Date: January 04, 2018 12:29AM
Or tell me what I'm "reading wrong" in this statement...
>>"It's a population that is most closely related to modern Native Americans but is still distantly related to them. So, you can say she comes from the earliest, or most original, Native American group - the first Native American group that diversified.
On the other thread you noted, you were hesitant "to stake out too strong a position [on 'Clovis First'] given that I [you] don't have background in the field."
My "RFM Source" sent me the following links: The first is the abstract of the Nature paper, which is behind a paywall. I'll get a copy of that at some point from Simon Southerton, of whom you may have heard. The second link is a far better summary of the findings than either of the two "tabloid sources" that discuss the study. The NPR article is a little better, of course, but what is really needed--on a molecular science level--is an in-depth comparison of the new genome with, say, the Anzick Clovis child. Seriously, you can count on one hand the actual remains of such ancient individuals.https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25173https://phys.org/news/2018-01-reveals-evidence-population-ancient-native.html
>>As such, USR1 represents a distinct Ancient Beringian population. Using demographic modelling, we infer that the Ancient Beringian population and ancestors of other Native Americans descended from a single founding population that initially split from East Asians around 36 ± 1.5 ka, with gene flow persisting until around 25 ± 1.1 ka. Gene flow from ancient north Eurasians into all Native Americans took place 25–20 ka, with Ancient Beringians branching off around 22–18.1 ka. Our findings support a long-term genetic structure in ancestral Native Americans, consistent with the Beringian ‘standstill model.’
Note that phrase "we infer" (and yes, I realize this appears "patronizing" to you, but it's an issue I've looked at for 18 years, ever since Simon's first presentation at an Exmormon Conference. I have a lot of information "stored" on this subject).
BTW, there's an LDS scientist (Ugo Perego) who offered an article suggesting the DNA "evidence" suggested two separate but nearly identical migrations south from Beringia; Perego used mitochondrial DNA, suggesting that Haplogroup D4h3 was strong evidence for one "branch" since it is largely confined to South America. Unfortunately, Deborah Bolnick sequenced D4h3 in some pre-Columbian remains in Illinois, which isn't anywhere near South America.
I don't have a problem with the "Berngia standstill," BTW; to borrow a cliché, the devil is in the details.
A few weeks ago I summarized both sides of the Clovis, pre-Clovis debate, and I noted that Anna C. Roosevelt, both Haynes, C. Vance, and Gary (not related), Dina Dincauze, Stuart Fiedel, and others have rejected the "pre-Clovis claims" of Monte Verde, Paisley Caves, and elsewhere.
Obviously, Tom Dillehay, who excavated Monte Verde, has made his reputation on that site and its dates (while conveniently "ignoring" the 33,000 year old date he also found); the argument between Dillehay and Fiedel has been particularly acrimonious and heated.
Several years ago we had an archaeologists' conference here in Salt Lake, and with the police interceptor in the shop, I was driving a van and picked up six or seven people for a ride from downtown to the U of U Campus (I forget whether it was the Guest House or the U Park Marriot).
The subject of Monte Verde came up, and after the "ringleader" said to me, "Oh, you're one of us" (I'm not, but I can read the research really well, and I do understand DNA science), she polled the others, who agreed unanimously "the Monte Verde dates were legitimate."
I knew far less than I do now, but the other factor in the conversation was the conclusion the leader voiced, which was "They must've made a beeline to South America," referring of course, to the Monte Verde inhabitants and their Asian origins.
I find that "obvious reality" particularly problematic; these days invariably boats and "coastal hypotheses" are offered (see Erlandson), but my view of human settlements in they tend to "move east to west--or vice versa--much more quickly than north to south.
We'll have to see how this sorts out (in ten years or so, by my estimation), but my analysis right now is "Pre-Clovis is sexy," and "Clovis First isn't."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2018 12:36AM by SL Cabbie.