Gene study suggests Native Americans came from Siberia

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071127/ts_alt_afp/usamericasrussiaanthropologymigration
------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US genetic study bolsters claims that Native Americans are descended from one migrant group that crossed a lost land link from modern Siberia to Alaska -- not waves of arrivals from Asia, as rival theories say.

The new study by the University of Michigan, published Monday, examined genes of indigenous people from North to South America and from two Siberian groups, the university said in a report introducing the research.

Analysis found one unique genetic variant widespread across both the northern and southern American continents -- suggesting that all Native Americans were descended from a single group, not various ones as the rival theory holds.

This variant "has not been found in genetic studies of people elsewhere in the world except eastern Siberia," the report said.

(snip)

Anthropologists and archeologists have long argued over whether Native Americans are descended from migrants who crossed by land to the northwest 12,000 years ago, or waves of arrivals by sea and land from elsewhere in Asia and Polynesia beginning up to 30,000 years ago

--------------------------------------------------------

Not politics of the day, but I find this interesting as to the evolution of the (now) USA.

it is aka "The Bering Straits Theory", one that anthropologists embrace.

As for Indian people, we believe we came from this land that we are on right now now called "America". This is where we came from, where the Creator placed us and all that lives on this land.

:dem:

I too had long heard that the landbridge theory was widely accepted amongst anthropologists etc. Now the ethnobiology seems to confirm that, do you mean the belief is still widespread amongst the Indian tribes that this is technically, scientifically wronga nd that their ancestry is entirely on this continent, or recounting the idea as folklore which is not meant to be taken as contradiction to science? In other words I suppose I'm asking in what context "belief" is used.

Note there is no challenge or affront implied. I'm just curious.

now they have purported genetic evidence.

As a person of Native ancestry I do not believe the Bering Straits theory and I never will. It seems pretty difficult to believe that thousands of years ago people crossed an bridge of solid ice to get to this continent.

I do not speak for all Indian people, I speak for myself and I tend to very much dislike the beliefs and theories supported by anthropologists.

:dem:

Do you disagree with the theory of evolution as well?

Also, the land bridge theory isn't one where people crossed a sheet of solid ice to get here. It was land, the sea levels were low enough to expose the land bridge. It wasn't solid ice at all, which makes it seem ridiculous.

Why do you dislike the theories and evidence presented by anthropologists? Is it simply because their evidence and theories surrounding it contradict your creationist beliefs, or is there something more?

a man named Kroeber :grr:

What about his work did you hate? What about it would poison you to all Anthropology and Archaeology?

that should be enough right there but I could (and have) written a book about Kroeber's crimes. He was a loathsome and despicable ANTHROPOLOGIST that was supposed to be a real genius.

Yeah right.

My grandfather remembered going to see "them" display Ishi in a cage near Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. He thought it was deplorable and my grandfather was not of Native American descent.

Kroeber's works are highly controversial and despised by many Native Americans.

The case of "Ishi" is just ONE example of many.

One Anthropologist working early in the 20th century therefore makes all current Anthropolgists and Archaeologists incorrect? Does Kroeber's work invalidate Radiocarbon dating, Geological evidence, and even Evolution?

I can point to much worse examples of Anthropology and Archaeology than Kroeber and Ishi, nearly all from 50 or more years ago, but that doesn't mean that the entire field of study is invalid and corrupt.

Have you got any evidence Ishi was ever kept in a cage near Golden Gate Park other than anecdotal?

I understand he was hospitalized and quarantined for tuberculosis, but I haven't heard about this.

Kroeber wasn't holding him, the museum was, as they had taken possession of him as a young boy. It was 1911. Quite deplorable really, and they did have him on display if you can believe that. It's true. That's how Kroeber actually heard about him and came to study him. The work is definately controversial, though I don't see how this invalidates genetic evidence or radiocarbon dating.

Much Archaeology and Anthropology from before 1960 is tainted in some ways by either horrendous techniques bordering on, or actually outright being Antiquarian and unscientific, or poor treatment of other cultures.

But who knows. He died of TB I think 4 years later, and supposedly was content. His life prior to that was proabbly pretty harsh, according to his stories. Always on the run, the lamb, his family murdered and butchered, etc. His tribe all but destroyed. Then they put him up with a bed and three warm meals at the museum. He was probably happy (and that was what he said at least), but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

Does it make Kroeber a bad guy?

Invalidate the land bridge theory?

Kroeber was a man of his time. He worked with Ishi because his speciality was in trying to record as much of the native Californian culture as he could before it was all gone, and Ishi was, or at least claimed to be, the last member of a tribe. What was Kroeber supposed to do? Ignore him? I don't understand how this makes Kroeber a bad man.

Nor do I understand how a cultural anthropoligist's work from 1911-1916 affects the relevance of genetic or physical science data from 2008, or a well established theory of human origins and migration.

...I recall from the book (Kroeber as author?) and from a film that Ishi stumbled into "civilization" as the last of his tribe, when he became too desperate, hungry, and lonely to try to make it alone any longer. He was not depicted as a young boy in those accounts.

he was a man about 30+ years old. The rest of his family had been murdered leaving him alone in the wilderness in the foothills of the Sierras. So, Ishi had no choice but to come forward. He did not know if he would be shot on site like an animal the way his mother and sister were.

Ishi, the human, had NO CHOICE.

I can think of no greater loneliness than that which he suffered.

It was a known thing at the time. Whether Ishi "liked" it or not is unknown being he did not speak English.

I find it dehumanizing myself and that is exactly what it was. He was treated like an animal.

Later he went on to work in the museum in Golden Gate Park. He contracted T.B. from Kroeber's wife who also died of T.B. FYI.

Ishi deserved far more than to be treated like an animal. Ishi was after all "human".

If people find this to be "ok", I want nothing to do with such persons. They might as well join up with the rest of these freaks walking in lockstep together these days IMO.

If you do not believe it, read about Ishi the Last Yahi and you will find that what I say are true words.

Kroeber was a pompous awhole IMO and I have found most of his work to be not the least bit credible. So yeah, I got a bone or two to pick with this now dead idiot.

Because it just looks like you're making things up.

I do not know what is. He was a native of San Francisco born in the 1890s and his father (my great grandfather who also died of TB) took him to Golden Gate Park to view him caged up for all to see. I do not know if they charged for this or not. I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

There are more writings likely to be found in some old issues of the San Francisco papers no doubt. And yes, it was true alright. Ishi was caged up like an animal. This is one of the many reasons I despise the likes of Kroeber. Perhaps he enjoyed the spectacle, I do not know.

:kick:

Anecdotal evidence from family members from anonymous message board posters aren't evidence of anything.

Googling of Kroeber and Ishi indicates no mistreatment of Ishi and no cruelty or bad science from Kroeber.

Nor have you explained what any of this has to do with the Bering land bridge.

"It seems pretty difficult to believe that thousands of years ago people crossed an bridge of solid ice to get to this continent."

It was a land bridge. Thousands of years ago the sea level was much lower, the bering straight wasn't there. Not that I don't think people couldn't cross the sea on pack ice. The Inuit travel hundreds of miles across pack ice every winter.

It seems pretty difficult to believe that Native Americans didn't cross over from Siberia.

How does anyone know?

Where is the evidence and the archaeology to support this claim?

There is none.

Because it's about the latest evidence that Native Americans came from Siberia.

30,000 years ago and before, there were people all over Europe, Africa and Asia. This is shown in archeological evidence in numerous examples and dated in various ways, but more effectively from radiocarbon dating. No evidence for people living in the America's have been found at that point.

Then at the period of glaciation, when a land bridge (not an ice bridge) between Asia and the America's was formed (which has been shown through geological evidence), there is an explosion of archaeological sites. They spread rapidly. Now there is also genetic evidence that Native American's are genetically tied to the groups in Siberia.

Unless you don't believe in Science, from basic biology, geology, physics, and chemistry, then it makes the most sense at present. Do we KNOW that all, or even any, Native American's came across this land bridge? No. They had to get here somehow though, and right now that's looking like the most likely answer. There is no other theory that even comes close to having any kind of support.

Nobody 'knows' that this is true, but it's the best theory by far availible and based on a tremendous amount of data and research.

believe that the Creator placed your ethnicity here "divinely", while the anthropological and genetic evidence shows something much more believable than your postulations?

And here I thought Native Americans understood the difference between myth and logos.

WHY is it that you disagree? Certainly there is at least subjective evidence - we can look at physiological parallels and lack of very old hominid fossils in the US for example - for a recent migration. Is this essentially a religion-based disagreement, or do you see any negative connotations in being ethnically linked to Eurasian groups, or is there competing science of which I'm not informed?

I'm neither an anthropologist nor anyone who has a vested interest in the answer. Frankly I just hadn't heard that this was not pretty much the universally accepted idea before.

the sea levels were much lower then, so they think they migrated across solid ground........

Self-deleted

Why do people choose ignorance over knowledge?

Science has found evidence to support the theory. It's not just a "theory" anymore, it's probably a fact now.

on several different continents, independent of one another? This seems an odd use of Occam's razor.

to the New World both by land and sea. For instance, the Inuits of Alaska and Canada are of Siberian origin but the Cocopah tribe in SW AZ look like Pacific islanders who came north though Mexico. Just two of the more than 400 tribes in the US and Canada.

There is absolutely no evidence backing that up. They most likely came by the Bering land bridge.

that it was a small group that came to the New World rather than the waves of people over thousands of years like many assumed.

I saw a tv special that I think was about this same report not long ago, and the guy was theorizing that the entire population of the New World may have come from a group as small as 30 individuals.

That was certainly something new. He was using DNA evidence to prove his thesis. Don't know enough about it to say if I think he was right or wrong, but his claim was certainly new.

It's very interesting to learn they've now backed it up with genetic testing.

Nobody was here to check their papers, right? So maybe we are justified in treating them as second class citizens!

colonized Asia, Siberia, and the Americas, and were later supplanted in most of Asia by the "Asians."

Interesting study. :)

although i believe most first nations people came from siberia -- i didn't think the evidense was going to run so solidly in one direction.

I think this had been demonstrated before. Honestly the only big resistance to this comes from Mormons who believe Native Americans are decendent from a lost tribe of Isralites from 600 B.C. This stems in part from the Curse of Ham theology that was popular around the time Smith founded the religion.

This theory states there was one migrant group versus many swarms over time. Back when I was a student, the accepted theory was that there were at least four major migrations.

When I first lived in Japan, I was surprised to see people who looked Native American. (The Japanese like to believe that they're "pure," but their ancestors actually come from about four different places.)

This doesn't mean that other populations didn't come along over the years and get absorbed by the majority. You could have a "founder" population from Siberia, accounting for the genetic marker existing throughout the Americas, with smaller populations coming from other parts of the world but not being large enough to maintain a distinct identity.

an increasing number of pre-Clovis sites (pre-12,000 years old) on the East Coast indicate someone ELSE was here before the arrival of the Siberians about 12,000 years ago, and some of these older people may have made it as far as the Pacific Northwest before the Siberians arrived. Kennewick Man may have been a member of this older population. Based on a variety of anthropological and DNA evidence, it appears this earlier group of immigrants was from what is now coastal Europe, possibly an off-shoot of a paleolithic culture called Solutrean. Solutrean spear-points and hand-axes are unique in design, unlike any others from the paleolithic period except those found at these odd pre-Clovis sites in the eastern US. And there's DNA evidence for this migration too - the mitochondrial X Hapologroup is found in up to 25% of some northeastern Native America tribes, and is found as far west as the Pacific Northwest is dwindling amounts, but is completely absent from modern Siberia. Haplogroup X is virutally unique to ancient European populations. It appears increasingly likley that the Solutreans pre-dated any other ancient groups arriving in North America, and may have been joined later by proto-Polynesians and other immigrant groups, but ultimately all these older groups appear to have been completely out-competed and essentially driven to extinction by the Siberians, with nothing but a genetic trace left at their original point of colonization in the northeast of the US. Similar genetic ghosts of the other older groups (if they existed) might eventually be found in other places in the Americas.

So this study could just as easily be interpreted as showing that the "winners" of the colonization struggle were the Siberians, the ancestors of practically all modern Native Americans, but it does not prove they were the "first" or the "only" in the Americas.

superficial difference between them, myself. Maybe a bit more pronounced eye folds on the Japanese boy, but when I took off my glasses they were twins!

I think it was Dave Barry, but it essentially pointed out that the title "Native American" was a misnomer, based on the evidence.

Oh... and a reference to the Bering Strait.

more "American" than I am! I love her even more for that. (I'm German-English-Swedish-Danish)

Actually, having written that I'll say how interesting it is, living here in Kathmandu, to talk with Europeans who just cannot comprehend this melting pot. My Danish friends can trace their ancestors back to the time when mine was given the choice of the New World or jail in the 1600s.

All the way from Nepal? :hi:

I've actually been hanging around since 2003, I think. One can be concerned about American politics and live half way round the world... I have no memory of how I originally found DU but I'm now an addict!

;-)

just as creationists say they were made from clay 5000 years ago, some indigenous people in the Americans believe they evolved or were created here.

So do not be surprised by the backlash. Sacred, deeply held beliefs are hard to shake. Especially when Native Americans will argue that the science is being used as a way to challenge their rights to this land and lump then in with all the other immigrants.

were from the Bering Strait..."

How does that work? Where does the "genetic diversity" come from if everyone is descended from the same original population?

Any groups of living beings, once separated from one another and placed under divergent environmental pressures, will diverge genetically as each group tries to adapt to its new environment. This is a basic principle of evolutionary biology, and it applies just as well to humans as it does to ferns.

Assume that the ancestors of all present-day Native Americans were the Siberians, and they all entered North America in Alaska. One group obviously just stayed there, over time becoming the various Inuit, Aleut, and Eskimo tribes, but all from the same group. By contrast the tribes of the upper Amazon, whose ancestors came from a splinter group that, say, first went east into Manitoba, then south into the Plains, then maybe eventually down to Florida, then along the coast to the Amazon, then upriver to where they became isolated from other groups (we're talking over millenia here). That group would have seen the greatest chance for genetic change as their ancestors encountered various environments, and (if what I wrote previously pans out) they would have been more likely to encounter and inter-marry with older groups such as Solutreans or proto-Polynesians before those groups disappeared under pressure from the newcomers. Result: greater genetic change from the original Siberian population than those Inuit who settled down as soon as they arrived, encountering no older human populations and living in an environment that was just like their Siberian forbearers'.

:shrug:

for about ten years starting with the building of the Pipeline. Drove cab for two of those years and looked for Uranium by helicopter for two summers in the bush, meeting many "natives" along the way.

Also studied Anthro as a minor in college. I can tell you as an artist (majored in sculpture) that this study only proves what I've told people all along.. That there WAS a land bridge, and that the Native Americans came from Siberia (right next door to Alaska) .. Most folks don't know that the Apache and certain native folks in Alaska can understand each others language easily. There is no other answer, no one had 747's back then to travel between Alaska and Arizona, this study just lets me know that I was right all along. Personally, I belive the Native Americans are of a Chinese origin long, long ago - and just as wise :)

We are directly related to tribes from Alaska Canada, Washington, Oregon, California, and across the Southwestern U.S. Our creation myth is our own. We were put here by the creator, whether physically or spiritually is for ones personal belief. I say fuck you to those assholes that would berate a person for voicing what their culture has taught them.

from where we come, than to understand where we might aspire to be." Yodananda Samadhi