Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives
1–10 of 33 posts
Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives
#2Is this new or just additional details on previous studies along the same lines?
https://www.nature.com/news/dna-study-links-indigenous-brazi...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2487-2
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/south-americans-may-have...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/native-america...
Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives
#3Is this new or just additional details on previous studies along the same lines? https://www.nature.com/news/dna-study-links-indigenous-brazi... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2487-2 https://www.sciencenews.org/article/south-americans-may-have... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/native-america...
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.
Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives
#4So the first people(s) to pop SAm and the first people(s) to pop NAm were of different origin and arrived via different methods?
Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives
#5Is this new or just additional details on previous studies along the same lines? https://www.nature.com/news/dna-study-links-indigenous-brazi... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2487-2 https://www.sciencenews.org/article/south-americans-may-have... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/native-america...
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.
Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives
#6I 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.
Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives
#7I 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…
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.
Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives
#8So the first people(s) to pop SAm and the first people(s) to pop NAm were of different origin and arrived via different methods?
That's what it seems like. Reading this article on the topic 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."
Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives
#9So the first people(s) to pop SAm and the first people(s) to pop NAm were of different origin and arrived via different methods?
That's what it seems like. Reading this article on the topic 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…
[deleted]
Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives
#10I 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…
I wonder if this is more of an issue with American academic institutions than it is in other parts of the world (anthropologists avoiding the boat hypothesis, that is)? I note that this article [1] (from Norway) explicitly makes the connection to Thor Hyerdahl's theory - which, as I understand from what you've written here (and from talking to others) is considered in the same category as the Bermuda Triangle and UFOs by American anthropologists.
[1] https://sciencenorway.no/archaeology-history-society-and-cul...