Tags
Tab Item Content
Join Us!
Archives Meta
Theories that Nativ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Theories that Nativos Mexicanos originated from South East Asia.

77 Posts
8 Users
34 Likes
12.9 K Views
Komodo Commander
Posts: 943
(@komodo)
Noble Member
Joined: 4 years ago

@amado do you have a Amerindian blood in you?

Reply
2 Replies
Amado
(@Amado)
Joined: 4 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 312

@marneil

I'm Mexican 😀, even white Mexicans have Amerindian DNA 

Reply
Komodo Commander
(@komodo)
Joined: 4 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 943

@rodriguez

My bad, you can pass as southern euro in my eyes. 

Reply
Qamzardaan
Posts: 487
(@qamzardaan)
Reputable Member
Joined: 5 years ago

There are some Onge/Australo-Melanesian affinities which are founded in some Amazonian tribes. Also there are two Botocudo samples from Brazil which turned out to be Polynesians (not sure if the samples were mislabelled as Amerind or not).

Regardless, there is hardly any to zero SE Asian affinity in Amerindians according to genetic evidence. 

Reply
56 Replies
Amado
(@Amado)
Joined: 4 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 312

@qamzardaan

 

Some Polynesians Carry DNA of Ancient Native Americans, New Study Finds

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/science/polynesian-ancestry.html

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@rodriguez

 

 

 

Map

 

Marquesas Islands and Easter Island ( Rapa Nui )

 

 

Reply
Amado
(@Amado)
Joined: 4 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 312

@prau123

Filipinos have Native American in your DNA correct?

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@rodriguez

 

 

yes, correct, Native American Indians and Filipinos are predominantly Mongoloids, we share the same genes. 

 

Reply
Amado
(@Amado)
Joined: 4 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 312

@prau123

it's only from the word of mouth I hear online, I would like to see the actual genetic testing that Filipinos have taken. 

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@rodriguez

 

Native American Indians and Filipinos are still related even though it's been around 30,000 to 60,000 years ago that we were actually together so our genetics are not exactly the same anymore.   The Native American Indians went north to Siberia and then Beringia which they eventually populated the New World while Filipinos went to Southeast Asia.  There has been interbreeding with different ethnic groups along the way for both Native American Indians and Filipinos.  The Native American Indians have a certain percentage of South Asian genes or Indians from the north while Filipinos have some percentage of Australoid genes.  

 

Reply
Qamzardaan
(@qamzardaan)
Joined: 5 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 487

@prau123

Interesting. Here is what I learned from Anthrogenica, another forum that specializes and focuses mainly on the topic of human genetics though.

They are related in the sense that they are both primarily East Asian (its a genetic term for Mongoloids)-derived although Filipinos are much more East Eurasian than Natives are. Natives have around 30-40% ANE which mostly Caucasoid with around 1/4 East Eurasian affinities (related to Tianyuan Man) which means around 23-30% Caucasoid blood. Native Americans also shared the ANE ancestry with South Asians/Indians, Europeans, Central Asians, Middle Easterners/West Asians (those from Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia). Meanwhile Pinoys like most Mongoloids have literally 0% ANE and are like close to 85-90% East Asian genetically for those who don't have Euro admixture. The only other Mongs who have ANE admixture are Siberians and predominantly Mongoloid Central Asians like Kyrgyz, Kazakh. 

Furthermore, the East Asian ancestry of Pinoys and Natives are very different. The former mainly derived from Taiwanese Aborigines while the latter Mongoloid ancestry is mainly Paleosiberian.

Also Native Americans have some South Asian genes? That's weird. 

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@qamzardaan

 

I find South Asian genes in Native American Indians rather peculiar but I'll get back to you on this later. 

 

Reply
Qamzardaan
(@qamzardaan)
Joined: 5 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 487

@prau123

Thanks. Would like to know more about that South Asian affinity. 

Also Native Americans diverged from East Asians (a genetic term for all those who are of Mongoloid stock) including Pinoys in general around 20,000 years ago or more after their East Asian ancestors who are mainly Devil's Gate (an ancient Northern Asian population related mostly to some Siberian Tungusic speaking tribes today) or other Siberian-related started mixing with ANE aka Ancient North Eurasians who were Ice Age mammoth hunter gatherers and who were genetically much closer to Upper Paleolithic Europeans, an early Caucasoid aka West Eurasian population, somewhere in Siberia than to East Asians. That's how we can deduce that ANE was primarily Caucasoid. 

Ancient Caucasoids were believe to spread to fairly widespread back then in Eurasia, they were even somewhere east as far as Siberia.

Later, Mongoloids from the south closer to modern day NE Asia like China comes up and start replacing the ANE peoples in Siberia while also mixing and diluting their blood. 

That's why today Siberians have significant ANE (Paleo-caucasoid) admix while most Mongoloids don't have.

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@qamzardaan

 

Thanks for sharing this information, there were at least 3 migrations to the New World, the first group contributed the most to the present day population in the Americas and they arrived around 15,000 to 25,000 years ago and are predominantly Mongoloid and around 25% to 30% Ancient Caucasoid.  These are the Native American Indians that you were referring to.  The second wave are the Paleo-Eskimos that arrived 5,000 to 6,000 years ago but they eventually went extinct around 700 years ago and contributed little to the present day Native American Indians.  The third wave were the Inuit and Yup'ik that arrived 800 years ago and they have much more Mongoloid and less Ancient Caucasoid than the first group which suggest that the Mongoloids in Siberia were replacing the ANE people and diluting their blood. Some Inuit interbred with the first group in the Americas and they begin to have more ANE. 

 

 

 

The Southeast Asian Island Origin is debatable and requires more research and testing since most of the research or testing has been done on Taiwan.  They haven't done an extensive research and testing in Southeast Asia and Southeast Asian Islands which consist of around 30,000 islands.  The Southeast Asians could have migrated out of the Malaysian Peninsula to the Indonesians Archipelago which is the same route that the Australian Aborigines took to go to Australia. Other Australoid groups took this route also and I'm sure it was the Australoid people who showed the way for the Southeast Asian migrants to Indonesia, Philippines, Papuan New Guinea and Melanesian Islands.  The Southeast Asians admix with Australoid would end up further continuing the route to discover Micronesia and Polynesia. Eventually with more research and testing we will get more results which may support the Malaysian Peninsula Route that the Australoid group took around 70,000 years ago to Australia. The Out of Taiwan theory requires the people to sail on a sail craft to Philippines and the distance is 800 miles or 1286 kilometers.  On the other hand the Out of Malaysian Peninsula to Sumatra, Indonesia only requires a basic canoe and the distance is only 36 miles or less than 60 kilometers.  

 

Scroll to 1:30

 

 

 

Reply
Qamzardaan
(@qamzardaan)
Joined: 5 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 487

@prau123

Also not sure if you would be shocked but Filipinos are actually one of the most genetically distant Mongoloid groups to Native Americans.

A Genetic Distance Run using Global 25: one of the best genetic calculators out there by Davidski:

 Surui (a Native American tribe from South America) from most to least. The higher the numbers means the higher distance that population is to the Surui. 

Look at how bottom the Filipino samples are (Luzon and Igorot). Even Saami, Udmurt who are two predominantly European populations are genetically closer to Surui than Filipinos are lol. The closest pops to the Surui are Chukchi, Kirghiz, Selkup who are Paleosiberian and Central Asian.

Distance to Surui
0.45144851 Chukchi
0.55499487 Kirghiz
0.55907602 Selkup
0.55926932 Kazakh
0.56054636 Mongolian
0.57328326 Hazara
0.58661389 Yakut
0.58932847 JPN_Jomon (Jomon sample)
0.59467283 Japanese
0.59745944 Han_Shanxi
0.59799573 Evenk
0.60032065 Aeta
0.60447864 Onge
0.61451704 Han_Guangdong
0.61563835 Malay
0.61574522 Cambodian
0.61727523 Udmurt
0.61745261 Saami
0.62104511 Bonda
0.62297913 Hawaiian
0.62713075 PYF_150BP (Polynesian individual from French Polynesia)
0.62957523 Bengali_Bangladesh
0.63061924 Luzon
0.63748473 Igorot

Or compare to the Pima, a Native American tribe from Southwestern USA/Northern Mexico.

Once again, the Filipinos (Luzon, Igorot) are at the bottom which means the most distant/furthest away. Look at how the Saami and Udmurt who are predominantly European are genetically closer to the Pima than Pinoys are. Closest pops are Chukchi, Kirghiz, Kazakh who are Paleosiberian and Central Asian.

Distance to: Pima
0.36647137 Chukchi
0.46664982 Kirghiz
0.47170710 Kazakh
0.47241320 Mongolian
0.47360330 Selkup
0.48787113 Hazara
0.50392897 Yakut
0.50901481 JPN_Jomon (Jomon sample)
0.51351578 Japanese
0.51527216 Evenk
0.51548158 Han_Shanxi
0.52262929 Aeta
0.52624097 Onge
0.53614786 Han_Guangdong
0.53759151 Cambodian
0.53825171 Malay
0.54085620 Udmurt
0.54205455 Saami
0.54504236 Bonda
0.54735152 Hawaiian
0.54997690 PYF_150BP (Polynesian individual from French Polynesia)
0.55374478 Bengali_Bangladesh
0.55549123 Luzon
0.56430606 Igorot

It makes sense though as

1) Native Americans are genetically very divergent from other "Mongoloids" including Filipinos due to being separated from Asians for at least 20,000 years or more after they move to the Americas

2) Native Americans have 30-40% ANE (even up to 45% ANE according to some qpAdm formal stat results that I saw), a predominantly ancient West Eurasian component that they shared with South Asians, Central Asians and Caucasoids such as West Asians, Europeans, Middle Easterners. Most Mongoloids including Filipinos lack ANE or if they have it is very negligible/almost zero amounts which they received from their Iberian admix. Spaniards have some ANE but pretty low compared to Northern Euros and Eastern Euros.

3) ANE also means around 23-30% West Eurasian ancestry or more for Native Americans. Filipinos on the other hand, are predominantly or almost 100% East Eurasian (its a term to refer to those in the Mongoloid and Australoid genetic cluster). 

4) The East Eurasian ancestry of Native Americans is Siberian-derived and related to Paleo-Siberian/Devil's Gate which is the main ancestors of Tungusic tribes which is very different and distinct from the East Eurasian ancestry of Filipinos which originates from Southern China and closely related to Taiwanese Aborigines. 

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@qamzardaan

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing this.  However genetic results are consistent with geographical distance. The further away the ethnic group is from the Filipinos, the more distant related it is genetically.  The Native American groups such as Mixe, Ayamara, and Surui are located at the opposite side of the Pacific Rim and therefore their genetics are distantly related to Filipinos.  There are exceptions though such as Papuans that are geographically closer in distance to Filipinos compared to Hawaiians and Native American Indian tribes and yet their genetics turned out to be the most distant to Luzons and Visayans.

 

However Filipinos do still have a small percentage of Native American Indian genes whether it's 2% or less.  The Native American Indian genes in Filipinos is derived from ANE and recent admixture from the Aztecs, Mayan, Incans that were introduced by Spaniards during Manila Acapulco Galleon Trade between 1565 to 1815. The migration actually extended up to 1898 and maybe even some more years during the turn of the twentieth century. However this admixture in Filipinos may have been introduced in cities primarily.  

 

There are exceptions in America.  The Botocudo tribes and Haida tribes have Polynesians genes. They would be considered genetically close to Filipinos.

 

The Surui tribe in Brazil along with the Xavante tribe and Karitiana tribe are considered Australasians which makes them closely related to Australian Aborigines, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders

 

 

I find this odd since some Native American Indians could actually pass up as Filipinos. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@rodriguez

 

 

 

 

 Filipinos Genetic Testings

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipinos#:~:text=National%20Geographic%27s%20%22The%20Genographic,and%20Oceanian%20genes%2C%20and%2036%25

 

 

 

National Geographic's "The Genographic Project", Relaunched in 2012 as Geno 2.0, based on a massive genetic testing of 80,000 Filipinos by the National Geographic in 2008–2009 found that the Philippines’ autosomal genepool is overwhelmingly East Eurasian, consisting of 53% Southeast Asian and Oceanian genes, and 36% East Asian genes, with 5% Southern European genes, 3% South Asian genes, and 2% Native American genes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filipinos have 2% Native American genes, while some Filipinos will have a bit more since Spaniards brought Mexican Indians ( Mayan and Aztec ) and Peruvian Indians ( Inca ) to the Philippines during the Manila Acapulco Galleon Trade between 1565 to 1815.

 

 

 

Reply
Rene B. Sarabia Jr
(@selurong)
Joined: 5 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 977

@prau123

 

This study by the University of the Philippines, University of Florida (Where it was published), University of Miami and Stanford University. Says that the Native American component is higher than 2% of the population more like 7.2%

 

This Anthropology study in which The University of the Philippines curated the samples from and several American Universities Participated in, said that 12.7% of Filipinos pass as Hispanic (Latin American), 7.3% as Native American, African as 4.5% and 2.7% as Europeans.

 

https://www.academia.edu/38744342/Classification_Trends_Among_Modern_Filipino_Crania_Using_Fordisc_3_1

 

Quote:

 
Go MC, Jones AR, Algee-Hewitt B, Dudzik B, Hughes C (2019). "Classification Trends among Contemporary Filipino Crania Using Fordisc 3.1"Human Biology. University of Florida Press. 2 (4): 1–11. doi:10.5744/fa.2019.1005. Retrieved September 13, 2020
 
 
[Page 1] ABSTRACT: Filipinos represent a significant contemporary demographic group globally, yet they are underrepresented in the forensic anthropological literature. Given the complex population history of the Philippines, it is important to ensure that traditional methods for assessing the biological profile are appropriate when applied to these peoples. Here we analyze the classification trends of a modern Filipino sample (n = 110) when using the Fordisc 3.1 (FD3) software. We hypothesize that Filipinos represent an admixed population drawn largely from Asian and marginally from European parental gene pools, such that FD3 will classify these individuals morphometrically into reference samples that reflect a range of European admixture, in quantities from small to large. Our results show the greatest classification into Asian reference groups (72.7%), followed by Hispanic (12.7%), Indigenous American (7.3%), African (4.5%), and European (2.7%) groups included in FD3. This general pattern did not change between males and females. 
Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@selurong

 

7.2% Native American Indian component is rather high. 

 

 

 

Reply
Rene B. Sarabia Jr
(@selurong)
Joined: 5 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 977

@prau123

 

I agree. But if you think about it, from the 1500s to the 1800s we have been ruled via Mexico, it makes sense. Since, direct Spanish rule from Europe was only from 1800 to 1898.

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@selurong

 

 

The further back in time, the more believable those stats were because some Filipinos did have Spanish and Native American Indian genes however it's been awhile and their genes have been diluted ever since and therefore the percentage of those genes have been reduce. The population of the Philippines has grown exponentially to 110 million, the percentage of the Southeast Asian component would have also increase.

Probably in some areas in Philippines there are Filipinos who have those high percentages.

 

 

 

Reply
Rene B. Sarabia Jr
(@selurong)
Joined: 5 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 977

@prau123

 

Well we are a class based society and even today Spaniards, Spanish Mestizos and Chinese often marry among their own kind. So some of them will be preserved.

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@selurong

 

yes, you're right, certain locales in the Philippines will have those high percentages but they don't reflect the national average though.  

 

 

Reply
Rene B. Sarabia Jr
(@selurong)
Joined: 5 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 977

These are the areas with high concentration of Spaniards and Latin Americans

 

https://imgur.com/i8QTOg8

 

https://imgur.com/wcQMN6Y

 These are the number of migrants in the 1600s. 16,000

 

https://imgur.com/W5MixJg

 

And the total population of the Philippines was 667,000.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Philippines

 

16,000 might not be much today but they did have an impact if your population was only 667,000.

 

 

 

 

 

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@selurong

 

1590's population was estimated to be 667,612 of which 16,500 were Latinos sent from countries such as Mexico and Peru.  The indigenous population could be higher since they only counted the major islands in Philippines.  There were likely several indigenous people in several islands in Philippines that were not counted.

 

Philippines wasn't quite like several countries in Latin America where Spanish and Portuguese population was able to grow and sustain it's growth.

 

In Philippines, a high percentage of the people who traveled during the Manila Acapulco Galleon Trade were males. Spanish men would arrive in Philippines and began interbreeding with the local females while only a few Spanish men brought their Spanish wives with children and gave birth to Criollos in Philippines.  Basically, the first generation is already a Mestizo, and the second generation of the Mestizos would likely have interbred with either another Mestizos or another Indigenous Filipinas. Each successive generation was already reducing it's Spanish admixture.  However Spanish and Native American descendants were migrating to Philippines for some time since Manila Acapulco Galleon Trade lasted from 1565 to 1815 and therefore Philippines was able to have a decent enough population of migrants during and after those time period. 

Philippines population has exploded in the last 70 years or so, the population of the Indigenous people has outnumbered and increased in comparison.  

 

 

 

 

 

Reply
Rene B. Sarabia Jr
(@selurong)
Joined: 5 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 977

@prau123

 

Well.

If you do the calculations.

The 16,500 soldiers from Mexico and Peru are already 2.5% of the "Recorded Population" of 667,000 (Minor islands unkown) of the Philippines. (The actual number is 18,000 actually but I reduced it since some were religious missionaries, I disregarded it even when not all missionaries were priests, some missionaries were lay brothers allowed to marry too, mind you)

 

And this also had a founder effect too. Plus, immigration from Spain, Mexico and Peru was constant until 1898.

 

Thus its not a stretch judging from the immigration records and population statistics to have at least 10%+ of the population to have Spanish or Latin American descent.

 

This Spanish era census stated that 1/3rd of Luzon had Spanish descent.

 

http://www.authorama.com/former-philippines-b-8.html

 

It may be not as much mestizos than in Latin America. Like the mestizos which compose most of Mexico but Mestizos are certainly more common than previously thought, more than the less than 5%. (How can it be less than 5% in number when the initial colonization of the Philippines already had a 2.5% of the population as pure bred Latin American colonists and their mixed raced descendants only compounded in time?)

 

So its certainly more common than thought.

As shown in YDNA studies, Cenuses and Anthropology papers.

 

Also, it doesnt mean that I support "foreign blood" mind you, I am proud of the achievements of Native Filipinos and in fact I wrote many articles about the precolonial Philippine kingdoms.

Im just stating facts, that this so and so census, study or immigration records say this and that.

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@selurong

 

 

1898, Philippines already had population around 6 million plus Filipinos.  I agree there were more migration coming in up until 1898 - Spain, Mexico and Peru.  However the annual growth rate in Philippines was tremendous and it was faster than the annual migration rate.  10% of 6 million is 600,000 migrants.  Do you believe that there were at least 600,000 Spanish descendants in Philippines in 1898?  Possibly?  Spanish descendants and some Native Indian (Aztec, Maya, Inca descendants) did reside in Manila, Zamboanga, Vigan, and several more cities and rural areas in Philippines.   

 

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1067059/population-philippines-historical/

 

 

Their mixed race descendants may have compounded in time but what was their birth rate?  If native Filipinos birth rate is 5 children on average while Spanish/Mestizo birth rate is only 2 then the native Filipino birth rate will increase their percentage much higher compared to Criollos/Castizos/ Mestizos.  Also if Mestizos continues to interbreed with local Native Filipinos then the siblings should fall in the category of Filipinos instead of Mestizos.

 

Native Filipino population was likely a lot higher considering there were several islands with native people that were not counted.  There were actually some migrations to Philippines from Indonesia islands such as Borneo to Mindanao.  

 

 

 

 

 

Reply
Rene B. Sarabia Jr
(@selurong)
Joined: 5 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 977

@prau123

 

Well this Spanish Census said that 1/3rd of Luzon Island have varying grades of Spanish descent.

 

http://www.authorama.com/former-philippines-b-8.html

 

However it is difficult to pin point the official number of children the Spanish and Latinos had because they had several out of wedlock and many of their children are from concubinage and prostitution.

 

"The descendants of Mexican mestizos and native Filipinos were numerous but unaccounted for because they were mostly the result of informal liaisons." ~Garcia de los Arcos, Forzados, 238

 

The source for this text is here.

 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/forced-migration-in-the-spanish-pacific-world/unruly-mexicans-in-manila/EF2599210A0715A5A91B23BB9D84B96C

 

Unfortunately its under a paywall. But you can use Scihub.com to (Illicitly) bypass it though.

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@selurong

 

If it's 1/3,  then we would still have a strong Spanish-Mestizo population in Philippines especially in Luzon today. Spanish would also be spoken by several Filipinos today but it's rare in Luzon.  In Manila, I mainly see pure Filipinos. Spanish-Mestizo population was at it's height during 1500's to 1898 and maybe a decade or possibly more after also since they were establishing several cities and creating Haciendas.  Spaniards were basically interbreeding with several Filipinas which results to having Mestizos however the pure Filipinos were also interbreeding a lot with each other that resulted to an exponential rise in population which we see even to this today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply
Rene B. Sarabia Jr
(@selurong)
Joined: 5 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 977

@prau123

 

Manila is mostly pure Malay now because of massive migration from the provinces. If you want to see more mestiza looks, see the locations where Spanish soldiers were stationed in the colonial era, that I posted, except the Manila one since its full of migration from the provinces after the colonial era.

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@selurong

 

There are cities and tourist spots that have a lot of foreigners today.  I guess Boracay would have the most even though they are predominantly tourist.  Dumaguete has a lot of retirees and I heard Baguio and Subic Bay does have several expats.  Makati, Bonifacio Global City, Cebu City and plus more have a lot new immigrants from around the world.

 

Btw, where were the Spanish soldiers stationed during colonial era?  And today are there a sizeable population comparable to a century ago and before? Are Spaniards-Mestizos visible regularly today in those places?

 

 

Reply
Rene B. Sarabia Jr
(@selurong)
Joined: 5 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 977

@prau123

 

This is where the earliest Spanish forts are in the Philippines.

 

Here are the locations of Spanish Presidios too.

 

 

IDK for you but I encountered alot of mestizos in Makati and Alabang as well as Negros Island too.

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@selurong

 

Thanks.  People with some/pure Spanish Ancestry are found throughout Philippines.  I guess Zamboanga would likely have a sizeable population since they speak Chavacano. 

People with Spanish Ancestry need to increase their birth rate if they want to be more visible in public and have a presence like they use to have.

 

 

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@selurong

 

Which cities along the coastlines and inland in Negros Island? Bacolod? Dumaguete?  The soil on the land is fertile which likely attracted them to create Haciendas.

Reply
Qamzardaan
(@qamzardaan)
Joined: 5 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 487

@selurong

Btw here are the Global 25 nmonte runs of Filipinos and Negritos. Keep in mind though there is only one Luzon and one Vizayan sample so it might not tell the whole story, but it does give some good ideas.

Filipinos:

Target: Luzon
Distance: 1.0307% / 0.01030692
77.8 Igorot
12.0 Dai
5.6 MYS_LN
3.2 AASI_related_Sim
0.8 Esan_Nigeria
0.6 Papuan

Target: Vizayan
Distance: 1.4416% / 0.01441559
75.6 Igorot
9.8 MYS_LN
4.8 S_AASI_Sim(Hakkipikki)
3.8 Papuan
2.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
1.6 CHN_Miaozigou_MN
1.0 Levant_ISR_C
0.6 Dinka

Negritos:

Target: Aeta
Distance: 2.5726% / 0.02572555
60.4 Igorot
14.2 Simulated_AASI
11.2 Papuan
4.2 AASI_related_Sim
3.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
3.4 Esan_Nigeria
1.0 Spanish_Extremadura
1.0 TUR_Barcin_N
0.8 Dinka

Target: Agta
Distance: 3.1496% / 0.03149598
60.0 Igorot
12.6 Simulated_AASI
12.2 Papuan
5.2 AASI_related_Sim
3.4 Esan_Nigeria
2.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
1.6 TUR_Barcin_N
1.4 Dinka
1.0 Spanish_Extremadura

Target: Batak (another Negrito tribe from Phils)
Distance: 2.5424% / 0.02542419
60.6 Igorot
14.6 Simulated_AASI
10.4 Papuan
6.6 MYS_LN
1.8 Esan_Nigeria
1.6 LAO_LN_BA
1.4 GEO_CHG
1.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.8 TUR_Barcin_N
0.6 Dinka
0.2 Levant_ISR_C
0.2 TKM_Gonur3_BA

Other ethnic minorities:

Target: Bajo (Bajau sea gypsies I believe- not sure if the samples are from Philippines or Indonesia)
Distance: 0.9329% / 0.00932872
52.6 Igorot
22.8 MYS_LN
16.6 Papuan
3.2 Simulated_AASI
3.0 LAO_LN_BA
0.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.4 TKM_Gonur3_BA
0.2 AASI_related_Sim
0.2 Dinka
0.2 Levant_ISR_C

Notice how the Negritos seem to score a significant amount of AASI (Ancient Ancestral South Indian) and minor West Eurasian aka Caucasoid (Spanish_Extremadura, TKM_Gonur, Yamnaya, TUR_Barciin, Levant_ISR) components? This could indicate that they have some Indian ancestry as South Asians are a mainly mix between AASI+West Eurasian. That could explains why the Negrito that you saw has Caucasoid features, he could have this ancient Indian-related ancestry. 

Also noticed how the Luzon (there is only one sample on Global 25) individual doesn't have any West Eurasian/Caucasoid while the Vizayan (there is also only one sample on Global 25 sadly) seem to have almost 4% West Eurasian (Yamnaya+Levant_ISR)? It means that the Vizayan Filipino individual could have South Asian or even West Asian-related ancestry (Levant_ISR is a signal for Arab admixture). What's interesting is the individual doesn't score any of the Spanish_Extremadura suggesting that he/she has no Euro admix and that all of the Caucasoid he/she is scoring is not European. Also not to mention that the Vizayan has almost 5% AASI which is a signal of Indian affinity.

The Bajo samples also seem to have some Indian ancestry as can be seen by the AASI and minor West Eurasian. 

Reply
Rene B. Sarabia Jr
(@selurong)
Joined: 5 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 977

@qamzardaan

 

Visayans according to folklore descend from Srivijayan refugees. Srivijaya is more near to mainland Asia at Sumtra-Singapore-Malaysia-Pattani.

 

I imagine that Western Indonesians, Malaysians, Southern Thais. Have even more South Asian descent than Visayans. Who are only refugees and whos South Asian is diluted.

Reply
Rene B. Sarabia Jr
(@selurong)
Joined: 5 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 977

@prau123

 
There is a problem with our source population though. Theyre Latin American and they are a highly diverse set, some Latin Americans look Hispanic (Mestizo), some look Asian (Amerindians especially from the Yucatan peinsula, among the Toltecs look indistinguishable from Filipinos), and a few Spaniards and Mulattoes.
 
So you cant pinpoint what the average phenotype or racial classification he would be, because there were a rainbow of colors among the colonists coming every year.
 
Mind you, they might have been black or asian looking for all we know.
Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@selurong

 

In Mexico, the northern half has a large population of people with Spanish ancestry while the southern half is more indigenous in comparison.

 

Reply
Rene B. Sarabia Jr
(@selurong)
Joined: 5 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 977

@prau123

The colonists are sourced from several central Mexican territories.

 

https://imgur.com/4iOibrj

Mainly from Mexico City, Puebla, Veracruz, Acapulco, Antequerra, Celaya, Cuernavaca and Zacatecas.

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@selurong

 

 

 

A month ago somewhere I've read before that northern half in Mexico have a larger population of people with Spanish Ancestry compared to the southern half.

 

Reply
Amado
(@Amado)
Joined: 4 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 312

@selurong

Is there book and films about this? I think this is something interesting for Mexicans. 

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@rodriguez

 

 

 

Books

 

Finding Your Mexican Ancestors: A Beginner's Guide (Finding Your Ancestors):  Ryskamp, George R., Ryskamp, Peggy Hill: 9781593313074: Amazon.com: Books

 

 

Customer reviews

 

 

4.7 out of 5 stars
 
4.7 out of 5
 
22 global ratings
 
 
5 star 
 
 81%
4 star 
 
 14%
3 star 
 
 3%
2 star 0% (0%)  0%
1 star 
 
 3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Customer reviews

 

 

4.1 out of 5 stars
 
4.1 out of 5
 
25 global ratings
 
 
5 star 
 
 68%
4 star 
 
 2%
3 star 
 
 14%
2 star 
 
 7%
1 star 
 
 9%

 

 

 

 

Reply
Qamzardaan
(@qamzardaan)
Joined: 5 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 487

@selurong

7.2% of the pop has Native admix or the average Pinoy has 7.2% Native ancestry? Because I never seen any Pinoy who score more than 1% Native American in 23andme and Gedmatch results. 

Also apparently 4.5% of Filipinos can pass as African? What? Are they referring to the Negritos? I have seen pictures of Negritos and I wouldn't mistake them as Sub Saharan African despite the former being "black". 

I still find the 12.7% and 7.3% of Filipinos able to pass as Hispanic and Native to be too high tbh.

Reply
Rene B. Sarabia Jr
(@selurong)
Joined: 5 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 977

@qamzardaan

 

Its 7.2% of Filpinos having Native American Admix its not the average. Most Filipinos have no Native American.

 

I think they based it on physical classification and YDNA not automosal one.

Reply
Qamzardaan
(@qamzardaan)
Joined: 5 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 487

@selurong

Ok that makes much more sense.

You mean regarding the 4.5% of Filipinos can pass as African, 2.5% as Euro, 12.7% as Hispanic and 7.3% as Native?

Even if its based on physical classification, that 4.5% figure is still strange, because most Negritos and some lumads (I think some lumads can look like Negrito or heavily Australoid?) still look pretty different and won't pass for Negroids imo despite their dark skin not to mentioned their really short height. So its definitely much less than 4.5% can pass as African. Y-DNA wouldn't make much sense as Africans are primarily E1b1a, E1b1b followed by A, B and E1a. And these haplogroups are literally nonexistent among Filipinos (who are mostly haplogroup O1, O2, O3, like most Asians) even including the Negritos and the more Australoid admixed Lumads. So the 4.5% figure still doesn't make sense.

If 12.7% of Pinoys can pass as Hispanic, I believe it would mean that a lot of them have clear/visible European admixture in their facial features aka probably regard as Mestizos. I think this is the physical classification of this study rather than autosomal DNA. In case of Y-DNA, most Hispanics are R1b which they inherited from their Iberian ancestors followed by J2. So 12.7% of Filipinos must also have R1b and J2 going by this case.

Regarding the 7.3% of Pinoys pass as Native, Im not sure. I feel its too high. And its mainly restricted to the more Mongoloid looking tropical lowland types like some Amazonians and certain Central Americans/Southern Mexicans. If we take Y-DNA into account, Natives are predominantly of haplogroup Q, C and then followed by R1 (pretty different from the R1b haplogroup found in Iberians) which is once again something not founded in Filipinos. R1 in this case is a haplogroup which is very common everywhere in Eurasia except East Asia/SE Asia. So it doesn't seem to make much sense in that case as well.

 

Reply
Rene B. Sarabia Jr
(@selurong)
Joined: 5 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 977

@qamzardaan

 

There were Latin American Mulattoes (Half European and Half African) who made it to the Philppines too. That would explain the African admixture.

 

Letter from Fajardo to Felipe III From Manila, August 15 1620.(From the Spanish Archives of the Indies) ("The infantry does not amount to two hundred men, in three companies. If these men were that number, and Spaniards, it would not be so bad; but, although I have not seen them, because they have not yet arrived here, I am told that they are, as at other times, for the most part boys, mestizos, and mulattoes, with some Indians. There is no little cause for regret in the great sums that reënforcements of such men waste for, and cost, your Majesty. I cannot see what betterment there will be until your Majesty shall provide it, since I do not think, that more can be done in Nueva Spaña, although the viceroy must be endeavoring to do so, as he is ordered.")

 

 

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16086/16086-h/16086-h.htm

 

Reply
Rene B. Sarabia Jr
(@selurong)
Joined: 5 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 977

@qamzardaan

 

The other study we talked over had a similar percentage, 13% of the population have R1b YDNA. That jives with the phenotypical classification that 12.7% of Filiponos pass as Hispanic. The African and Native American components only surprises if you didn't knew that colonization was via Latin America and many Mulattoes and Amerindians came along. Otherwise, its not surprising.

Reply
Qamzardaan
(@qamzardaan)
Joined: 5 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 487

@selurong

Ok.  I'm still skeptical of that 12.7% of Pinoys passable as Hispanic figure btw.

How much African the do the average Maharlikan (just joking I heard that's what Duterte want to change the name to) get btw?

Reply
Rene B. Sarabia Jr
(@selurong)
Joined: 5 years ago

Noble Member
Posts: 977
Since youre Thai you might recognize from the Sanskrit root words (Sanskrit is used in Buddhism) that the term Maharlika orginally came from the Sanskrit term Maha meaning Great and Lingam meaning Symbol. Actually Maharlika wasnt the name of the Philippines before Spain came, every island had a different name, Maharlika is used for the warrior caste.
 
As for what percentage of us have that almighty #BBC, I unfortunately cant say, judging from YDNA studies since they are mostly Mulattoes with European Fathers and African Mothers, so since its mostly YDNA analyses, the beautiful mocha colored Mulattas dont have their black ancestry represented since it wasnt their fathers who were black.
 
Also as I stated before to Prau, the founding population of the Philippines was 667,000 of which, 16,500 were colonists from Latin America, thats already 2.5% of the founding population as pure bred Latinos. So its not a stretch to say that over time the descendants of the 2.5% of the populatiom became 10%+ especially considering the founder effect and continous immigration from Spain and the Americas from 1565 until 1898.
 
Its actually 18,000 not 15,600 I was undercounting the Latino founders.
 
 
 
I just made it 15,600 since out of the missionaries I dont know how much were Lay Missionaries and how much were Priests.
 
Source of the statistics for Latino immigrants:
 
Stephanie Mawson, ‘Between Loyalty and Disobedience: The Limits of Spanish Domination in the Seventeenth Century Pacific’ (Univ. of Sydney M.Phil. thesis, 2014), appendix 3.
 
Source for the total Philippines population in the 1600s:
 
The Unlucky Country: The Republic of the Philippines in the 21St Century By Duncan Alexander McKenzie (page xii)
Reply
Qamzardaan
(@qamzardaan)
Joined: 5 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 487

@prau123

I don't think Filipinos having 2% Native American genes is accurate at all. Most 23andme and Gedmatch results of Filipinos that I saw have zero or close to zero Native American. The few Pinoy results I saw that have some Native have only 1% Native American at most, not more than that.

Also I don't think the National Geographic is that accurate. or instance, shows Iranians and Georgians from Caucasus being around 42% and 31% Southwest Asian while the Kuwaitis and Lebanese who are actually Arabs having only around 27% and 26% Southwest Asian which is less than Iranians. Also the so called Southwest Asian component isn't really SW Asian/Middle Eastern because it peaks among the Western Indians and Southern Indians rather than in the Middle East. In fact, the Southwest Asian component is probably something Iran Neolithic or CHG-like rather than actual SW Asian that is Natufian or Levantine Neolithic.

Another example that shows its outdate-ness and inaccuracy is the fact that the Southern Indian and Western Indian samples are scoring 35% and 26% Southeast Asian when actually Indians from the South and Western part of the country have very little to no Mongoloid admixture.

Or how it assigns the Kuwaitis to have the third highest Mediterranean component after Sardinians and Lebanese when actually Kuwaitis like most Peninsular Arabs have very minor to almost none actual Mediterranean/Anatolian Neolithic Farmer/Barcin_N admixture.

Here are the reference populations that I am talking about: about: https://web.archive.org/web/20140905195857/https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations/

Thus I don't believe the average Filipino have 2% Native American genes, at least not from the 23andme and Gedmatch results that I saw of Filipinos. I feel the researchers intentionally cherrypicked certain class of the Philippine society who has history of extensive contacts with Spain and the Americas.

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@qamzardaan

 

btw, how many genetic samples were taken and how recent were they?  

 

 

2% maybe considered high but Spaniards have been in Philippines since 1500's and developed several cities and haciendas on several islands.  They integrated and interbred with the Filipinos.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

@qamzardaan

 

 

 

most of the 23andme results show .1% Native American Indian genes among Filipinos and there was only one with 1% Native American Indian genes.  Filipinos only have less than 1% Native American Indian genes on average.  If a Filipino has more than 1%, then he/she probably has a recent Native American Indian genes that was inherited some time during Manila Acapulco Galleon Trade which lasted from 1565 to 1815 as Spaniards brought Native American Indians with them as soldiers and ship crewmen. Also some Spaniards on Galleons traveling from Acapulco to Manila were already considered Mestizos.  Having interbred with Native Mexican Indian population in Mexico, the Mexican Mestizos continued to interbreed with Filipina population in Philippines and therefore the offspring is considered triracial instead of biracial = mestizo since the offspring has Filipino genes on the maternal side while having Spanish and Native Mexican Indian genes on the paternal side.  During those times, predominantly Spanish/Mestizo males interbred with Filipina females.  Possibly more Native American Indian genes flowed in Philippines when Americans arrived there in 1898 to 1946 however there were Americans there several decades later. I'm referring to Americans who are pure Native American Indians and Americans of any heritage with some Native American Indian ancestry. 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply
josh avatar
Registered
(@zexsypmp23)
Joined: 5 years ago

Member
Posts: 4380

@rodriguez

around 2% percent native american 

Reply
Amado
(@Amado)
Joined: 4 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 312

@rambo

how did Filipinos get Native American in the DNA results?

Reply
Qamzardaan
(@qamzardaan)
Joined: 5 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 487

@rodriguez

Its mainly only among Marquesas Islands and Rapa Nui Polynesians who have it and it has to do with closer geographic proximity to the Americas. If you get to see DNA results of other Polynesians, they have literally zero Native American.

Reply
Amado
(@Amado)
Joined: 4 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 312

@qamzardaan

The Filipinos have Native American in their DNA from their former colonizer from New Spain. 

Reply
Qamzardaan
(@qamzardaan)
Joined: 5 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 487

@rodriguez

Some do have. But not all of them. In fact, I would say the majority of them might not have it. I have seen so many Philo (another term for Filipino) results and most of them don't have any Native at all. 

And when they do have Native American, they score it like only 1% of their autosomal DNA. I never seen any Philo who score more than 1% Native in their DNA results.

Reply
Amado
(@Amado)
Joined: 4 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 312

@qamzardaan

Interesting

Reply
Qamzardaan
(@qamzardaan)
Joined: 5 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 487

@rodriguez

Yep. I think this Native American ancestry existed only among certain groups of the Philippine society but not most or all of them have it in my opinion.

Most Filipinos that have Native score less than 1% like 0.3% or 0.5% which is literally almost zero.

The highest that I saw for a Philo was 1% but that's it.

Reply
Amado
(@Amado)
Joined: 4 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 312

@qamzardaan

I seen a few that have Native Americans showing in their DNA results. I'll post it when If I see it again. 

Reply
Prau123 avatar
Posts: 2471
(@prau123)
Famed Member
Joined: 5 years ago

Botocudo tribe, Xavante tribe and Karitiani tribe in Brazil and the Haida Indians in Pacific Nortwest are Polynesians with Southeast Asian genes 

 

 

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-20026-8

 

 

 

 

figure3

 

The second episode is estimated to have occurred in an interval from ~1,200 to 1,700 BP (229–725 CE), and is composed of a minor component (~17%), comprising mainly northern Melanesian and New Guinea sources, and a major one (~83%), in which the largest contributions are attributable to the ‘Philippines 1’, Sulawesi, and Malaysian clusters.

Reply
1 Reply
Prau123 avatar
(@prau123)
Joined: 5 years ago

Famed Member
Posts: 2471

 

Haida Indians have some Polynesian genes and their Totem Poles are similar to Polynesian Tiki Poles as if Polynesians in the remote past settled or influenced the culture in the Pacific Northwest.

 

 

 

 

Haida, Pacific Northwest 

 

This wonderful totem pole was carved in old growth Western Red Cedar. It  stands proudly at 34 (alm… | Native american totem poles, Totem pole,  Native american totem

 

 

Vintage Haida Art Totem Pole Made in Alaska | #1811801019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Polynesian Tiki Poles

 

 

Marquesan Tiki | Tiki statues, Enchanted tiki room, Tiki totem

 

 

Tiki Statues High Resolution Stock Photography and Images - Alamy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply
Prau123 avatar
Posts: 2471
(@prau123)
Famed Member
Joined: 5 years ago

Brazilian migration to the Philippines has increased and they are considered the new Latinos in Philippines today.  Our national soccer team Azkal should sign up some and maybe our world ranking would get better.

Reply
dyno avatar
Posts: 1462
(@dyno)
Noble Member
Joined: 3 years ago

Ancient DNA confirms Native Americans' deep roots in North and South America

Trove of ancient samples reveals 11,000 years of unknown genetic history

a Surui man walks down a road in the forest
The Suruí from the Brazilian Amazon carry traces of Australasian ancestry, now confirmed to have arrived in South America more than 10,400 years ago.CRAIG STENNETT/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO

For decades, scientists could describe the peopling of the Americas only in broad strokes, leaving plenty of mysteries about when and how people spread across the continents. Now, state-of-the-art ancient DNA methods, applied to scores of new samples from around the Americas, are filling in the picture. Two independent studies, published in Cell and online in Science, find that ancient populations expanded rapidly across the Americas about 13,000 years ago. They also emphasize that the story continued in the thousands of years since, revealing previously undocumented, large-scale movements between North and South America.

The data include 64 newly sequenced ancient DNA samples from Alaska to Patagonia, spanning more than 10,000 years of genetic history. "The numbers [of samples] are just extraordinary," says Ben Potter, an archaeologist at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. Prior to these studies, only six genomes older than 6000 years from the Americas had been sequenced. As a result, says Jennifer Raff, an anthropological geneticist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, "The [genetic] models that we've been using to explain the peopling of the Americas have always been oversimplified."

Eske Willerslev, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Copenhagen who led the Science team, worked closely with the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe in Nevada to gain access to some of the new samples. The tribe had been fighting to repatriate 10,700-year-old remains found in Nevada's Spirit Cave and had resisted destructive genetic testing. But when Willerslev visited the tribe in person and vowed to do the work only with their permission, the tribe agreed, hoping the result would bolster their case for repatriation.

It did. Willerslev found that the remains from Spirit Cave are most closely related to living Native Americans. That strengthened the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe's claim to the bones, which were returned to them in 2016 and reburied. Willerslev's study validates that "this is our homeland, these are our ancestors," says Rochanne Downs, the tribe's cultural coordinator.

Willerslev added the Spirit Cave data to 14 other new whole genomes from sites scattered from Alaska to Chile and ranging from 10,700 to 500 years old. His data join an even bigger trove published in Cell by a team led by population geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston. They analyzed DNA from 49 new samples from Central and South America dating from 10,900 to 700 years old, at more than 1.2 million positions across the genome. All told, the data decisively dispel suggestions, based on the distinctive skull shape of a few ancient remains, that early populations had a different ancestry from today's Native Americans. "Native Americans truly did originate in the Americas, as a genetically and culturally distinctive group. They are absolutely indigenous to this continent," Raff says.

A trail of DNA

Two new papers add DNA from 64 ancient individuals to the sparse genetic record of the Americas. They show that people related to the Anzick child, part of the Clovis culture, quickly spread across both North and South America about 13,000 years ago.
Sample sizeOneEightTeam leaderPreviously publishedEske WillerslevDavid ReichUpward Sun River11,500 years agoAncient BeringianSpirit Cave10,700 years agoLovelock Cave2000–600 years agoAnzick12,700 years agoMonte Verde14,500+ years agoLapa do Santo9600 years agoLagoa Santa10,400–9600 years agoAustralasian ancestryNorthernNative AmericansSouthernNative Americans
(MAP) C. POSTH ET AL., CELL, 175 (2018) ADAPTED BY J. YOU/SCIENCE; (DATA) J. MORENO-MAYAR ET AL., SCIENCE 10.1126/SCIENCE.AAV2621

The two studies also provide an unprecedented view of how ancient Americans moved across the continent beginning about 13,000 years ago. Previous genetic work had suggested the ancestors of Native Americans split from Siberians and East Asians about 25,000 years ago, perhaps when they entered the now mostly drowned landmass of Beringia, which bridged the Russian Far East and North America. Some populations stayed isolated in Beringia, and Willerslev sequenced one new example of such an "Ancient Beringian," 9000-year-old remains from Alaska's Seward peninsula. Meanwhile, other groups headed south. At some point, those that journeyed south of the ice sheets split into two groups—"Southern Native Americans" and "Northern Native Americans" (also sometimes called Ancestral A and B lineages), who went on to populate the continents.

 

By looking for genetic similarities between far-flung samples, both papers add detail—some of it puzzling—to this pattern. The 12,700-year-old Anzick child from Montana, who is associated with the mammoth-hunting Clovis culture, known for their distinctive spear points, provided a key reference point. Willerslev detected Anzick-related ancestry in both the Spirit Cave individual—who is associated with western stemmed tools, a tradition likely older than Clovis—and 10,000-year-old remains from Lagoa Santa in Brazil. Reich's team found an even closer relationship between Anzick and 9300- to 10,900-year-old samples from Chile, Brazil, and Belize.

Those close genetic affinities at similar times but across vast distances suggest people must have moved rapidly across the Americas, with little time to evolve into distinct genetic groups. Reich's team argues that Clovis technology might have spurred this rapid expansion. But anthropological geneticist Deborah Bolnick of the University of Connecticut in Storrs notes the Anzick-related ancestry group may have been broader than the Clovis people, and doubts that the culture was a driver.

Willerslev also finds traces of this Anzick-related ancestry in later samples from South America and Lovelock Cave in Nevada. But in Reich's data it fades starting about 9000 years ago in much of South America, suggesting "a major population replacement," he says.

After that population turnover in South America, both teams see striking genetic continuity in many regions. But that doesn't mean no one moved around. Reich's group sees a new genetic signal entering the central Andes about 4200 years ago, carried by people who are most closely related to ancient inhabitants of the Channel Islands, off Southern California. Meanwhile, Willerslev's team detects ancestry related to the present-day Mixe, an Indigenous group from Oaxaca in Mexico, spreading to South America about 6000 years ago and North America about 1000 years ago. Neither of these migrations replaced local communities, but rather mixed with them. Both teams say they could be seeing the same signal, but "without comparing the data, it's really hard to tell," says archaeogeneticist Cosimo Posth of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany, the first author of the Cell paper.

Just as mysterious is the trace of Australasian ancestry in some ancient South Americans. Reich and others had previously seen hints of it in living people in the Brazilian Amazon. Now, Willerslev has provided more evidence: telltale DNA in one person from Lagoa Santa in Brazil, who lived 10,400 years ago. "How did it get there? We have no idea," says geneticist José Víctor Moreno-Mayar of the University of Copenhagen, first author of the Willerslev paper.

The signal doesn't appear in any other of the team's samples, "somehow leaping over all of North America in a single bound," says co-author and archaeologist David Meltzer of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. He wonders whether that Australasian ancestry was confined to a small population of Siberian migrants who remained isolated from other Native American ancestors throughout the journey through Beringia and the Americas. That suggests individual groups may have moved into the continents without mixing.

Delighted as they are with the data in the new studies, scientists want more. Meltzer points out that none of the new samples can illuminate what's happening at pre-Clovis sites such as Chile's Monte Verde, which was occupied 14,500 years ago. And Potter notes that, "We have a huge, gaping hole in the central and eastern North American [sampling] record. … These papers aren't the final words."

Ancient DNA confirms Native Americans' deep roots in North and South America | Science | AAAS

Reply
Page 2 / 2