6 ms·

Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives

88 points by Thevet 6y ago

irrational 6y ago
Is this new or just additional details on previous studies along the same lines? https://www.nature.com/news/dna-study-links-indigenous-brazilians-to-polynesians-1.12710 https://www.nature.com/news/dna-study-links-indigenous-brazi... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2487-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2487-2 https://www.sciencenews.org/article/south-americans-may-have-traveled-polynesia-800-years-ago https://www.sciencenews.org/article/south-americans-may-have... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/native-americans-polynesians-meet-180975269/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/native-america...
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  The paper has nothing to do with polynesian or colonial era contacts. It's about the genetics of the people whose descendants would go on to populate the Americas and what they say about the routes they took to get there (pacific coastal route or inland). I'm a bit surprised to see it here, this is a pretty niche subject.
- ruined 6y ago
  three of those links are about the same study suggesting pre-colonial movement west from the south american coast towards polynesia, and one is about analysis of ancient remains. this study involves a large genetic survey of modern indigenous populations not only along the coast but also in the interior of the continent, that suggests ancient movement from polynesia to the south american continent.
mc32 6y ago
So the first people(s) to pop SAm and the first people(s) to pop NAm were of different origin and arrived via different methods?
- UncleOxidant 6y ago
  That's what it seems like. Reading this article on the topic https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/earliest-south-american-migrants-had-australian-melanesian-ancestry https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/earliest-south-ameri... and it says: "One unanswered question is why the Y signal hasn’t turned up in any North or Central American Indigenous groups. One possibility, Hünemeier suggests, is that the Y signal–bearing migrants simply stuck to the coast and made it to South America without leaving any genetic legacy up north" Ok. But how about "Or they arrived on the shores of South America by boat" ? I don't understand why that hypothesis seems to be avoided? It seems much more credible than "the people with that particular genetic legacy hugged the coast all the way down to So America and didn't mix with any other groups along the way."
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - AlotOfReading 6y ago
    They did leave a genetic legacy up north in ancient remains like Anzick-1 and ancient Channel island remains [1]. That legacy simply no longer exists among most remaining native populations in the US and Canada. Moreover, they're still clearly related to North American natives, it's just a more distant relationship. So it's not that North Americans and South/Central Americans descend from different ancestral populations, the population structure is just poorly understood. [1] doi.org/10.1126/science.aar6851
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  I wouldn't go that far. We're talking wildly different timescales. Migration to the Americas over the Bering was < 16,000 years ago, while the golden age of Polynesian exploration was only about 1,000-2,000 years ago.
tempforanthro 6y ago
I dont want to pollute this thread, but want to briefly describe my time (mid 2000s) as an undergrad with half a double-major in US anthropology. I was on several occasions warned-off from doing projects that pertained to this very subject and a couple others [examples: h. neanderthalensis relation to modern humans (at the time in the face of mtDNA), some other N. American immigration hypotheses (eg, that pleistocene peoples could make boats)]. Being told repeatedly that authoring research on a subject would ruin a future career eventually drove me out of academia, despite excelling in all other ways. Grad school was worse. It was not a great experience. I could go on at length to describe my perception of why this was/probably still is, but a short take is: the architecture of American social science legitimacy is so delicate that even counter thoughts from undergrads need to be put down. Somewhat relieving to have all those subjects slowly come into light. Not bitter, but do have a longwinded eyeroll after all this time. But yes, Pacific cultures visited the Americas pre-Euro contact. It is funny claim otherwise given even a pop-culture understanding of east Asian and Islander seafaring methods of the pre-European era. Rrrff. End rant.
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  Not to dismiss your experiences with academic anthropology, but this paper isn't actually about any transoceanic seafaring cultures. It's about the population structure of some of the first peoples of the Americas and their ancestors, which predate polynesians by something like ten to twenty thousand years. I made the same mistake on my initial reading too.
  - tempforanthro 6y ago
    No worries, though I did not mention Polynesians. This is not the venue to parse out what Australasian means, but, at least genetically, we would be discussing a much older population. It is by definition about seafaring people, however, as the only accepted migration path to the americas has been over the bering straights. edit: oops. now i see where you are coming from. Mea culpa. see comment re Pleistocene boats. Apologies for my derp
    - 6y ago
Ericson2314 6y ago
Not knowing who these "Australasian" peoples are makes this very confusing.
- tempforanthro 6y ago
  In this case it really is just a genetic grouping. Refers to the understood native population of, roughly, Australia--there is some overlap nearby. The subject of human migration as revealed by genetics is super interesting: really puts into perspective how small we are, story wise, and to my mind, lends a sense of gratitude to the almost unimaginable hardships and victories that got us to where we are now, typing words into this temporary format.
  - stevelawrence 6y ago
    > Refers to the understood native population of, roughly, Australia Does this mean aboriginal Australians, Papuan type people? I had not realized that they had also reached South America. I am fascinated by that population set as it seems to have a deep culture of exploration "walkabout", "dreamtime" concepts. It is a shame so little is known about their adventures and history.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      There is ongoing research into whether there was contact between the builders of Gabarnmung and Gobekli Tepe - you should check in on that, if you're interested. It could radically rewrite what we think we know about human history in the region ..

88 points by Thevet 6y ago

Is this new or just additional details on previous studies along the same lines? https://www.nature.com/news/dna-study-links-indigenous-brazilians-to-polynesians-1.12710 https://www.nature.com/news/dna-study-links-indigenous-brazi... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2487-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2487-2 https://www.sciencenews.org/article/south-americans-may-have-traveled-polynesia-800-years-ago https://www.sciencenews.org/article/south-americans-may-have... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/native-americans-polynesians-meet-180975269/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/native-america...

AlotOfReading 6y ago
The paper has nothing to do with polynesian or colonial era contacts. It's about the genetics of the people whose descendants would go on to populate the Americas and what they say about the routes they took to get there (pacific coastal route or inland). I'm a bit surprised to see it here, this is a pretty niche subject.
ruined 6y ago
three of those links are about the same study suggesting pre-colonial movement west from the south american coast towards polynesia, and one is about analysis of ancient remains. this study involves a large genetic survey of modern indigenous populations not only along the coast but also in the interior of the continent, that suggests ancient movement from polynesia to the south american continent.

mc32 6y ago

So the first people(s) to pop SAm and the first people(s) to pop NAm were of different origin and arrived via different methods?

UncleOxidant 6y ago
That's what it seems like. Reading this article on the topic https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/earliest-south-american-migrants-had-australian-melanesian-ancestry https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/earliest-south-ameri... and it says: "One unanswered question is why the Y signal hasn’t turned up in any North or Central American Indigenous groups. One possibility, Hünemeier suggests, is that the Y signal–bearing migrants simply stuck to the coast and made it to South America without leaving any genetic legacy up north" Ok. But how about "Or they arrived on the shores of South America by boat" ? I don't understand why that hypothesis seems to be avoided? It seems much more credible than "the people with that particular genetic legacy hugged the coast all the way down to So America and didn't mix with any other groups along the way."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  They did leave a genetic legacy up north in ancient remains like Anzick-1 and ancient Channel island remains [1]. That legacy simply no longer exists among most remaining native populations in the US and Canada. Moreover, they're still clearly related to North American natives, it's just a more distant relationship. So it's not that North Americans and South/Central Americans descend from different ancestral populations, the population structure is just poorly understood. [1] doi.org/10.1126/science.aar6851
bpodgursky 6y ago
I wouldn't go that far. We're talking wildly different timescales. Migration to the Americas over the Bering was < 16,000 years ago, while the golden age of Polynesian exploration was only about 1,000-2,000 years ago.

tempforanthro 6y ago

I dont want to pollute this thread, but want to briefly describe my time (mid 2000s) as an undergrad with half a double-major in US anthropology. I was on several occasions warned-off from doing projects that pertained to this very subject and a couple others [examples: h. neanderthalensis relation to modern humans (at the time in the face of mtDNA), some other N. American immigration hypotheses (eg, that pleistocene peoples could make boats)]. Being told repeatedly that authoring research on a subject would ruin a future career eventually drove me out of academia, despite excelling in all other ways. Grad school was worse. It was not a great experience. I could go on at length to describe my perception of why this was/probably still is, but a short take is: the architecture of American social science legitimacy is so delicate that even counter thoughts from undergrads need to be put down. Somewhat relieving to have all those subjects slowly come into light. Not bitter, but do have a longwinded eyeroll after all this time. But yes, Pacific cultures visited the Americas pre-Euro contact. It is funny claim otherwise given even a pop-culture understanding of east Asian and Islander seafaring methods of the pre-European era. Rrrff. End rant.

AlotOfReading 6y ago
Not to dismiss your experiences with academic anthropology, but this paper isn't actually about any transoceanic seafaring cultures. It's about the population structure of some of the first peoples of the Americas and their ancestors, which predate polynesians by something like ten to twenty thousand years. I made the same mistake on my initial reading too.
- tempforanthro 6y ago
  No worries, though I did not mention Polynesians. This is not the venue to parse out what Australasian means, but, at least genetically, we would be discussing a much older population. It is by definition about seafaring people, however, as the only accepted migration path to the americas has been over the bering straights. edit: oops. now i see where you are coming from. Mea culpa. see comment re Pleistocene boats. Apologies for my derp
  - 6y ago

Ericson2314 6y ago

Not knowing who these "Australasian" peoples are makes this very confusing.

tempforanthro 6y ago
In this case it really is just a genetic grouping. Refers to the understood native population of, roughly, Australia--there is some overlap nearby. The subject of human migration as revealed by genetics is super interesting: really puts into perspective how small we are, story wise, and to my mind, lends a sense of gratitude to the almost unimaginable hardships and victories that got us to where we are now, typing words into this temporary format.
- stevelawrence 6y ago
  > Refers to the understood native population of, roughly, Australia Does this mean aboriginal Australians, Papuan type people? I had not realized that they had also reached South America. I am fascinated by that population set as it seems to have a deep culture of exploration "walkabout", "dreamtime" concepts. It is a shame so little is known about their adventures and history.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    There is ongoing research into whether there was contact between the builders of Gabarnmung and Gobekli Tepe - you should check in on that, if you're interested. It could radically rewrite what we think we know about human history in the region ..