Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Hanslune

New twist on peopling the Americas

159 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hanslune

Two Gene Studies Suggest First Migrants To Americas A Complex Mix

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/07/21/424813708/two-gene-studies-suggest-first-migrants-to-americas-a-complex-mix

The first people to set foot in the Americas apparently came from Siberia during the last ice age.

That's the conventional wisdom.

But now there's evidence from two different studies published this week that the first Americans may have migrated from different places at different times — and earlier than people thought.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/07/20/science.aab3884

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14895.epdf?referrer_access_token=cUQ3Ai774VmdBVRRMSaQ0NRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0N6yB-nEyCdRoL51ykMO5E91orKw8mXMzuxoORJJBQhEhMryvaarH9hFKiGoJjc1JvX7zNtkTMbwuOPicFdsM1y7uzyyWsvTeUZY4iN3Kq60ZhvW781KSFuU4fHlV0EhySXsodIVFx76RjUcfg3OxAfFtAfWeS579uPXTb94CfsRkmvoUbEb9LWidP4Dum2hQg_znqOg0NSuz933PKyi_qj&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gingitsune

Shouldn't you fuse this thread with the Humans were in Eastern U.S. 18,000+ years ago?

Anyway, these conclusions are intriguing. Let me retype the interesting bits:

These results do not imply that an unmixed population related anciently to Australasians migrated to the Americas. Although this is a formal possibility, an alternative model that we view as more plausible is that the 'Population Y' that contributed Australasian-related ancestry to Amazonians was already mixed with a lineage related to First Americans at the time it reached Amazonia. When we model such a scenario, we obtain a fit for model that specify 2-85% of the ancestry of the Surui, Karitiana and Xavante as coming from Population Y. These result show that quite a high fraction of Amazonian ancestry today might be derived from Population Y. At the same time, the results constrain the fraction of Amazonian ancestry that comes from Australasian related population (via Population Y) to a much tighter range of 1-2%.

[...]

An open question is when and how Population Y ancestry reached South America. There are several archeological sites in the Americas that are contemporary to or earlier than Clovis site. The fact that the one individual from a Clovis context who has yielded ancient DNA had entirely First American ancestry suggests the possibility that Population Y ancestry may be found in non-Clovis sites. [...] The arrival of Population Y ancestry in the Americas must in any scenario have been ancient: while Population Y shows a distant genetic affinity to Andamanese, Autralian and New Guinean populations, it is not particularly closely related to any of them, suggesting that the source of population Y in Eurasia no longer exists; furthermore, we detect no long-range admixture linkage disequilibrium in Amazonians as would be expected if Population Y migration had occurred within the last few thousand years. Further insight into the population movements responsible for these findings should be possible through genome-wide analysis of ancient remains from across the Americas.

So, the timeline, according to them would be

1) population Y

2) Clovis

3) Na-Dene

4) Saqqaq/Dorset

5) Thule/Inuit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune

1) population Y

2) Clovis

3) Na-Dene

4) Saqqaq/Dorset

5) Thule/Inuit

That is how I would understand it but I wonder if a there was a pre-population wave before that and its mark has been extinguished?

....based on such reports as this

http://news.discovery.com/human/life/first-south-americans-dined-on-giant-sloths-131119.htm

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph

How did they people the New World? I reckon they peopled it the same old-fashioned way they peopled the Old one.

Snu-snu, I believe, is Harte's term for it.

--Jaylemurph

EDIT: Gramática!

Edited by jaylemurph
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

I'm not sure I can buy a trans-Pacific migration like some people believe.

I remember reading about this a year or so ago. This population Y was in Asia, not Australia, I'm thinking they probably worked up one coast and down the other to get here.

I just find it hard to believe in a migration sailing across the Pacific. I mean, there's lots of places they would have had to have stopped - sometimes for food, sometimes for the sake of Vergina, sometimes to stay.

Where is the evidence for them on the Pacific Islands?

Harte

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PersonFromPorlock

I'm not sure I can buy a trans-Pacific migration like some people believe.

I remember reading about this a year or so ago. This population Y was in Asia, not Australia, I'm thinking they probably worked up one coast and down the other to get here.

I just find it hard to believe in a migration sailing across the Pacific. I mean, there's lots of places they would have had to have stopped - sometimes for food, sometimes for the sake of Vergina, sometimes to stay.

Where is the evidence for them on the Pacific Islands?

Harte

But then the problem is: the first human settlers enter through Beringia but then leave North America for South America, why? Later, yes, when the next wave moved in, they might have been chased out: but the fossil record seems to put them in South America long before the next wave arrived.

Whereas with a landing on the Peruvian or Ecuadorian coast, there are a number of places where reaching the Amazon Basin involves only a trek of a few hundred miles, only a hundred of them (if that) in the Andes mountains. But as you say, the trip across is the stinker. I will suggest that any traces left on Pacific islands may have been along the ice age shoreline, now drowned and covered with coral.

Edited by PersonFromPorlock
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toyomotor

But then the problem is: the first human settlers enter through Beringia but then leave North America for South America, why? Later, yes, when the next wave moved in, they might have been chased out: but the fossil record seems to put them in South America long before the next wave arrived.

Whereas with a landing on the Peruvian or Ecuadorian coast, there are a number of places where reaching the Amazon Basin involves only a trek of a few hundred miles, only a hundred of them (if that) in the Andes mountains. But as you say, the trip across is the stinker. I will suggest that any traces left on Pacific islands may have been along the ice age shoreline, now drowned and covered with coral.

You ask why people from North America moved on down to South America.

Why did they cross Beringia and travel down into North America? Curiosity, the spirit of exploration.

People may have arrived in South America before them from the nearest islands, but there is little to confirm this at this stage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet

But then the problem is: the first human settlers enter through Beringia but then leave North America for South America, why? Later, yes, when the next wave moved in, they might have been chased out: but the fossil record seems to put them in South America long before the next wave arrived.

Which presents a larger problem if you're trying to argue trans-Pacific, since the Polynesian Islands and mid-Pacific Islands weren't inhabited until fairly recently (3,000-4,000 years) if memory serves.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

~snip

I'm not sure I can buy a trans-Pacific migration like some people believe.

I remember reading about this a year or so ago. This population Y was in Asia, not Australia, I'm thinking they probably worked up one coast and down the other to get here.

I just find it hard to believe in a migration sailing across the Pacific. I mean, there's lots of places they would have had to have stopped - sometimes for food, sometimes for the sake of Vergina, sometimes to stay.

Where is the evidence for them on the Pacific Islands?

Harte

I'm with Mr Harte here and Australia was already on the list very early if not far greater back in time than guessed at too ~

Mungo Lady & Mungo Man

In 1969, on the shores of the ancient and now dry Lake Mungo, Australian archaeologists discovered the remains of the oldest known human to have been ritually cremated. They found bone fragments belonging to the skeleton of a young woman, who became known as Mungo Lady or LM1. She is now believed to have lived and died some 40,000 years ago.

Five years later, in close proximity to Mungo Lady, shifting sand dunes exposed the remains of a Mungo Man or LM3. It is estimated that this male was buried about 42,000 years ago. Mungo Man is the oldest skeleton buried using red ochre, a material which could only have reached the shores of Lake Mungo by trade. This is the earliest known example of such a sophistocated and artistic burial practice.

World's oldest burial redated to 40,000 years

Danny Kingsley - ABC Science Online Thursday, 20 February 2003

For the first time, scientists have reached a broad agreement that Australia's oldest human remains - Mungo Man - is 40,000 years old, about 22,000 years younger than the previous estimate, according to new analyses.

"There is now a complete consensus," said Professor James Bowler, a geologist at the University of Melbourne. "Everybody checked each other's data as we went, and there is now a total consensus that this is stitched up and will stand the test of time."

The cremated remains of a woman, known as the Mungo Lady, were discovered in Lake Mungo region of western New South Wales in 1969. Another fully-articulated skeleton, known as Mungo Man, was found nearby five years later.

What concerns me here is 'cremated remains' ~ that's going to bring up some interesting questions ~

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

But then the problem is: the first human settlers enter through Beringia but then leave North America for South America, why?

I had the answer, but then this person from Porlock came along and... LOL.

No, really, I assume we have simply not found their evidences in North America.

I'm thinking they came along the coast in boats, though, and not entirely on foot. I didn't mean to imply they didn't stop in N. America.

Whereas with a landing on the Peruvian or Ecuadorian coast, there are a number of places where reaching the Amazon Basin involves only a trek of a few hundred miles, only a hundred of them (if that) in the Andes mountains. But as you say, the trip across is the stinker. I will suggest that any traces left on Pacific islands may have been along the ice age shoreline, now drowned and covered with coral.

The Ice Age shoreline along California is also gone.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PersonFromPorlock

On further thought, another question: the Amazon Basin, by most reports, is a pretty nasty place. Why would anyone settle there when there were more congenial environments throughout the West coasts of the Americas?

Well, maybe during the glacial maximum, it was better. But another possibility is that the arriving Asians had come from a rain forest environment and sought out a similar one in the new world. Riding the eastbound (southern) leg of the Humboldt current would take a raft from New Guinea to Peru along a long curve that would miss most of the Pacific islands, explaining the lack of archaeological traces, leaving only the questions of why would they do it and how would they survive doing it? The answer to the first question is probably 'desperation', for whatever reason, and to the second 'as very fat people at the start and very thin cannibals at the finish'.

It's a theory, anyway. It's weakness (one of them!) is that currents then may not have been what they are now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune

This is part of the bigger question of why people live in certain types of unpleasant places?

Some of the answers I've seen:

For reasons we don't understand they liked it for some reason that reason may no longer exist or be understood by their ancestors.

When they arrived it was better then slowly changed.

They were forced there to get away from those that were attacking them.

A great leader or spiritual prophet led them there for reasons known only to them

They were forced into the area by some natural disaster, etc.

At some point all the adults were killed and the children grew up not realizing they could move on or developed an unusual attractant to the place.

There ancestors came to there for one of the reasons above and the new generations growing up didn't know they could move from there.

The best one: people are weird

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal

The best one: people are weird

God is great. Beer is good, and people are crazy. - Billy Currington

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toyomotor

Which presents a larger problem if you're trying to argue trans-Pacific, since the Polynesian Islands and mid-Pacific Islands weren't inhabited until fairly recently (3,000-4,000 years) if memory serves.

No, arguing the opposite. The gateway to the Americas was, imho, Beringia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

The only serious barrier preventing man's presence in New World being contemporaneous with his presence in Australia are the Clovis First die hards. The Pacific Rim was no doubt explored and colonized at roughly the same time but the evidence, for the most part, is long since submerged.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

If 'cremating' the dead is something practiced way back then it is understandable that much of the very little fossil records that is available or some known Paleo burial sites needs to be re examined in this new light ~ perhaps some of the cannibalistic practices theories may be cases of misinterpretation ~

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

This apparent link has shown up before, as others have already suggested, and there have been threads about it on UM.

It should be noted that genetic similarities do not necessarily indicate descendancy, it is more likely they are indicative of a common descendancy - i.e. the common ancestor of the Australoid peoples and of "Population Y" originated from the same place. That being the more likely scenario, we might suggest instead of a trans-Pacific migration, a trans-Atlantic one out of Africa by the same people who also provided the rootstock of those who migrated out of Africa into Australasia.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Or perhaps uprooted, captured and maybe even forced migration ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal

This apparent link has shown up before, as others have already suggested, and there have been threads about it on UM.

It should be noted that genetic similarities do not necessarily indicate descendancy, it is more likely they are indicative of a common descendancy - i.e. the common ancestor of the Australoid peoples and of "Population Y" originated from the same place. That being the more likely scenario, we might suggest instead of a trans-Pacific migration, a trans-Atlantic one out of Africa by the same people who also provided the rootstock of those who migrated out of Africa into Australasia.

I would personally still lean toward a common ancestor in Asia being where the split occurred and a west to east migration rather than a trans Atlantic crossing (which may have occurred as well).

Searching UM from my phone is a pain so if you happen to recall the titles for have links to any of the previous discussion threads your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
The only serious barrier preventing man's presence in New World being contemporaneous with his presence in Australia are the Clovis First die hards. The Pacific Rim was no doubt explored and colonized at roughly the same time but the evidence, for the most part, is long since submerged.

Not really Hammerclaw as 1) the Clovis-First theory has been dead for quite some time since evidence for Pre-Clovis peoples has been found and 2) even the Pre-Clovis evidence in the New World doesn't extend back as far as the presence of man in Australia.

cormac

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crabby Kitten

They always speculate where they originally come from . Easy, from outer space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

I would personally still lean toward a common ancestor in Asia being where the split occurred and a west to east migration rather than a trans Atlantic crossing (which may have occurred as well).

Searching UM from my phone is a pain so if you happen to recall the titles for have links to any of the previous discussion threads your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

If that was the case we would expect to find much older sites in North America, but the oldest sites - at least those tentatively dated older - are in the east of the Southern continent. This does not suggest a north-to-south migration, even if we rule out any possible coastal sites now lost to rising sea levels.

The other threads discussing the same topic - potentially very archaic sites in Brazil/the eastern region of South America - are buried many pages back and I didn't keep any record of their titles so searching for them would be difficult at best. I'm not sure how specific the forum's search engine can be, but that is probably the only hope of finding those lost threads - sorry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Not really Hammerclaw as 1) the Clovis-First theory has been dead for quite some time since evidence for Pre-Clovis peoples has been found and 2) even the Pre-Clovis evidence in the New World doesn't extend back as far as the presence of man in Australia.

cormac

Oh really? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal

If that was the case we would expect to find much older sites in North America, but the oldest sites - at least those tentatively dated older - are in the east of the Southern continent. This does not suggest a north-to-south migration, even if we rule out any possible coastal sites now lost to rising sea levels.

The other threads discussing the same topic - potentially very archaic sites in Brazil/the eastern region of South America - are buried many pages back and I didn't keep any record of their titles so searching for them would be difficult at best. I'm not sure how specific the forum's search engine can be, but that is probably the only hope of finding those lost threads - sorry.

That would depend on currents and prevailing winds at the time. I have not seen maps modeling it even though the do exist somewhere.

It would also depend from where in Asia they launched. If they island hopped the way colonial era explorers did their footprint would be hard to discern. Maybe I'll try to find a map of ocean current models from around the earliest known times for habitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.