Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives

#21

Post by fsloth »

amvalo wrote: post #16
tempforanthro wrote: post #6

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…

> some other N. American immigration hypotheses (eg, that pleistocene peoples could make boats)]. Why were they so opposed to this? You can't leave us hanging... EDIT: ok and why is this at -1??

I was about to ask the same question about the hypothesis.

Offtopic: sometimes HN audience gives weird scores. Don't take it personally (but it's kind of part of the etiquette not to explicitly discuss the scoring since it's never directly related to the topic of the discussion).

Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives

#22

Post by eridan2 »

tempforanthro wrote: post #11
AlotOfReading wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.…

not necessarily seafaring people; the migration was over land, possible due to the lowering of sea level during the Last Glacial Maximum

Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives

#23

Post by stevelawrence »

tempforanthro wrote: post #14
Ericson2314 wrote: post #13

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

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 wo…

> 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.

Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives

#24

Post by ArkanExplorer »

amvalo wrote: post #16
tempforanthro wrote: post #6

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…

> some other N. American immigration hypotheses (eg, that pleistocene peoples could make boats)]. Why were they so opposed to this? You can't leave us hanging... EDIT: ok and why is this at -1??

In South Africa, Australia, South America, New Zealand, the 'native' (ie. non-European) peoples are granted near-mythical status, on the basis that they arrived tens of thousands of years before Europeans.

But if this kind of genetic evidence indicates that there were actually waves of migration, conquest and assimilation, that non-European migration waves were relatively recent, and that Europeans are just the most recent one, then the status of Europeans as 'bad guys' and everyone else as 'good guys' falls flat.

Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives

#25

Post by flir »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #19
amvalo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some other N. American immigration hypotheses (eg, that pleistocene peoples could make boats)]. Why were they so opposed to this? You can't leave us hanging... EDIT: ok and why is this at -1??

There was a debate back in the 80s/90s about how the "beringia standstill population" got into the Americas south of the ice walls. It became a bit of a pressing issue once Monte Verde was accepted as unambiguous evidence of the pre-clovis hypothesis. There were basically two main, competing theories to explain it: 1) the "ice-free corridor" / inland route, where people simply walked from Alaska to the continental US…

The problem with that, as I understand it, is that the archaeological evidence for a coastal migration out of Beringia just isn't there?

Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives

#26

Post by AbrahamParangi »

ArkanExplorer wrote: post #24
amvalo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some other N. American immigration hypotheses (eg, that pleistocene peoples could make boats)]. Why were they so opposed to this? You can't leave us hanging... EDIT: ok and why is this at -1??

In South Africa, Australia, South America, New Zealand, the 'native' (ie. non-European) peoples are granted near-mythical status, on the basis that they arrived tens of thousands of years before Europeans. But if this kind of genetic evidence indicates that there were actually waves of migration, conquest and assimilation, that non-European migration waves were relatively recent, and that Europeans are just the most…

It doesn’t make sense to generalize across those (incredibly different) regions and also your generalization is just wrong.

Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives

#27

Post by bpodgursky »

flir wrote: post #25
AlotOfReading wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a debate back in the 80s/90s about how the "beringia standstill population" got into the Americas south of the ice walls. It became a bit of a pressing issue once Monte Verde was accepted as unambiguous evidence of the pre-clovis hypothesis. There were basically two main, competing theories to explain it: 1) the "ice-free corridor" / inland route, where people simply walked from Alaska to the continental US…

The problem with that, as I understand it, is that the archaeological evidence for a coastal migration out of Beringia just isn't there?

The problem with that problem is that all the evidence would be 300 feet underwater.

Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives

#28

Post by AlotOfReading »

flir wrote: post #25
AlotOfReading wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a debate back in the 80s/90s about how the "beringia standstill population" got into the Americas south of the ice walls. It became a bit of a pressing issue once Monte Verde was accepted as unambiguous evidence of the pre-clovis hypothesis. There were basically two main, competing theories to explain it: 1) the "ice-free corridor" / inland route, where people simply walked from Alaska to the continental US…

The problem with that, as I understand it, is that the archaeological evidence for a coastal migration out of Beringia just isn't there?

That's why studies of the PCR have focused on more southernly areas, in particular the PNW and the Channel islands. If you want lots of details and citations, I'd recommend perusing the 40th anniversary review paper: https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2019.80

Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives

#29

Post by jjtheblunt »

tempforanthro wrote: post #6

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…

That was not a rant by any means; it was genuine, and refreshingly resonant to (i'm sure) many reading with similar learned skepticisms about graduate academia.

Re: Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives

#30

Post by tempforanthro »

blix wrote: post #15
tempforanthro wrote: post #6

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…

> 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. I'd like to read the long take. Maybe write it down somewhere :)

put a contact in your profile
Post reply on HN