February 16, 2004

AncestryByDNA 2.5 "Native American" admixture

From the website:


    "Greeks, Italians, Middle Easterners and Jews reliably and systematically show low levels of Native American admixture (even without an American Indian great grandparent) for anthropological and genetic reasons that are not yet well understood. "

Obviously, Native Americans never migrated to the Middle East or to Italy, and these regions did not have any colonies in the New World whereby such ancestry could originate. Hence, it is clear that this result indicates a migration from the Near East to the Americas in the past and not vice versa.

While tracing such a migration is up to archaeologists, genetics has already independently arrived at the same conclusion, by looking at a different genetic system, namely mitochondrial DNA. Haplogroup X2 is found at high frequency in Italy, Greece and the Near East, almost nowhere in any other intermediate lands and again in Native Americans:

    "Overall, it appears that the populations of the Near East, the Caucasus, and Mediterranean Europe harbor subhaplogroup X2 at higher frequencies than those of northern and northeastern Europe (P < .05) and that X2 is rare in Eastern European as well as Central Asian, Siberian, and Indian populations and is virtually absent in the Finno-Ugric and Turkic-speaking people of the Volga-Ural region. "

    "Second, it is apparent that the Native American haplogroup X mtDNAs derive from X2 by a unique combination of five mutations."

    "Finally, phylogeography of the subclades of haplogroup X suggests that the Near East is the likely geographical source for the spread of subhaplogroup X2, and the associated population "

    Link


Posted by Dienekes at February 16, 2004 08:34 PM | PermaLink
Comments

On this problem:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v69n1/012819/012819.html

http://vivovoco.nns.ru/VV/JOURNAL/NATURE/10_02/ASIAN.HTM
(detailed, but in russian)


Posted by: Valery at February 16, 2004 11:58 PM

Is the interpretation that both groups had probably the same ancestors in some parts of Eurasia at a certain time before they migrated to America not more likely than the idea that "Near Easterners migrated to America".

The difference would just be that the migration happened maybe earlier than believed now and that the populations now living in the Near East came probably from regions in central Asia.

Posted by: Chris at February 17, 2004 11:02 AM

>> and that the populations now living in the Near East came probably from regions in central Asia.

There is no basis on which to found this assumption. X2 is rare in Central Asia. The other subhaplogroup of X, X1 is found in North and East Africa.

Posted by: Dienekes at February 17, 2004 01:03 PM

I thought it was scientificly proven that before the Indians entered North America from Siberia, there were other tribes already living here. I got a piece on it on my website.

Posted by: Ricky Vandal at February 18, 2004 09:15 AM

Wouldn't x2 be considered Eurasian and x2a be considered distinctly Native American?

Posted by: Bill at February 18, 2004 03:58 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?