behind in Alaska (about 11k years old).

How can you see it in Brazil if it wasn’t already there in Beringia? Or in the early expansion out of Beringia? Or in Central America?

Because these pseudo-Andamanese were there first, before the Amerindians ever got south of the glaciers. And were then seriously stomped by Amerindians, as has happened so often in prehistory.

If you go back 18,000 years or earlier, South America was a much more appetizing target for settlement than North America, which was was glaciated and cold. Taiga all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico. While the Amazon basin was reasonably warm and far less of a Green Hell than it is today – lots of savanna.

Although likely, that’s a bad explanation, because some people won’t like it. In addition, it’s too simple. People in the soft sciences routinely use Occam’s butterknife – entities should be multiplied out the wazoo.

I’ve seen an alternative scenario : as the southern branch of Amerindians was moving south, perhaps along the west coast, a single canoe or raft full of pseudo-Andamanese landed and merged peacefully. This has to happen at exactly the right time and place – at the wavefront of people moving south. Peaceful merger wasn’t any too likely either.

On the other hand, if you assume that the pseudo-Andamanese simply arrived before the Amerindians, hat could have occurred at any time over thousands of years, and instead of having to land near the front of that wave, they merely have to hit the west coast of South America – a big target. I figure that the early-arrival scenario is thousands of times more likely than the complex-population-structure model.

There were later, smaller migrations. First, perhaps 6000 years ago, another from east Siberia that led to the Paleo-Eskimos and the Na-Dene. We’ve actually traced a clear language connection between the Na-Dene languages and a Siberian tribe, the Ket. The Neo-Eskimos arrived yet more recently and rapidly replaced the Paleo-Eskimos. Both the Na-Dene and Neo-Eskimos picked up a lot of ancestry from Amerindians.

.

We found that Siberian and East Asian populations shared 38% of their ancestry
with a 45,000-yr-old Ust’-Ishim individual who was previously believed to have no modern-day descendants. Western
Siberians trace 57% of their ancestry to ancient North Eurasians, represented by the 24,000-yr-old Siberian Mal’t

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

90 Responses to “Who We Are: #6 The Americas

  1. In “Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives,” Greenberg argued for the existence of a Eurasiatic macro-language family, including Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Japanese-Korean-Ainu, Gilyak, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, and Eskimo-Aleut. (This is pretty much Nostratic minus Dravidian.) And he argued that the closest relative of Eurasiatic was Amerind. At the time, this seemed like a weird assortment – who were the Proto-Eurasiatic speakers supposed to be? But the recent genetic work suggests an answer: they were a ghost population, the Ancient North Eurasians (at some stage in their history).

    Mainstream American linguists have mostly been scornful of Greenberg’s methods; they can give all sorts of reasons why they shouldn’t work. But if dowsers got successful results as often as Greenberg did, I might start to take dowsing at least a little seriously.

    • Jim says:

      It was also Greenberg’s view that Etruscan was a Eurasiatic language. He considered Etruscan as a separate branch of Eurasiatic but more closely related to Indo-European than to the other branches.

    • benespen says:

      Looking at the Wikipedia entry, even if we grant that Greenberg’s database had some significant errors in it, it rather looks as if his method was quite robust regardless. That must be galling to his critics.

      • Zimriel says:

        What galls Greenberg’s critics is that Greenberg didn’t Show Your Work.

        Greenberg knew the Americas hosted at least two language families in the Americas – the Na-Dene and the Inuit – and that these were bunched in the northwest and far north. He also knew the others weren’t related to these. He knew that normal people don’t just cook languages out of nothing (and even the non-normal Tolkien had Finnish, Anglo-Saxon, and Welsh to work from). And he knew the Amerinds were Steppe Eurasians. The hypothesis that there did exist a first, ancient migration from Siberia and that their speakers spawned all those southern languages was a reasonable one.

        What Greenberg didn’t know is how, exactly, the Amerind languages broke off from one another. And it was clear he didn’t know that; his reasoning on their interrelations was poor.

        And we might end up finding out that the ancient Melanesian population birthed a language useful-enough (in the Amazon) to convert invaders into speaking that language. This is what has happened in Vanuatu. Also happened in China after the Manchus invaded.

    • Philip Neal says:

      To demonstrate the existence of a language family, you need to show that its members are more closely related to each other than they are to any other language and show how they diverged. Greenberg did not do this. He made life easy for himself by dispensing with the need to account for divergence. That is why his macro-families have no internal structure other than what was already known. And if you cannot say how two languages came to be different, in what sense have you shown that they used to be the same?

      I wrote about the sloppy, inaccurate quality of Greenberg’s work in a comment to this post from 2014. In some cases, his evidence consists of words, and even languages, that do not exist. If serious linguists dislike him, it is because he claimed to have proved a sensational result which they dream of themselves by lowering intellectual standards.

      • Toddy Cat says:

        But he does seem to have been right, both in the Americas and in Africa. That would seem to indicate that Greenberg was on to something. The position of “serious” linguists is that Greenberg was right more often than he was wrong, but he was just lucky, and anyway, wasn’t one of the cool kids. Given the state of the DNA evidence, this position would seem to be due for an overhaul.

      • gcochran9 says:

        The result certainly looks correct. From my weird point of view that counts for something.

      • Jim says:

        Of course people like Sir William Jones and Thomas Young had no idea how the Indo-European languages diverged. So according to this view their views were right by pure chance. Observations on the similarities between European languages and Indian languages go back to the 16th century. None of these observers provided “proof” in your sense. But their observations were not just purely random guesses.

        Greenberg never claimed that his methodology was a replacement for the detailed reconstruction of proto-languages. He just claimed that one could get the “big picture” fairly accurately by his approach.

    • Another linguist whose work bears on the peopling of the Americas is Joanna Nichols (Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time). Her methods are different from Greenberg’s and her work stands or falls independently of his. She looks not for ancient language families, but for strata within existing families that reflect earlier history. To illustrate: even if Khoisan languages had disappeared beyond hope of reconstruction, and their speakers had blended into the rest of the African population, the Khoisan click sounds (a rare feature not likely to be independently invented in parallel) that have leaked into some Bantu languages would be clues pointing to a ghost population.

      In the case of the New World, Nichols finds an ancient stratum of rare linguistic features that links southern South America with Melanesia. When she wrote, there was no real archeological evidence to support any connection, but now it looks like Nichols (like Greenberg, but with different methods) may have picked up traces of a ghost population.

      • Philip Neal says:

        Johanna Nicols is an excellent historical linguist and in a different league from Greenberg. This is a far more important observation if there is anything in it. Treat it cautiously, since there is no good reason why a regional isogloss should be of ancient rather than recent origin, but she has found new internal structure in the grouping of these languages. Greenberg always lumped and never split for reasons inherent in his methodology.

        As for Greenberg’s ideas being confirmed, would anything disconfirm them? What if it were shown that Chinese is related to Indo-European, (a possibility for which the comparative method has some evidence but Greenberg apparently had none)? Would his admirers concede that his claims had been refuted? I suspect that it would only go to show that he was even more right than he knew. I do not understand the idea that he thought the unthinkable and deployed advanced new methods. It is more as if he rejected a negative result at p ≤ 0.01 in favour of a positive result at p ≤ 0.1 and was acclaimed as the equal of a Wegener.

        • Jim says:

          Greenberg’s observations were not based on “advanced” methods but they were correct. The pattern of Amerindian first and second pronouns certainly gives more than a one percent chance of their being all descended from a common ancestor. It there were actually hundreds of unrelated linguistic families in the New World that would imply hundreds of different migration events. The probability of that is extremely low.

  2. DD'eden says:

    “one that occupied parts of eastern North America (Athabascans)” GC

    “Na-Dene (spoken along the northern Pacific coast of the US, interior northern Canada, and the American Southwest ( Navajo) – a later migration” GC

    Athabaskans are Na Dene, so why do you list them separately?

  3. Jim says:

    I’m puzzled by your reference to Athabascans living in Easter North America.

  4. JayMan says:

    ecause these pseudo-Andamanese were there first, before the Amerindians ever got south of the glaciers. And were then seriously stomped by Amerindians, as has happened so often in prehistory.

    I tried to explain to someone (who was preaching against anti-open borders by going on about how Europeans stole the Native Americans’ land) that the arrival of the Amerindians itself involved genocide, as is often the case in history. She wouldn’t have it: couldn’t believe “willful” genocide was part of the process.

    • Toddy Cat says:

      First rule of Leftist Fight Club; No group that is currently designated a “victim” group can ever be admitted to have victimized anyone themselves. This confuses the narrative.

    • DataExplorer says:

      The problem is that we cannot prove that a genocide took place. We can assume, based on the evidence and our understanding of human nature, that a replacement occurred that probably involved violence. But that is not going to be good enough for a Leftist SJW that does not know anything about human nature in the first place.

      • OFWHAP says:

        I’d like to see them explain how a Y-chromosome goes from being dominant to being replaced by another Y-chromosome from a different region. Did cuckoldry become the fashionable thing?

        • Smithie says:

          There is no shortage of oddball explanations.

          The British Museum has a giant bronze sword in its collection. About four or so have been found with blunted edges across Europe, and the size and detailing seem to indicate that they were ceremonial.

          The curator believes that the blunted edges mean it is a symbol of peace. He is oddly confident to the point of it being humorous. Maybe, he knows something, but on the face of it even an optimist would only go so far to suppose that it was the symbol of an alliance or else a wall decoration.

    • kw liebhardt says:

      Interesting, that various related tribes killing each other off is somehow accepted as “boys will be boys,” but when the genetic relationship is further apart it gets to join the vaunted “genocide” club. If aztecs ran around killing tabasco indians and were later replaced by the more efficient spaniards, the dichotomy is rooted in large part, by racism-the last term, the open borders people, would believe emanates from their camp.

    • dlreader says:

      Time to get consistent and start referring to all of the ‘Native Americans’ as ‘Siberian-Americans’. Except the pseudo-Andamanese of course.

  5. HI says:

    What happened to Who We Are: #5?

  6. Smithie says:

    The Andamanese want you to believe they were stomped. That way they can continue to observe us unimpeded. In truth, they were always one step ahead of us, orchestrating these great movements of people.

  7. Philip Neal says:

    Also, the final paragraph seems to have been truncated.

  8. ohwilleke says:

    “A Brazilian anthropologist, Walter Neves, had studied a number of old skeletons in Brazil that looked different. The most famous of these was Luzia Woman, about 11.500 years old. Neves and others thought that she ( and other similar skeletons) looked more like Australo-Melanesians than Amerindians. . . . Some populations of Brazilian Indians were genetically closer to Australasians than to other world populations – the general group that Neves and other anthropologists had said the old Brazilian skeletons resembled.”

    A very important part of the story is that none of the weird looking skeletons had any of the Paleo-Asian genetics. The people who had Paleo-Asian genetics, meanwhile, are not phenotypically unusual v. ordinary South American Native Americans. Neves was competely wrong even though, Columbus-like, his mistake caused people to look for and discover something else that was unexpected.

    “i’’ve seen an alternative scenario : as the southern branch of Amerindians was moving south, perhaps along the west coast, a single canoe or raft full of pseudo-Andamanese landed and merged peacefully. This has to happen at exactly the right time and place – at the wavefront of people moving south.”

    I hold this view rather than the Paleo-Asians first view, because there is no way that Paleo-Asian admixture would be detected only in one tiny cluster of the Amazon over a mountain range and in a different river basin from the one they would have arrived from, and no where else.

    Before the Founding Americans arrived, the Americas were virgin territory full of animals that didn’t know to fear humans, and yet, there are no waves of pre-Founding mass extinctions, no pervasive tool types across the Americas, no admixture with any other population. Even an early wave of Paleo-Asians would have been from the Upper Paleolithic era, a group of hunter-gatherers who left very distinctive traces everywhere else they went.

    Mass replacement of one group of humans by another even on continental scales is absolutely a thing. But, there has never been an instance of that on a continental scale that didn’t leave pervasive if small traces of admixture and lots of archaeological evidence of the transition.

    Also, the timing is not quite a delicate as suggested. Berignia was isolated by ice barriers on both sides for thousands of years and both sides started to melt and become accessible at about the same time. The same conditions that finally made it possible for them to migrate into the Americas almost exactly simultaneously made it possible for Asians to encounter them. And, while large group encounters do usually lead to conflict, a few people can be treated with less fear and conflict some of the time. Also it could be that five or ten canoes visited in the relevant time period and only one group managed to integrate (perhaps as slaves or spouses rather than as equals on a peaceful basis).

    • gcochran9 says:

      “A very important part of the story is that none of the weird looking skeletons had any of the Paleo-Asian genetics.”

      Wrong. Nobody has (yet) looked at the genetics of those old Brazilian skeletons, so nobody knows. Not yet, and of course it depends on the condition of the DNA. I think I’ve told you this three times.

      If they had been sequenced, and if that Australo-Melanesian trace had been found, or found not to exist, I guarantee that Reich would have mentioned it. Unless it’s in progress..

      The argument I made is solid. They were already there. I think that Reich suspects that too – the language mentioning that possibility has been getting less dismissive with time. And I know for a fact that at least one person in the Reich lab agrees with me – because he/she has told me so.

      Next, there is a strong pressure on Reich to tiptoe around it – although that wouldn’t stop him. Pressure because it’s something Amerindians don’t want to hear.

      By the way, that “tiny cluster” covers most of the Amazon, to varying degrees.

    • DataExplorer says:

      “because there is no way that Paleo-Asian admixture would be detected only in one tiny cluster of the Amazon over a mountain range and in a different river basin from the one they would have arrived from, and no where else.”

      That is exactly what you would expect after a population replacement. The biggest vestiges of pre-Indoeuropean peoples in Europe, both genetically (Sardinians) and linguistically (Basques) occur in isolated, mountainous regions, which are unlikely to be related to where the pre-Indo-European people first arrived in Europe.

  9. gothamette says:

    “Reich thinks this vindicates Joseph Greenberg’s work on classifying the native languages of the Americas. ”

    Well, well. He was “reviled” by some.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/15/local/me-63748

    “His work on Native American languages has been far more controversial, with his most vociferous naysayer insisting that he be “shouted down.” The jury is still out on his Eurasiatic concept.”

    That’s the spirit!

    • Jim says:

      Edward Sapir also often stated that the pattern of first person -n and second person -m widely found in Amerindian languages (but not Nadene or Eskimo-Aleut) could not be explained by anything other than common descent. Indeed the traditionalists have never been able to give any explanation for it.

      Sapir was also firmly of the opinion that the Na-Dene languages are genetically related to Sino-Tibetan languages.

      • gothamette says:

        All I can say is this: if you visit the part of the American Museum of Natural History that’s dedicated to Siberian shamanistic cultures, you say to yourself: these are Plains Indians. But what do I know?

  10. MawBTS says:

    Is there any point to buying the book after reading this? These are very thorough and good posts.

  11. Zimriel says:

    “ANE boys, East-end girls”
    I just come here for the Pet Shop Boys references.

  12. swampr says:

    Is it possible that the first Beringians already had a small admixture from an Andaman like group they otherwise replaced on their route in? Like Melanesians carrying a Denisovan fraction picked up in Sundaland. People from this group then enter America. A couple millenia later a second wave, similar but without any Andaman like admixture because the first wave has wiped it out, follows the same route. The second wave rapidly replaces the first everywhere other than Amazon where the process is slower and less complete. The Amazon may have been tougher, not easier. Consider that in central Africa the largest surviving pre-Bantu group by far is in the Congo rainforest.

    • gcochran9 says:

      Less simple than my scenario. Also wrong: we have ancient DNA from a Clovis site that is clearly part of the southern groups of Amerindians, yet has no Andaman-like admixture. You should be thinking about Pacific currents.

      • swampr says:

        By “second wave” I mean Clovis. The first wave being similar but with enough Onge like admixture to leave distinctive skulls. I guess my question is how close is the Onge signal in the Amazon to not being detectable? Could N. American groups just be below the threshold of detection? If the non-Andaman fraction of pre-Clovis is indistinguishable from Clovis it gets you a lot close to that threshold.

        The only likely west to east transpacific drifts are too far outside of the tropics. The Manila galleons had to go all the way up to the 40s. Might as well just have them come the same way as Clovis at that point. Guys who survive long Pacific drifts go west, like Zamperini or Mexican fishermen. Japanese “castaways” in 19th cent. Pacific NW were really in ships.

        • gcochran9 says:

          Equatorial counter-current should be considered.

          • DRA says:

            From New Guinea to Ecuador is about 8,870 miles along a great circle route. Potentially assisted by the Equatorial counter-current.

            From the north Island of Japan to the seacoast south of the glaciers in Washington State is about 4020 miles along a great circle route. Roughly following the island arcs it is about 4,400 miles. Perhaps assisted by the Japanese current.

            From west Africa to Brazil following along a great circle route is about 2,050 miles. If the earliest Amerindian arrivals in Brazil arrived circa15,000 years ago, how long ago did the pseudo-Andamanese arrive, and who was living in the closest point of west Africa in the humid costal area, about 10,000 years before the Bantu expansion?

            Personally, I don’t expect that they were close to being anything like the Andamanese, but I haven’t heard of any DNA from that time and place.

            I do find the ongoing discoveries fascinating, and await attentively for as more discoveries are made.

  13. Very gratifying to see Greenberg vindicated. I have wondered if anthropologists are the most spiteful discipline.

    • DD'eDeN says:

      Anthropologists or linguists, AVI?

      • It’s a fair cop. I did lump the linguists in with the Anthropologists largely because that’s what my college did 40 years ago. Not much of a reason, perhaps. But the shift happens quickly in the mind. It’s hard to talk about PIE or Amerind languages without immediately moving on to actual Indo-Europeans or Native Americans.

        I was also considering people kicking Keeley in the general statement about meanness.

  14. dux.ie says:

    “””The population that accounts for the vast majority of Native American ancestry, which we will call Amerinds, came into existence somewhere in northern Asia. It was formed from a mix of Ancient North Eurasians and a population related to the Han Chinese – about 40% ANE and 60% proto-Chinese.”””

    “””Sapir was also firmly of the opinion that the Na-Dene languages are genetically related to Sino-Tibetan languages.”””

    The Na Dene people differs from the other AmInd in that their Y haplogroup DNA profile the fraction for yHg C is quite high. So any of the EastAsian groups have close yHg profile to the Na Dene people?

    DivNdx Size Ethn Surn/Pop C D N O Q R G J ref
    0.65 37 NaDene* Dogrib 35.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.90 8.10 0.00 0.00 Dulik2012
    0.63 37 NaDene* Tanana 42.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 Zegura2004
    0.52 27 Di? * Hengbei 0.00 0.00 3.71 55.55 40.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 Zhao2014
    0.66 1118 Han 孔 Kǒng 46.60 0.00 0.98 22.80 27.01 1.16 0.09 0.09 Fudan
    0.50 19 Han 謝 Xiè 5.30 0.00 10.50 68.50 10.50 5.30 0.00 0.00
    0.46 38 Han 高 Gāo/Ko 15.80 0.00 10.50 71.00 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
    0.46 14 Han 許 Xǔ 14.30 0.00 7.10 71.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    0.60 24 Han 金Jīn/Kim 8.30 0.00 20.80 58.40 8.30 4.20 0.00 0.00
    0.57 21 Han夏侯Xiàhóu 19.00 4.80 9.50 62.00 4.80 0.00 0.00 0.00
    0.18 41 Han 周 Zhōu 2.40 2.40 2.40 90.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    0.33 166 Han * (Han) 6.00 0.60 9.00 81.30 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 Karafet2005
    0.39 18838 Han * (China) 9.60 1.92 6.27 76.93 2.63 1.40 0.13 0.55 Wegen2018
    0.58 50 * * Henan 4.00 0.0 0.0 60.0 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    0.53 41 Manchu滿Manchu2 43.91 0.00 4.88 51.71 9.76 4.88 0.00 0.00 Hammer2006
    0.62 35 Manchu滿 Manchu 25.70 2.90 14.30 54.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Xue2006
    0.67 35 Mongol蒙IMongol 46.70 0.00 13.30 31.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Xue2006
    0.46 25 Korean* Korean 12.00 0.00 4.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Xue2006

    Recently there was a politically sensitive study on certain pop group and the publication of the results was held up for quite some time and the sample size greatly increased, the study on the officially registered descendents of Confucius (by all the Chinese dynasties since 2500 years ago). The simplified genealogy tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_Confucius_in_the_main_line_of_descent The continuity of the main line branches of the Confusious line were broken a few times because of no main line direct male descendent and it was continued from the more junior branches a few generation back where the lineages might not have been scutinized as closely. Or it could be that the ancient intellectual elite families were more concerned with culture and less concerned with bloodline (or race) than adopting prodigious youths into the families, a practice for building empire rather than the base peasantry customs. Ancient ChongShan state near modern Beijing was not considered to be “Chinese” because of the slight different in culture.

    https://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/cbw/rlxxb/xbwzxz/201604/P020160427538687416920.pdf&prev=search

    Tab.2 Frequencies of the Y chromosome haplogroups of Surname Kong in Qufu
    Haplogroup C3 Q1a1 O3 O1 R N O2 C3c G J residual
    Frequency (%) 46.06 27.01 20.66 1.25 1.16 0.98 0.89 0.54 0.09 0.09 1.34

    The yHg profiles of modern Chinese, Mongolian, Manchurian and Korean all have very low yHg Q (respectively 0.6%, 0%, 10 or 0%, 0%). The ancient Chinese Hengbei people had high %yHg Q (41%) but zero yHg C. The modern Henan province where the ancient Hengbei town was located %yHg Q is 8%. The next Chinese surname group with high yHg Q is Xie at 11%. Surnames Xie, Gao and Xu are derived from the Jiang people who allied with the Ji people to overthrow the anchient Shang dynasty 3100 years ago. Note 41% of Oppenheimers might belong to yHg Q which might also include Robert Oppenheimer. https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Oppenheim/default.aspx?section=yresults

    Based on the yHg profiles of about 60 common Han surname groups the Kong family is definately an outlier genetically. Thus the ancient Chinese HuaXia might be different from the modern Chinese Hua. That might explains the wooden totem poles with wing structures similar to that for AmInd were found in ancient Shang tombs, and the modern Chinese marble version with stylized wings in places like the Forbidden City. That beg the cheeky question of what is the beef the neocons have with Confucius? Or McCarthyism with Robert Oppenheimer?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huabiao

  15. This is really interesting. Reblogging. (Click my avatar to visit my blog)

  16. epoch2013 says:

    The 40.000 years old Tianyuan man found in China near Peking also has this affinity.

    https://www.mpg.de/6842535/dna-Tianyuan-cave

    Just as mysterious is that it has an affinity to a 35.000 years old Aurignacian found in the Belgian Goyet cave but to no other ice age European.

    • DD'eDeN says:

      epoch2013, the Goyet dog genes are of high interest, as I place early domestication at Phu Quoc island en route north but not southward.

    • epoch2013 says:

      However, tthat goyet sample left no trace in the Suruii or Karitiana. But it is indicative that whatever admixture it was, was already present in NW Asia 40.000 years ago.

  17. DataExplorer says:

    There is a specific look that some Brazilians have that I always assumed was negro admixture. But perhaps it is Melanesian. This indigenous lady is running for vice president in the coming Brazilian elections, I feel like there is something very archaic about her look:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_general_election,2018#/media/File:S%C3%B4nia_Guajajara.jpg

  18. epoch2013 says:

    Suppose a group of our mystery population ended up in Amazonia or the surroundings. They would be the first there, hunting whatever they would please to hunt. It would clearly be a land of milk and honey. In other words, their numbers would explode.

    Just like the American Indians did.

    But then I find it remarkable how little of the admixture we see. Genocide on a massive scale? Two objections against that: genocide is hard, the Germans only managed to wipe away half of the Jews and that was an industrialized genocide. The Tutsi’s aren’t gone either. Second objection is that American-Indian tribes that would go out to war with the tribes of this mystery population would almost certainly take the nubile women of the losing tribe, which would be instrumental to a far higher gene flow into them.

    So the question looks to me: Why is it so localized and small?

    • gcochran9 says:

      All of Southeast Asia used to be occupied by Australo-Melanesian types, but in most of the current populations there, that admixture is low. The high is probably Cambodia, ~20%.

      The current Eskimos, Neo-eskimos, show no genetic sign of the previous Dorset population.

      If it has happened, it can happen. I shouldn’t need to keep pointing this out.

      • epoch2013 says:

        “If it has happened, it can happen. I shouldn’t need to keep pointing this out.”

        Certainly. But I have a hunch it isn’t all that easy for hunter-gatherers to wipe out other hunter-gatherers. I think of Napoleon Chagnon’s description of permanent war over women. Although we possibly have a different example with Neanderthals and Denisovans. Farmers versus hunter-gatherers seems far more likely to wipe out the latter, with diseases and all, although Cambodians have ~20% HG admixture.

        I think at least we should consider more possibilities. Maybe the southern American-Indians weren’t as uniform as we think. The demographic disaster after contact with Europeans might have wiped out the ~20% admixted peoples in South-America.

        I recall hearing that soon a lot of pre-Columbian samples are published. Maybe there some more of this admixture pops up.

        • poster says:

          All you need is for one group of hunter-gatherers to be technologically superior to another group to the extent that their means of subsistence allows them to support a significantly larger population. If that is the case, they can outcompete other hunter-gatherers, and for the same reason as agriculturalists do(this is in addition to other potential advantages). We should not treat hunter-gatherers as if they are one homogenous group. They vary in technological capacity, and in the case of the pseudo-Andamanese, we have no idea how numerous they were, what their capabilities were etc. So we can’t rule out they were total push-overs. If they were anything like their distant relatives in Southeast Asia and the Andaman Islands(or worse), you can bet they were push-overs.

    • Drolan says:

      The Germans had 3-4 years. Ancient genocides had millennia.

    • Garr says:

      Group A males might find fewer than 10% of the nubile women of Group B even minimally attractive. (Seems unlikely before fast food, though.)

    • TB says:

      A very small initial population so lots of inbreeding resulting in slow reproduction, low IQ, poor health, susceptibility to newcomers diseases. Poorer material culture. Particularly bloodthirsty religious practices of the newcomers. Hebrew-like resistance to taking wives of outsiders.

  19. Tracer Dye says:

    Populations in the far northeast of Asia being somewhat variable mixes of ancestry related to Onge, Tianyuan and ANE is not really too improbable or complex.

    We already have East Asians modelled as mixes of Tianyuan and Onge, and the Onge phylogenetically look more like second wave Asians to Tianyuan’s first wave Asians, rather than the Onge as some wave that preceded East Asian ancestry across Asia, and somehow into the Americas. Similarly, we know that there must have been variable proportions of ANE:East Asian, at least, in far Northeast Asia populations.

    You could be right Greg, but I would bet (not actual money, obviously) on Onge relatedness being a mere “tracer dye” as Reich seems to incline towards (and if he knows anything, this topic he knows).

    (By the way, I get the impression on this topic that you have some preference towards a large replacement of a group of First Americans, by today’s “Native” Americans, because it would please you in a political sense, by being more akin to the mass replacement of Native North Americans by Europeans. It’s “politically correct” for you (and hence to me, seems likely that this is a Cochran unique inverse weathervane). Same reason you once argued (wrongly even before hindsight showed this with absolute clarity) against the 25% survival of WHG within EEF by the Middle Neolithic, because you saw total replacement too sweet an analogy to the European colonization of North America to pass up. Perhaps you’ll censor this comment, perhaps not.)

    • gcochran9 says:

      I’m interested in figuring out what happened. Your impression is wrong. Full stop. Most other people aren’t, which leaves opportunity for me.

      The Beringians splinter into Algonquians and the southern branch: everybody else. We have samples of the early days of the southern branch (anzick), and of pretty early Beringians, not long after the trek south: there’s no pseudo-Andamanese mixture there. There’s none in central America. Basically just in Brazil. That admixture had to come from somewhere – it isn’t there in contemporary samples to the north and it wasn’t there in old samples to the north. So how did it get there? You think a later group pole-vaulted over everyone in North America?

      Many of the people in this business were soft-headed enough to believe that a major language expansion took place by peaceful emulation. Soft-headed enough to think that near-total disappearance of the G2a Y-chromosome lineages that were dominant in Neolithic Europe occurred because the local sheilas just preferred those sexy Indo-European newcomers. I try not to be soft-headed. I recommend that you try it too.

      Imagine someone (EEF) moving into new territory. They fight, displace, outnumber, win, but pick up 5% local ancestry. Then they do it again. And again. Locally, near-100% replacement, but globally, a fair amount of admixture.

      Thing like near-total replacement clearly happened: Bell Beakers moving into England replaced at least 93% of the previous population. Yamnaya replacing at least 75% of the previous population , at least all of the male lineages. More if they’d already picked up some EEF ancestry inbetween the Kuban and Germany.

      • Tracer Dye says:

        Reich’s argument:We already know from archaeology that humans probably arrived south of the ice sheets before the opening of the ice-free corridor, leaving remains at
        archaeological sites including Monte Verde and the Paisley Caves. But the big population explosion, marked by the Clovis people, only occurred once the ice-free corridor had opened. The genetic data could be giving evidence of early peopling of the Americas by a minimum of two very different groups moving in from Asia, perhaps along two different routes and at different times … This is because the impact of Population Y on Amazonians may be much greater than 2 percent. The ancestors of Population Y had to traverse enormous spaces in Siberia and northern North America where the ancestors of First Americans were also living. It is likely that Population Y was already mixed with large amounts of First American–related ancestry when it started expanding into South America.
        . Pre-Clovis, but via Siberia along the coastal route. You will now argue at length that this is less likely than your Thor Heyerdahl-esque solution.

        If I recall correctly the preferred alternatives were actually more like highly violent emulation (pace Gimbutas model, and most of the followers, including Anthony) and a massive founder effect of an introgressive lineage spread by Bronze Age patriarchy (for the y). Not exactly warm and fuzzy.

        Large replacement certainly happened. Definitely in Asia, repeatedly, well before any colonization of the Americans. It wouldn’t make any sense for me to be offering a wave carrying “Population Y” ancestry via Siberia of a people now replaced there, if I did not believe that replacement was possible. I just think you’re wrong on these specific cases and timescales, and moreover because it appeals to some misplaced politicised sense of analogy that you have, and perhaps I’m wrong on your motives here and perhaps not.

        • gcochran9 says:

          “Prior to the explosion of ancient DNA in 2015, most archaeologists found it inconceivable that the genetic changes associated with the spread of the Yamnaya culture could be as drastic as the archaeological changes. Even the archaeologist David Anthony, a leading proponent of the idea that the spread of Yamnaya culture was transformative in the history of Eurasia, could not bring himself to suggest that its spread was driven by mass migration. Instead, he proposed that most aspects of Yamnaya culture spread through imitation and proselytization.”

          You don’t recall correctly. I’ve read Anthony’s book: on that point I thought he was soft-headed, possibly because he had to be. Migration and conquest and all that was unfashionable.

          The archaeologists have gone ridiculously wrong in their models of prehistory: Childe had a better picture 90 years ago.

          Reich’s idea about how population Y got there makes no sense. But the data will drag him home eventually.

      • epoch2013 says:

        “Many of the people in this business were soft-headed enough to believe that a major language expansion took place by peaceful emulation. Soft-headed enough to think that near-total disappearance of the G2a Y-chromosome lineages that were dominant in Neolithic Europe occurred because the local sheilas just preferred those sexy Indo-European newcomers. I try not to be soft-headed. I recommend that you try it too.”

        Yet the near-total disappearance of the G2a Y-chromosome lineages that were dominant in Neolithic Europe didn’t happen because of the incoming Indo-Europeans because G2a was already on the decline before that. Lipson 2017 shows very little G2a in the Middle-Neolithic and Olalde 2018 had no G2a in English and Scottish neolithics. Just I2. Mathiesons paper on SE Europe showed that this was male mediated. WHG-like males, that is.

    • gcochran9 says:

      Another point about replacement: six thousand years ago, the Irish were EEF with some H-G admixture, closer to modern Sardinians than anyone else. Five thousand years ago, they were about what we see today. The new population had some steppe, some EEF, some western admixture – but it was admixture with HGs from somewhere around Germany, with no sign of the previous HG component. In reality, close to complete replacement, like in England.

      The mere fact that Fst across the North European plain is so low tells you something: the mix didn’t change much as it rolled west.

      • epoch2013 says:

        But that mix might very well have been created on the North European plain from Corded Ware and local Neolithic populations. The diversity of local TRB was high and we know from both archaeological records (Vlaardingen culture) as well as genomic evidence (Blätterhöhle, TRB Flatgraves) that there even was substantial survival of WHG. We also know that both TRB and Vlaardingen survived centuries into the Corded Ware area, in the case of Vlaardingen even up until the ascend of Bell Beaker.

        So while the situation in the UK and Ireland was near total replacement, that wasn’t at all clear in the North European plain. We even have blatant proof of that as Olalde et al showed that Hungarian and Bavarian Bell Beakers had varying steppe admixture, with even a G2a found with no steppe at all. We also have a male I2 buried in Corded Ware with no steppe at all.

        http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2018/03/awesome-substructure-within-czech.html

  20. LukHamilton says:

    ” In many area [sic], the Amerindian populations today are largely descended from the people that lived there 8,000 or more years ago.”

    Not sure what you mean by this. The Inuit wiped out the Dorset Eskimos. The Numic-speaking hunter-gatherers wiped out the previous peoples in the Great Basin circa 200-600 A.D. (And they kept expanding; eventually some of their descendants became the Comanche.) The Navajo pushed into the Southwest in the 1400s. And so on.

    I suppose a lot of the pre-Columbian replacement wouldn’t be quite as dramatic as the stuff in the Old World, since the conquerors would differ genetically from the conquered relatively less.

    • Jim says:

      Comanche are descended from a Shoshoni band which entered the Llano Estacado about 1700. The Shoshoni are Uto-Aztecan. The Hopi language is also Ute-Aztecan, close to Shoshoni. The Nahuatl (Aztec) are the southernmost Uto-Aztecan language. Expansion of Ute speakers is what probably lead to the abandonment of Mesa Verde.

      Coronado reported the Jicarilla in the Texas Panhandle. The Southern Athabascans of the Texas Panhandle were apparently pushed to the South and West by Comanche and Kiowa (from the Taos Pueblos) pressure. The Jicarilla are now in central eastern New Mexico. Navajo when the Spanish arrived were southwest of Chaco Canyon. The word “Apache” was a Zuni word for the Navajo meaning “enemy”.

      The Toboso of Northern Mexico were long thought to be Athabascans. The last speakers of their languages lived in the early 19th century. But recent studies indicate that they were probably Uto-Aztecan.

      • Jim says:

        Actually the Comanche may have done the Jicarilla a favor by driving them out of the Llano Estacado. Where they live now in the mountains is much prettier than the Llano Estacado. The Llano Estacado has a kind of stark beauty but the emphasis is definitely on the word “stark”.

      • LukHamilton says:

        Shoshoni is a branch of the Numic family, which itself is a branch of the Uto-Aztecan. Given that the Numic-speaking peoples (including the Shoshoni) are hunter-gatherers, do you suppose their ancestors were farmers that re-adopted hunter-gathering?

        (Given all these “pushes” and “pressures”, one should not be surprised that the First Nations are not called the First Nation.)

        • LukHamilton says:

          According to Wikipedia, proto-Uto-Aztecan emerged somewhere around the present-day Mexico-US border. The Southern Uto-Aztecan peoples then adopted agriculture as they went south. Thus the ancestors of the Aztecs had not domesticated maize; they were invaders. This makes sense.

          • Jim says:

            The greatest number of Uto-Atzecan languages are spoken in the Great Basin of the US rather than near the present day US-Mexican border. So if that is the proto-Uto-Atzecan homeland then there was a lot of migration from there north to the Great Basin more than to the south into Mexico. That doesn’t sound likely.

            The Aztec myths tell of their wanderings through the desert until they arrived in the Valley of Mexico. Nahuatl is most closely related to the languages of the Taos Pueblos and Kiowa.

    • Smithie says:

      What sort of outward expansion there was from agriculture is a really interesting question, IMO. Probably not enough structure to figure it out, I’d guess. But what would happen, if you had groups that were similar enough? Maybe, there wouldn’t be a real replacement, esp. considering how crops had to be adjusted to local climate.

  21. j says:

    When working in the Peruvian Selva (in the Amazonas basin) met short Negrito type people, very different from the highland Quechuas. The locals said they were descendants of Philippine slaves brought in by the Spanish. Sounded reasonable.

  22. DataExplorer says:

    What are your thoughts on the sites in Pedra Furada in Brazil. There is evidence of human occupation there carbon dated to 32,000 years ago, which is about the same time that Melanesians settled in the further Pacific islands.

    • dearieme says:

      By ‘further’ you mean …?

      • Jim says:

        There was settlement in the Solomon Islands 30,000 years ago but beyond that not until much more recently. In Fiji and New Caledonia less than 5000 years ago.

    • dave chamberlin says:

      The Polynesian expansion to the furthest Pacific Island was much later. The genetic mix found in South America is best isolated from a far earlier group best resembled in todays populations by Andamese Islanders, literally a remnant population of dying out negrito pygmies that are soon to be gone from their refuge in the Andaman Islands. For whatever reason the women in this small group are very infertile.

      Population replacements are our history. Soft headed people don’t like population replacements. I guess they don’t want to believe in murder or genetic domination by one population over another, I don’t know, I don’t care, I just wish a less violent form of replacement would happen to these fools in academia.

      • DD'eden says:

        DC: “. For whatever reason the women in this small group are very infertile. ”
        DD: European exported STD, followed by Indic & NGO STD. Note:
        New article on sweet potato, not brought by humans to Polynesia, different genetic variety naturally immigrated 100ka.

      • DataExplorer says:

        I am not talking about the recent Polynesian expansion, I am talking about the Melanesian expansion around 30k ya, by “further” I mean Melanesia.

  23. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2018/04/15) - Social Matter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s