Ancient DNA from Clovis culture is Native American (also Tianyuan affinity mystery)

Figure 4 | [c] (…) maximum likelihood tree.

A recent study on the ancient DNA of human remains from Anzick (Montana, USA), dated to c. 12,500 calBP, confirms close ties to modern Native Americans, definitely discarding the far-fetched and outlandishly Eurocentric “Solutrean hypothesis” for the origins of Clovis culture (what pleases me greatly, I must admit).

While this fits well with the expectations (at least mine), there is some hidden data that has surprised me quite a bit: it sits at the bottom of a non-discussed formal test graph in which modern populations are compared with both Anzick and Tianyuan (c. 40,000 BP, North China). See below.

Morten Rasmussen et al., The genome of a Late Pleistocene human from a Clovis burial site in western Montana. Nature 2014. Pay per view → LINK [doi:10.1038/nature13025]

Abstract


Clovis, with its distinctive biface, blade and osseous technologies, is the oldest widespread archaeological complex defined in North America, dating from 11,100 to 10,700 14C years before present (bp) (13,000 to 12,600 calendar years bp)1, 2. Nearly 50 years of archaeological research point to the Clovis complex as having developed south of the North American ice sheets from an ancestral technology3. However, both the origins and the genetic legacy of the people who manufactured Clovis tools remain under debate. It is generally believed that these people ultimately derived from Asia and were directly related to contemporary Native Americans2. An alternative, Solutrean, hypothesis posits that the Clovis predecessors emigrated from southwestern Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum4. Here we report the genome sequence of a male infant (Anzick-1) recovered from the Anzick burial site in western Montana. The human bones date to 10,705 ± 35 14C years bp (approximately 12,707–12,556 calendar years bp) and were directly associated with Clovis tools. We sequenced the genome to an average depth of 14.4× and show that the gene flow from the Siberian Upper Palaeolithic Mal’ta population5 into Native American ancestors is also shared by the Anzick-1 individual and thus happened before 12,600 years bp. We also show that the Anzick-1 individual is more closely related to all indigenous American populations than to any other group. Our data are compatible with the hypothesis that Anzick-1 belonged to a population directly ancestral to many contemporary Native Americans. Finally, we find evidence of a deep divergence in Native American populations that predates the Anzick-1 individual.

Haploid DNA

The Y-DNA lineage of Anzick is Q1a2a1* (L54) to the exclusion of the common Native American subhaplogroup Q1a2a1a1 (M3). Among the modern compared sequences that of a Maya is the closest one.

The mtDNA belongs to the common Native American lineage D4h3a at its underived stage (root). 

For starters I must explain that these underived haplotypes can only be found within mtDNA and never in modern Y-DNA (common misconception) because this one accumulates mutations every single generation, while the much shorter mtDNA does only occasionally. Hypothetically we could find the exact ancestor of some modern Y-DNA haplogroup in ancient remains but that would be like finding the proverbial needle in the haystack. On the other hand, finding the underived stage in mtDNA, be it ancient or modern, does not mean that we are before a direct ancestor but just a non-mutated relative of her, who can be very distant in fact.

Autosomal DNA

In this aspect, the Anzick man shows clearly strongest affinities to Native Americans, followed at some distance by Siberian peoples, particularly those near the Bering Strait. 

Figure 2 | Genetic affinity of Anzick-1. a, Anzick-1 is most closely related to Native Americans. Heat map representing estimated outgroup f3-statistics for shared genetic history between the Anzick-1 individual and each of 143 contemporary human populations outside sub-Saharan Africa. (…)

However Anzick-1 shows clearly closer affinity to the aboriginal peoples of Meso, Central and South America (collectively labeled as SA) and less so to those of Canada and the American Arctic (labeled as NA). No data was available from the USA. 

This was pondered by the authors in several competing models of Native American ancestry:

Figure 3 | Simplified schematic of genetic models. Alternative models of the population history behind the closer shared ancestry of the Anzick-1 individual to Central and Southern American (SA) populations than Northern Native American (NA) populations; seemain text for further definition of populations. We find that the data are consistent with a simple tree-like model in which NA populations are historically basal to Anzick-1 and SA. We base this conclusion on two D-tests conducted on the Anzick-1 individual, NA and SA. We used Han Chinese as outgroup. a, We first tested the hypothesis that Anzick-1 is basal to both NA and SA populations using D(Han, Anzick-1; NA, SA). As in the results for each pairwise comparison between SA and NA populations (Extended Data Fig. 4), this hypothesis is rejected. b, Next, we tested D(Han, NA; Anzick-1, SA); if NA populations were a mixture of post-Anzick-1 and pre-Anzick-1 ancestry, we would expect to reject this topology. c, We found that a topology with NA populations basal to Anzick-1 and SA populations is consistent with the data. d, However, another alternative is that the Anzick-1 individual is from the time of the last common ancestral population of the Northern and Southern lineage, after which the Northern lineage received gene flow from a more basal lineage.

The most plausible model they believe is “c”, in which Anzick-1 is close to the origin of the SA population, while NA diverged before him. However model “d” in which Anzick-1 is close to the overall Native American root but NA have received further inputs from a mystery population (presumably some Siberians, related to the Na-Dené and Inuit waves) is also consistent with the data. Choosing between both “consistent” models (or something in between) clearly requires further investigation. 

Tianyuan and East Asian origins

All the above is very much within expectations, although refreshingly clarifying. But there is something in the formal tests (extended data fig. 5) that is most unexpected (but not discussed in the paper). 

The formal f3 tests of ED-fig.5 a to e fall all within reasonable expectations. Maybe the most notable finding is that, after all, the pre-Inuit people of the Dorset culture (represented by the Saqqaq remains) left some legacy in Greenland, but they also show some extra affinity with several Siberian populations (notably the Naukan, Chukchi, Koryak and Yukaghir, in this order) before to any other Native Americans, including Aleuts). 

But the really striking stuff is in figs. f and g, where it becomes obvious that the Tianyuan remains of Northern China show not a tad of greater affinity to East Asians (nor to Native Americans) than to West Eurasians. Also two East Asian populations (Tujia and Oroqen) are considerably more distant than the bulk of East Asian peoples to Tianyuan but also to Aznick.

Extended Data Figure 5 | Outgroup f3-statistics contrasted for different combinations of populations. (…) f, g, Shared genetic history with Anzick-1 compared to shared genetic history with the 40,000-year-old Tianyuan individual from China.

This is very difficult to explain, more so as Tianyuan’s mtDNA haplogroup B4’5 is part of the East Asian and Native American genetic pool, and the authors make no attempt to do it. 

The previous study by Qiaomei Fu et al. (open access) placed Tianyuan’s autosomal DNA near the very root of Circum-Pacific populations (East Asians, Native Americans and Australasian Aborigines) but after divergence from West Eurasians:

From Qiaomei Fu 2013

They even had doubts about the position of Papuans (the only Australasian representation) in that tree, which they suspected an artifact of some sort.

Since I saw that graph (h/t to an anonymous commenter at Fennoscandian Ancestry) I am squeezing my brain trying to figure out a reasonable explanation, considering that the formal f3 test has almost certainly more weight than the ML tree made with an algorithm. 

My first tentative explanation would be to imagine a shared triple-branch origin for Tianyuan, East Asians and West Eurasians, maybe c. 60 Ka ago (it must have been before the colonization of West Eurasia), to the exclusion of other, maybe isolated, ancient populations, whose admixture with the ancestors of the Tujia, Oroqen and Melanesians (maybe via Austronesians?) causes those striking low affinity values for these.

This would be a similar mechanism to the one explaining lower Tianyuan (and generally all ancient Eurasian) affinity for Palestinians (incl. Negev Bedouins) and also the Makrani, who have some African admixture and (in the Palestinian case) also, most likely, residual inputs from the remains of the first Out-of-Africa episode in Arabia.

However to this day we have no idea of which could be those hypothetical ancient isolated populations of East Asia. In normal comparisons such as ADMIXTURE analysis the Tujia and Oroqen appear totally normal within their geographic context, but this may be an artifact of not doing enough runs to reach higher K values, according to the cross-validation test, much more likely to discern the actual realistic components. 

The matter certainly requires further research, which may well open new avenues for the understanding the genesis of Eurasian populations, particularly those from the East.

Advertisements

 

The Mal’ta aDNA findings

The recent sequencing of ancient DNA from the remains of a Central Siberian young boy, corresponding to the Gravettian site of Mal’ta, West of Lake Baikal, dated to c. 24,000 years calBP, has caught the interest of many anthropology enthusiasts. During my hiatus of more than two months, most people who asked me to retake blogging with an specific request, talked of these findings. Let’s see:

Maanasa Raghavan et al., Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans. Nature 2013. Pay per view → LINK [doi:10.1038/nature12736]

Abstract

The origins of the First Americans remain contentious. Although Native Americans seem to be genetically most closely related to east Asians^{1, 2, 3}, there is no consensus with regard to which specific Old World populations they are closest to^{4, 5, 6, 7, 8}. Here we sequence the draft genome of an approximately 24,000-year-old individual (MA-1), from Mal’ta in south-central Siberia⁹, to an average depth of 1×. To our knowledge this is the oldest anatomically modern human genome reported to date. The MA-1 mitochondrial genome belongs to haplogroup U, which has also been found at high frequency among Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers^{10, 11, 12}, and the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages⁵. Similarly, we find autosomal evidence that MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Native Americans, with no close affinity to east Asians. This suggests that populations related to contemporary western Eurasians had a more north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought. Furthermore, we estimate that 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from this ancient population. This is likely to have occurred after the divergence of Native American ancestors from east Asian ancestors, but before the diversification of Native American populations in the New World. Gene flow from the MA-1 lineage into Native American ancestors could explain why several crania from the First Americans have been reported as bearing morphological characteristics that do not resemble those of east Asians^{2, 13}. Sequencing of another south-central Siberian, Afontova Gora-2 dating to approximately 17,000 years ago¹⁴, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures as MA-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum. Our findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans.

Haploid lineages

The Mal’ta boy, MA-1, carried distinct yDNA R* and mtDNA U* lineages. While both are clearly related to those dominant in Europe and parts of Asia (West, South) nowadays, they are also distinct from any specific dominant lineage today.

R* (yDNA) is neither R1 nor R2 but another distinct branch of R. This kind of R(xR1, R2) is most rare today and found mostly in and around NW South Asia. Following Wikipedia, this “other R” is found in:

• 10.3% among the Burusho
• 6.8% among the Kalash
• 3.4% among the Gujarati

However I must say that I recall from old discussions that some R(xR1) is also found among Mongols and some North American Natives. I would have to find the relevant studies though (maybe in an update).

U* (mtDNA) is also quite rare today but has been found in Swabian Magdalenian hunter-gatherers, as well as in some Neolithic samples, although it may well be a totally different kind of U* (I could not discern the specific markers in the paper nor the supplementary materials and it must be reminded that the asterisk only means “others”).

Autosomal DNA

The study also shows some statistical inferences from the autosomal (or nuclear) DNA of the Mal’ta boy:

Figure 1 [b & c] b, PCA (PC1 versus PC2) of MA-1 and worldwide human populations for which genomic tracts from recent European admixture in American and Siberian populations have been excluded19. c, Heat map of the statistic f3(Yoruba; MA-1, X) where X is one of 147 worldwide non-African populations (standard errors shown in Supplementary Fig. 21). The graded heat key represents the magnitude of the computed f3 statistics.

Here we can appreciate that MA-1 is closest to Native Americans but still rather intermediate between them and South and West Eurasians. Interestingly East Asians are quite distant instead, suggesting that MA-1 was still not too much admixed with that continental population, unlike what happens with Native Americans, who are essentially East Asian in the autosomal and mtDNA aspects. So this kid appears to be some sort of a “missing link” in the Paleolithic ethnogenesis of Native Americans.

Figure 2 | Admixture graph for MA-1 and 16 complete genomes. An admixture graph with two migration edges (depicted by arrows) was fitted using TreeMix21 to relate MA-1 to 11 modern genomes from worldwide populations22, 4 modern genomes produced in this study (Avar, Mari, Indian and Tajik), and the Denisova genome22. Trees without migration, graphs with different number of migration edges, and residual matrices are shown in Supplementary Information, section 11. The drift parameter is proportional to 2Ne generations, whereNe is the effective population size. The migration weight represents the fraction of ancestry derived from the migration edge. The scale bar shows ten times the average standard error (s.e.) of the entries in the sample covariance matrix. Note that the length of the branch leading toMA-1 is affected by this ancient genome being represented by haploid genotypes.

Even if I am not too keen of TreeMix, in this case the results seem consistent.

We can appreciate here that a sample of Native Americans (the Karitiana, maybe not as “pure” as the Xavantes but still very much so) show up in a different branch from MA-1, reflecting their overwhelmingly East Asian ancestry, mostly by the maternal side (mtDNA). MA-1 instead hangs from the South-West Eurasian branch, soon after the split between South Asians and West Eurasians. Both have extremely drifted branches, surely indicating the small size of their founder populations, typical of the Far North. 

In addition to this basic tree, two admixture events are signaled: one is the already known Denisovan (H. erectus?) weak one into Australasian Natives (represented by Papuans) and the other one, quite more intense, is the one hanging from upstream of MA-1 to Native Americans (Karitiana), reflecting the partial South-West Eurasian ancestry of Native Americans (noticeable also in their dominant paternal ancestry: haplogroup Q). 

The fact that the admixture signal stems from quite upstream of MA-1 indicates that this boy (or rather his relatives) were not direct ancestors of Native Americans in any significant way but rather a different branch from the same trunk. Probably proto-Amerindians were already in this period at the North Pacific coasts, not sure if in Beringia or around Okhotsk or what but certainly they had already separated from the Mal’ta population.

What did we know of Native American genesis before this finding?

There are three principal lines of evidence:

1. Y-DNA, which among Native Americans is essentially haplogroup Q (plus some C3, which is from NE Asia). By phylogenetically hierarchical diversity, haplogroup Q must have coalesced in West or Central Asia (or maybe South Asia?), very possibly in or near Iran. The NE Asian and Native American branches are clearly derived, even if more important numerically today.
2. mtDNA, which among Native Americans is essentially from NE Asia (A, C, D), middle East Asia (B) but also in a small amount from West Asia (X2). 
3. Archaeology: we can track, more or less directly, the proto-NAs by means of following the Upper Paleolithic sequence in Siberia and nearby areas. 
1. C. 47,000 years ago (calBP) H. sapiens with Aurignacoid technology (i.e. linked to West Eurasian earliest Upper Paleolithic) reached Altai, displacing the Neanderthals to the Northern fringes of the district.
2. C. 30,000 years ago, Upper Paleolithic (“mode 4”) technology with roots in Altai reached other parts of Siberia, Mongolia and North China, from where it expanded eastwards and southwards gradually in a process of, probably, cultural diffusion. 
3. By c. 17,000 years ago they were already in North America and c. 15,000 years ago in South America. In the LGM they were probably in Beringia already (but this is only indirectly attested so far). 

So we already had a good idea about the origins of Native Americans: their ultimate roots, at least patrilineally, seem to be in Altai (where they were part of the wider West Eurasian colonization at the expense of Neanderthals with Aurignacian-like technology and dogs). Then, probably around 30,000 years ago they expanded eastwards through Siberia and maybe nearby areas, entering in intense and intimate contact with the already existent East Asian populations, with whom they admixed once and again, mostly by the female side. 

It would seem therefore that their society was already patrilocal because otherwise their patrilineages would have just got dissolved among the locals and would have never reached Beringia nor America in such dominant position.

Overall this is the quite clear notion that I have on Native American earliest genesis and for me there is no reasonable doubt about this narrative (except maybe in the fine details). However I must reckon that some individuals have reacted very negatively against it. But no matter how much they yell, I fail to see their arguments. 

How does this new finding affects this narrative?

It simply confirms it with further evidence. By 24,000 calBP the proto-NAs were surely already, as I said before, in NE Asia close to the Pacific coasts, so this Mal’ta population is a branch left behind in their migration (plus whatever new inflows from the West, which we can’t evaluate). The very low affinity level with East Asians, in spite of its quite Eastern location, shows that early East Asians had not yet reached, at least in significant numbers, so far North. If they had, they probably did only at more eastern longitudes, probably near the sea, where resources were more plentiful.

In other words: the first Central Siberians were of South+West Eurasian stock and the current East Asian genetic and phenotype hegemony in that area reflects post-LGM flows, mostly lead by yDNA N1. 

Early Native Americans were the product of admixture of these earliest Siberians with NE Asians, admixture that surely happened East of Lake Baikal, although the exact details are still unclear. 

What does MA-1 say about the West?

His mtDNA is generally consistent with other common U-derived lineages found in West Eurasian Upper Paleolithic, so not much other than he was somehow related, what is confirmed by autosomal analysis. 

His yDNA is more interesting maybe, nonetheless because it is probably the oldest sequence of this kind but also because it belongs to haplogroup R. It certainly discards whatever “molecular clock” guesstimates for R that are shorter than this site’s age but on its own it is not able to set a real age other than a bare minimum. 

So for example Eupedia‘s estimate of 29 Ka for R as such could still be valid, although I would say that extremely unlikely. 

Indirectly however it does say something by confirming the overall narrative of Native American origins as above and that means that Eupedia’s estimate of a mere 24 Ka age for haplogroup Q is almost certainly wrong by a lot. 

Using that tree, we would have to at least double the age of Q in order to fit with the Altai narrative (which begins at c. 47 Ka ago), what, extrapolating, implies an age for R of at least 58 Ka. I have estimated some 48 Ka of age for R1 and 68 Ka for P, so it makes good sense after these so necessary corrections. The exact ages we may never know but the approximate ages should be something like these. 

And that’s about all I can say. More in comments (and/or updates) if need be.

Update (Dec 6): R* and P* (and other rare clades) among Central Asians

A reader sent me copy of the study by Wei-Hua Shou et al. (2010) titled Y-chromosome distributions among populations in Northwest China identify significant contribution from Central Asian pastoralists and lesser influence of western Eurasians, published by Nature (doi:10.1038/jhg.2010.30).

While it is not the bit of info I was recalling above, it does add some information about unmistakable R(xR1,R2) and P(xQ,R) among Central Asian populations (from P.R. China territory). In detail:

• R* is found in 5/31 Tayiks, 1/41 Kazakhs and 1/50 Uyghurs.
• P* is found in 1/31 Tayiks and 1/43 Kirgizes. 

Also of interest should be the presence of:

• Q(xQ1) in  8/35 Dongxiang (a Mongol ethnicity), 1/45 Kirgizes and 1/50 Tu (another Mongol ethnicity).
• F(xG,H,I,J,K) in 2/32 Yugu (Yugurs, a distinct Uyghur sub-ethnicity), 2/41 Kazakh, 1/31 Tayiks and 1/50 Tu.
• K(xN,O,P) in  32/533 total (i.e. 6% in Easternmost Central Asia), among which are most notable: 9/50 Uyghurs, 6/23 Uzbeks, 6/27 Bao’an (another small Mongol ethnicity), 3/32 Xibo (a Tungusic ethnicity), 2/32 Yugu and 2/5 Mongols. I guess that it is possible that this is a distinct K subclade, although it can well be either part of MNOPS (NO*?) or also belong to LT (L?).
• R2 in 1/31 Tayiks and 2/27 Bao’an.

 

Ancient Native Americans related to modern ones

Sequencing of ancient Native American remains from British Columbia (Canada), dated to c. 5-6000 years ago, shows that many modern local natives are their apparent descendants or otherwise related.

Yinqiu Cui et al. Ancient DNA Analysis of Mid-Holocene Individuals from the Northwest Coast of North America Reveals Different Evolutionary Paths for Mitogenomes. PLoS ONE 2013. Open access → LINK [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066948]

Abstract

To gain a better understanding of North American population history, complete mitochondrial genomes (mitogenomes) were generated from four ancient and three living individuals of the northern Northwest Coast of North America, specifically the north coast of British Columbia, Canada, current home to the indigenous Tsimshian, Haida, and Nisga’a. The mitogenomes of all individuals were previously unknown and assigned to new sub-haplogroup designations D4h3a7, A2ag and A2ah. The analysis of mitogenomes allows for more detailed analyses of presumed ancestor–descendant relationships than sequencing only the HVSI region of the mitochondrial genome, a more traditional approach in local population studies. The results of this study provide contrasting examples of the evolution of Native American mitogenomes. Those belonging to sub-haplogroups A2ag and A2ah exhibit temporal continuity in this region for 5000 years up until the present day. Of possible associative significance is that archaeologically identified house structures in this region maintain similar characteristics for this same period of time, demonstrating cultural continuity in residence patterns. The individual dated to 6000 years before present (BP) exhibited a mitogenome belonging to sub-haplogroup D4h3a. This sub-haplogroup was earlier identified in the same general area at 10300 years BP on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska, and may have gone extinct, as it has not been observed in any living individuals of the Northwest Coast. The presented case studies demonstrate the different evolutionary paths of mitogenomes over time on the Northwest Coast.

Figure 2. Phylogeny of complete mitochondrial genomes sequenced in this study. Mutations are transitions unless specified. Transversions are indicated by an A, G, C, or T after the nucleotide position. Insertions are indicated by an “i”, deletions are indicated by a “d”, recurrent mutations are underlined, and mutations back to the rCRS nucleotide are designated by a “@”. The C stretch length polymorphism in region 303–315 was disregarded in the tree. The sample “Haida 9″ was analyzed in Schurr et al. (2012). All other samples were analyzed in this study.

 

New Maya city discovered

Archaeologists have discovered the ruins of a long lost Maya city in the jungle SE of Campeche state (Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico), in the historical Maya region of the central lowlands. 

The newly discovered city, Chaktún, occupies some 22 Ha. and is believed to have been an important local power between 600 and 900 CE. It was hidden in the northern area of the Biosphere Reserve of Calakmul, near the Guatemalan border.

Source: Paleorama[es].

 

Caribbean autosomal ancestry

Battle of Vertières (Haiti 1803)

A very interesting study on Caribbean populations’ autosomal ancestry is in the oven (pre-publication at arXiv).

Andrés Moreno Estrada et al., Reconstructing the Population Genetic History of the Caribbean. arXiv 2013 (pre-pub). Freely accessible → LINK [ref. arXiv:1306.0558v1]

Abstract

The Caribbean basin is home to some of the most complex interactions in recent history among previously diverged human populations. Here, by making use of genome-wide SNP array data, we characterize ancestral components of Caribbean populations on a sub-continental level and unveil fine-scale patterns of population structure distinguishing insular from mainland Caribbean populations as well as from other Hispanic/Latino groups. We provide genetic evidence for an inland South American origin of the Native American component in island populations and for extensive pre-Columbian gene flow across the Caribbean basin. The Caribbean-derived European component shows significant differentiation from parental Iberian populations, presumably as a result of founder effects during the colonization of the New World. Based on demographic models, we reconstruct the complex population history of the Caribbean since the onset of continental admixture. We find that insular populations are best modeled as mixtures absorbing two pulses of African migrants, coinciding with early and maximum activity stages of the transatlantic slave trade. These two pulses appear to have originated in different regions within West Africa, imprinting two distinguishable signatures in present day Afro-Caribbean genomes and shedding light on the genetic impact of the dynamics occurring during the slave trade in the Caribbean.

The most synthetic graph is the following one:

Figure 1: Population structure of Caribbean and neighboring populations. A) On the map, areas in red indicate countries of origin of newly genotyped admixed population samples and blue circles indicate new Venezuelan (underlined) and other previously published Native American samples. B) Principal Component Analysis and C) ADMIXTURE [12] clustering analysis using the high-density dataset containing approximately 390K autosomal SNP loci in common across admixed and reference panel populations. Unsupervised models assuming K= 3 and K=8 ancestral clusters are shown. At K=3, Caribbean admixed populations show extensive variation in continental ancestry proportions among and within groups. At K=8, sub-continental components show differential proportions in recently admixed individuals. A Latino-specific European component accounts for the majority of the European ancestry among Caribbean Latinos and is exclusively shared with Iberian populations within Europe. Notably, this component is different from the two main gradients of ancestry differentiating southern from northern Europeans. Native Venezuelan components are present in higher proportions in admixed Colombians, Hondurans, and native Mayans.

As expected, Mexicans and most Colombians and Hondurans cluster mostly between Europeans and Native Americans, while Cuban, Dominicans and Haitians do between Europeans and Africans instead, with Puerto Ricans and some Colombians and Hondurans showing tripartite ancestry. 

A most notable issue is that the bulk of Caribbean Latin American ancestry from Europe forms a distinctive component that the authors suggest is a founder effect from the early colonization almost 500 years ago but that I feel that deserves a closer look.

The authors provide also the full ADMIXTURE results for up to K=15, with cross-validation data, what is certainly appreciated by this blogger.

Figure S3: ADMIXTURE metrics at increasing K values based on Log-likelihoods (A) and cross-validation errors (B) for results shown in Figure S2.

Using table B, the best fit is K=7:

From Fig. S2 (ADMIXTURE results)

Here we see a generic Mediterranean presence in Europe of the “black” component. Would it be just a simple reflection of European structure, then we should expect that the European component in Latin Americans would be c. 70% “red” and just 30% “black”. But nope, not even in Cubans, who are the ones with the most recent European input overall (because it was a colony until a century ago). 

This may indeed have the explanation that the authors suggest: that it is the result of a “recent” founder effect some 500 years ago in the early moments of the Castilian conquest and colonization of America. But still something does not ring correct. At the very least I have some doubts. 

An alternative possibility that should be eventually tested could be that what we identify as “European” ancestry is in fact something European-like but not exactly European, for example North African and/or Jewish ancestry. There could be various sources for this trans-Mediterranean flow into America: on one side it has often been speculated (but never really proven) that a lot of Muslim and Jewish converts migrated to the colonies in the hope to escape the Inquisition. A major problem here is that most Muslim Iberians should be identical or nearly identical in ancestry other Iberians (Jews were not numerous enough probably anyhow).

But another interesting possibility is that many North Africans (including Canarian Aborigines or Guanches) may have been enslaved early on to supply the plantations of the Caribbean. Initially the excuse for slavery was not “racial” (an Illustration development in fact) but “religious”. There are known many Papal edicts insisting that Canarian converts would not be enslaved, something that the Portuguese (first colonial power in the archipelago) did anyhow again and again. It is plausible (but ill-documented) that North African conquest campaigns and raids by Portugal first and Castile later would also capture many slaves in those areas, slaves that would probably end up in America in many cases, where they may have been emancipated eventually, becoming part of the Mestizo backbone of the Castilian colonial empire. 

I know I am speculating a bit here but it is an interesting alternative to explore. In this regard I really miss North African control populations, because they would shed light on this intriguing matter.

Another issue the paper explores is the origin of African ancestry, finding that the oldest ancestry is mostly from westernmost Africa (Mandenka, Brong as reference populations), while more recent ancestry is mostly from the Nigeria-Angola arc (Yoruba, Igbo, Bamoun, Fang and Kongo). 

The study also tries to reconstruct population history but some of their results are perplexing and highly unlikely.

Figure 3: Demographic reconstruction since the onset of admixture in the Caribbean. We used the length distribution of ancestry tracts within each population from A) insular and B) [not shown] mainland Caribbean countries of origin. Scatter data points represent the observed distribution of ancestry tracts, and solid-colored lines represent the distribution from the model, with shaded areas indicating 68.3% confidence intervals. We used Markov models implemented in Tracts to test different demographic models for best fitting the observed data. Insular populations are best modeled when allowing for a second pulse of African ancestry, and mainland populations when a second pulse of European ancestry is allowed. Admixture time estimates (in number of generations ago), migration events, volume of migrants, and ancestry proportions over time are given for each population under the best-fitting model. The estimated age for the onset of admixture among insular populations is consistently older (i.e., 16-17) compared to that among mainland populations (i.e., 14).

The really perplexing issue here is that in Haiti and Cuba particularly, the latest and quite notable arrival of African ancestors corresponds to a mere four generations ago, what means (as the approx. generation length is of c. 30 years, not longer because then the earliest European arrival would be before Columbus’ feat) a mere 120 years ago, i.e. around 1890. 

The reality is that Haiti became independent in 1791-1804 and no relevant demographic inflow has happened since then. Similarly the last major batch of slaves to Cuba (from Spain, where slavery was being outlawed, as well as from Haiti itself) was in the earliest 19th century (however slavery would not be abolished in Cuba until 1884, although human trade was declared illegal in 1835 under British pressure). 

Therefore there must be an error of some sort in these reconstructions, which generate more recent African inflows that are realistically possible.

 

Maya pyramid destroyed in Belize… to get gravel

The machinery of a construction company has destroyed one of the most important archaeological treasures of Belize with the most idiotic possible purpose: to get gravel from it. 

The pyramid of Nohmul was erected some 2300 years ago and are part of the most important patrimonial set of Belize, located not far from the Mexican border. 

Belizean police claims to be investigating the incident and may lay charges against the vandals.

 

OSL dating: Brazilian site is 22,000 years ago

Toca da Tira Peia is the new name of American prehistory, providing an OSL date for the layer of scattered stone tools of c. 22,000 years BP. Located near the also controversial Pedra Furada site, the date seems to give some support to those who dare to think outside the box on the early peopling of America.

Christelle Lahaye et al., Human occupation in South America by 20,000 BC: the Toca da Tira Peia site, Piauí, Brazil. Science 2013. Pay per view → LINK [doi:10.1016/j.jas.2013.02.019]

Abstract


When and how did the first human beings settle in the American continent? Numerous data, from archaeological researches as well as from palaeogenetics, anthropological and environmental studies, have led to partially contradictory interpretations in recent years, often because of the lack of a reliable chronological framework. The present study contributes to the establishment of such a framework using luminescence techniques to date a Brazilian archaeological site, the Toca da Tira Peia. It constitutes an exemplary case study: all our observations and measurements tend to prove the good integrity of the site and the anthropological nature of the artifacts and we are confident in the accuracy of the luminescence dating results. All these points underline the importance of the Toca da Tira Peia. The results bring new pieces of evidence of a human presence in the north-east of Brazil as early as 20,000 BC. The Toca da Tira Peia thus contributes to the rewriting of the history of the peopling of the American continent.

There are slightly older sites in North America, however they are all surrounded into some degree of controversy: Topper in South Carolina is dated to c. 23,000 cal-BP (C14) while some sites in Alberta, located in the Mackenzie “ice-free corridor” have also dates under the LGM layer (i.e. > 21 Ka BP).

There’s actually nothing impossible about such early dates in my understanding.

See also:

• Science News
• Dispatches from Turtle Island (Andrew feels very skeptical)