Ancient DNA Links Native Americans with Europe

Michael Balter, Science Mag, October 25, 2013

Where did the first Americans come from? Most researchers agree that Paleoamericans moved across the Bering Land Bridge from Asia sometime before 15,000 years ago, suggesting roots in East Asia. But just where the source populations arose has long been a mystery.

Now comes a surprising twist, from the complete nuclear genome of a Siberian boy who died 24,000 years ago—the oldest complete genome of a modern human sequenced to date. His DNA shows close ties to those of today’s Native Americans. Yet he apparently descended not from East Asians, but from people who had lived in Europe or western Asia. The finding suggests that about a third of the ancestry of today’s Native Americans can be traced to “western Eurasia,” with the other two-thirds coming from eastern Asia, according to a talk at a meeting here by ancient DNA expert Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen. It also implies that traces of European ancestry previously detected in modern Native Americans do not come solely from mixing with European colonists, as most scientists had assumed, but have much deeper roots.

“I’m still processing that Native Americans are one-third European,” says geneticist Connie Mulligan of the University of Florida in Gainesville. “It’s jaw-dropping.” At the very least, says geneticist Dennis O’Rourke of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, “this is going to stimulate a lot of discussion.”

Researchers have been trying to parse the origins of the first Americans for decades. Most agree that people moved across Beringia, via a vast ice age land bridge (see map p. 410), and began spreading through the Americas, reaching Chile by 14,500 years ago. But the origins of the source populations are not clear, and some archaeologists have even suggested that ancient Europeans crossing the Atlantic were part of the mix (Science, 16 March 2012, p. 1289). Others have contended that early skeletons found in the Americas, such as the 9000-year-old Kennewick Man, show some European features (Science, 10 April 1998, p. 190). In his talk, Willerslev argued that the ancient genome “can actually explain a lot of these inconsistencies,” by offering glimpses of prehistoric populations before more recent migrations and other demographic events blurred the picture.

The genome comes from the right upper arm bone of a boy aged about 4 years, who lived by Siberia’s Belaya River. Those who buried him adorned his grave with flint tools, pendants, a bead necklace, and a sprinkling of ochre. {snip}

Willerslev reported that the team was able to sequence the boy’s genome, and also to radiocarbon date the bone. The team then used a variety of statistical methods to compare the genome with that of living populations. They found that a portion of the boy’s genome is shared only by today’s Native Americans and no other groups, showing a close relationship. Yet the child’s Y chromosome belongs to a genetic group called Y haplogroup R, and its mitochondrial DNA to a haplogroup U. Today, those haplogroups are found almost exclusively in people living in Europe and regions of Asia west of the Altai Mountains, which are near the borders of Russia, China, and Mongolia.

One expected relationship was missing from the picture: The boy’s genome showed no connection to modern East Asians. DNA studies of living people strongly suggest that East Asians—perhaps Siberians, Chinese, or Japanese—make up the major part of Native American ancestors. So how could the boy be related to living Native Americans, but not to East Asians? “This was kind of puzzling at first,” Willerslev told the meeting. But there seemed little doubt that the finding was correct, he said, because nearly all Native Americans from North and South America were equally related to the Mal’ta child, indicating that he represented very deep Native American roots.

The team proposes a relatively simple scenario: Before 24,000 years ago, the ancestors of Native Americans and the ancestors of today’s East Asians split into distinct groups. The Mal’ta child represents a population of Native American ancestors who moved into Siberia, probably from Europe or west Asia. Then, sometime after the Mal’ta boy died, this population mixed with East Asians. The new, admixed population eventually made its way to the Americas. Exactly when and where the admixture happened is not clear, Willerslev said. But the deep roots in Europe or west Asia could help explain features of some Paleoamerican skeletons and of Native American DNA today. “The west Eurasian [genetic] signatures that we very often find in today’s Native Americans don’t all come from postcolonial admixture,” Willerslev said in his talk. “Some of them are ancient.”

The talk sparked lively exchange, and not everyone was ready to buy the team’s scenario, at least until they can read the full paper, which is in press at Nature. {snip}

The new findings are consistent with a report published in Genetics last year (and almost entirely ignored at the time) that used modern DNA to conclude that Native Americans have significant—and ancient—ties to Europeans. {snip}

{snip}

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Le Fox

    Well, well, well! DNA is confirming what their own legends speak about…Europeans were there first! 😉

  • libertarian1234

    “Researchers have been trying to parse the origins of the first Americans for decades.”
    I’ll bet they have.

    What they’ve been doing is beginning from their politically correct premise that Indians first colonized the US, then they began looking for anything they think might support that pre-selected conclusion, casting aside anything that might not be supportive, which is the process they use on almost everything.

    Then, without laughing out loud, they tell the world they’re “scientists looking for the truth.”

    In reality they’re PC cultists looking to support their far out ideology over and above everything else.

    These are the same people who refuse to consider the vast amount of impressive evidence that the Solutreans from Europe pre-dated the Indians by many years.

    • Le Fox

      First thing you have to ask:

      Do the Indians have a world for “wheel”? That explains all.

      American Indians, that is.

      • Terra Magnum Imperium

        I remember reading somewhere that Native Americans had the wheel in toys.

      • LolKatzen

        Wheels came later to Europeans. The word exists in proto-Indo-European but is reckoned as being recent (this is perhaps 5,000 years ago, long after the crossing to the new world.). I’m not sure about the word in Far East Asian languages.

  • bigone4u

    “Those who buried him adorned his grave with flint tools, pendants, a bead necklace, and a sprinkling of ochre.”
    _______________________________________
    Our European ancestors expressed love in ways that escape modern blacks. I am moved by the sensitivity expressed at the loss of their little one. Even our ancients show a high degree of civilized behavior.

    If “Native Americans” are one-third Euro DNA, then race mixing must have buried the white creativity that resulted in Euro civilization and the intelligence that created Asian civilization. In other words, the mongrelized Native Americans turned out inferior to either of their ancestral groups. I think this research suggests the races should not mix. Opinions?

    • Bossman

      In no way does the article suggest any such thing. There are no pure races. If there are pure races, they will become retarded over time.

      • bigone4u

        Yes, I know the article does not suggest it, but can it be inferred. If Indians were one-third white, it raises a question in my mind as to why they remained so primitive. I’m not buying John’s explanation above, at least not yet.

        • Bossman

          John’s explanation makes perfect sense to me. The backward races were the ones who were most isolated.

          • John Ulfsson

            -The backward races were the ones who were most isolated.

            Yeah, hunter gatherers are so more more ‘forward’ than sedentary agrarians and their stable supplies of food, right?

            If you’re using “backwards” in the context of ancestral populations’ habits and tendencies, you’re not a very smart person. You probably label yourself as a ‘progressive’ as well, right?

            Why would it occur to our ancestors that breeding with that group of people that speaks another language and has different customs than their own is a ‘progressive’ thing? Why would such a concept as ‘progressive’ even occur to them? When you’re living in 30,000 BC lofty liberal concepts like “progressivism” aren’t really a concern, survival is.

          • Eddie Lutz

            Europeans evolved to the top of the food chain through constant cycles of war and rest. Severe winters combined with geographic impediments like mountains and rivers allowed civilizations to regroup after invasions. Why else do you suppose there is such diversity among cultures and languages in Europe though it is a relatively small area?

        • For one thing, it’s only 1/3. Also, racial mixing is associated with negative effects on physical and mental health (as you should know by now).

          • Eddie Lutz

            On the other hand, mixing can also result in hybrid vigor. Many of the best athletes are mixed, and it is well known in the animal kingdom that mutts are usually more intelligent than purebreds. Look at the Saudi Royal family if you think inbreeding is the ideal. They are even more deformed and deranged than the regular Arabs.

          • John Ulfsson

            ->Mixed children are stronger and healthier than monoracial ones due to hybrid vigor

            Oh boy, this unscientific crud again. The double standards of the radical left never cease to amaze, anyone spouting the assertion that whites are superior is racist but multiracial kids are superhuman compared to everyone else is somehow not.

            The notion that hybridization results in heterosis for humans is highly unlikely especially when taking into the fact there is greater genetic variation within any given population compared to the number of alleles for any given locus. There is a surprisingly low number of genes in an individual human’s genome and therefore any difference resulting from population hybridization would have negligable results for hybrid vigor. Not to mention both hybrid vigor hypothesis involve inbred parental populations making the assumptions for human heterosis further disproved. And the benefits diminish from the F1 generation onwards so to continue producing human hybrid offspring with these hypothetical results requires divergent populations to remain intact just as with any other species.

            Also, the assumption that an admixed human, subpopulation-wise, is entirely heterzygous is utterly wrong. Let’s look at a contradictory case: you have two parents from different populations with pairs of identical homozygous alleles for eye color. Draw the Punnett square if necessary, the offspring will be homozygotes with respect to eye color. There are many more cases beyond just eye color.

            Such as immunity, the fact is admixed for humans does not equate to functional immune systems in terms of HLA diversity. There are admixed individuals with a very limited set of these allotypes and a non-admixed individual who may have many up to the maximum number as there are so many available loci per genome. Consider HL A1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11 which limited more HLA variants than the limit of loci per individual it’s better to pass on the alleles that confer resistance to regional pathogens which offspring will be more likely to encounter than foreign alleles from foreign populations .Currently HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-DRB1 have roughly 1000, 1600, and 870 known alleles respectively.

            -Many of the best athletes are mixed

            And many of the best athletes are not, particularly in sprinting and powerlifting. Your point?

            -Look at the Saudi Royal family if you think inbreeding is the ideal. They are even more deformed and deranged than the regular Arabs.

            We’re talking about entire races, not insular families.

          • wayne carver

            The jews are the most inbred of all groups,despite their constant attempts to portray rural southerners as holding that distinction, My opinion is that, their sexual excesses and drives being well known by all, inner city blacks are the most inbred of all by far, and we all know this is true even though most wont admit it even to themselves. We mustnt be racist,right?

          • Iman Robota

            I believe that. The blacks were only a tiny population at the end of slavery and they’ve never really mixed with anyone else except for the other blacks who were already here.

            Whereas, people of European descent have been mixing with new immigrants from Europe since the beginning.

            So, that would explain why the blacks are so dumb; they’re all inbred. Even with some of the European DNA that their slave masters squirted into them, it’s still not enough to diversify the blacks’ gene pool.

          • 1. Hybrid vigor doesn’t last for generations and the Amerind tribes probably became fairly inbred over time with negative effects or race-mixing lasting.

            2. That’s a false dichotomy between “inbreeding” and “outbreeding.”

        • LolKatzen

          Europeans may have continued to evolve after this split.

      • Fr. John+

        Funny, but the Bible says that Adam’s seed was ‘perfect in his generations.’ And Whites have the greatest genetic multiplicity in the world. I prefer to believe that my race is, or should, be both pure as well as perfect.’ For Adam, in Hebrew, means White Man. [Strong’s #120]

        • Bossman

          If you believe strongly in mythology and allegorical tales as revealed truth, then I don’t have much to say to you.

          • ms_anthro

            Translation: You’re out of your league.

        • mackaveli

          Adam means white man ? Lmaooooo

          • Fr. John+

            Actually, if you take a look at a Hebrew Concordance (say, Strong’s- written before PC, Liberal tampering with the text of Holy Writ was a consideration) you will find that ‘Aw-dam’ in Hebrew has, as its definition: “fair, ruddy, able to [visibly] blush.”

            Don’t sound like Shaquile or Moesha to me, honey!

          • mackaveli

            Lmao white people

          • Fr. John+

            well, at least you show you are the goyim enemy. Dismissed. Move along, nothing to see here….

          • mackaveli

            Youre the goyim lmao edomite

          • Fr. John+

            Only a Jew would know enough to call a True Israelite [Gal. 6:16] an “Edomite.”

            “God hate the Jews.” – St. John Chryrsostom
            Must be awful to be a damned individual.

          • mackaveli

            Lml silly esau

          • Fr. John+

            fascinating. The Hebe trolls are out to censor my comments. Or are you merely one of them?

      • They won’t become inbred if their numbers are big enough.

      • John Ulfsson

        – If there are pure races, they will become inbred and be retarded over time.

        Within a group as large as an entire race of people, this is not a concern. Genetic diversity is also produced naturally over time, breeding with another race is not the only way to avoid inbreeding.

        When you breed with a separate race the phenomenon of outbreeding depression also becomes a possibility.

        • Bossman

          So you’re saying that genetic diversity is a good thing that happen naturally over time. if that is the case, then a little bit of cross breeding should only help to produce more of the good thing which is genetic diversity.

          • John Ulfsson

            No, genetic diversity is only useful if there’s the immediate threat of inbreeding.

            Otherwise you’re looking for the individual traits that are being passed to the offspring. Physical features, IQ, behavioral tendencies.

          • Bossman

            Prize race horses need to receive periodic infusion of different strains to keep the breed healthy. We know how these things work for horses and other barnyard animals.

          • John Ulfsson

            That’s because prize race horses come from a small artificially selected lineage, not 60,000 years of selection and an entire race of people.

          • Bossman

            Every species is subjected to natural selection and sexual selection and the process never stops. The process is not static. Meanwhile the only pure race that science knows about were the ancient Tasmanians and they became extinct.

          • John Ulfsson

            -Meanwhile the only pure race that science knows about were the ancient Tasmanians and they became extinct.

            That’s a stupid statement. What scientists? What qualifies ‘pure’? Who’s talking about completely pure races?

            I already told you to google cline.

      • Terra Magnum Imperium

        “Genetic evidence suggests that all humans alive today, despite apparent variety, are descended from a very small population, perhaps between 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago.”

        • The Toba volcanic eruption 70 K ago killed most of the world’s population, but humans had already left Africa and were firmly established in Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

        • LolKatzen

          I think that only applies to non-Africans.

      • John Ulfsson

        “Pure”? Maybe not. Many populations are very distinct. Look up “cline”. Races are those.

      • Funruffian

        Inbreeding, as far as I know, is when someone mates with another that is closer than 2nd cousins. So if you breed with your 1st cousin-twice removed’s nephew, you are technically off the hook.

        • Kirk_Antaeus

          NO. That nephew is the son of said second*cousin*twice*removed’s sibling who is ALSO a second cousin twice-removed. His son would then be a first cousin only once removed. That’s twice as related as a second cousin. You are back on the hook.

    • JohnEngelman

      It is obvious that you are looking for any reason you can think of to oppose miscegenation.

      The reason the American Indians were less advanced than the Europeans in 1492 was because the Indians were isolated, and there were fewer of them.

      Most European crops and domestic animals were first domesticated in the Near East. The Latin alphabet had been modified from the Phoenician alphabet, which in turn had probably been modified from an alphabet developed by an Egyptian scribe.

      The Europeans had learned iron technology from the Hittites, who lived in what is now Turkey.

      The Europeans learned the use of paper, the compos, and gun power from China.

      The European number system had been learned from the Arabs, who in turn learned it from India.

      Even then, Mayan mathematicians understood the use of zero before it was used in Europe. Mayan astronomers could accurately predict eclipses of the sun and the moon.

      The American Indians developed some of the most important crops in the world, such as corn, many beans, potatoes, and tomatoes.

      Europeans were more advanced in 1492 because civilizations advance more rapidly when they learn from each other.

      • bigone4u

        Looking at each Indian tribe as a separate civilization, none of them seemed to learn much from each other. You’re begging the question in a sense, because ancient white peoples had enough sense to learn from each other. Where did that come from?
        As to your lead sentence “It is obvious that you are looking for any reason you can think of to oppose miscegenation,” I asked for opinions on this issue because I was taught in school some nonsense that miscegnated races are superior, due to hybrid vigor or some such.

        • JohnEngelman

          When the Spanish arrived in the New World the Aztecs and the Incas were unaware of each other’s existence. However, the Aztecs had learned from the Mayans, who had learned from the Zapotecs, who had learned from the Olmecs. The Olmec civilization began about 1500 BC.

          Indian crops, like corn, beans, and squash were first domesticated in what is now Latin America. However, they moved north as Indian nations learned from nations further to the south.

          • Bossman

            The Indian tribes did learn from each other. They had many thing in common. From Cuba to Quebec, they all smoked tobacco, cultivated corn and potatoes.

          • Skip Wellington

            They liked to smoke hippie-lettuce as well.
            And don’t forget: they liked to blow their brains out with peyote.

            Heck – they still do that stuff to this very day.

        • Andy

          I do not think that hybrid groups are superior, and there is evidence that hybridity is mentally harmful for children. However, I think some of the most amazing phenotypes are the hybrid ones. Uighurs and North and East Africans particularly amaze me, as they have stabilized with “mixed” features. I also think white-Asian mix children are adorable. That being said, keeping all these different features means occasional racial mixing but mostly in-group marriage.

          • M&S

            Some children look adorable based on what they do and the neotenic innocence with which they do it.
            As a friend of mine once said: “Children are sorry because they don’t know what wrong is. Adults are sorry they got /caught/, because they do.”
            This innocence modifies the way their muscles react, their blood flows and the skin shines with refracted light from proportionally huge eyes and small features among many other things.
            That said, phenotypes are translational in the way we know everyone’s mother has once said “He looks just like his grandfather.”
            But nobody remembers whether grandpa was a bastard or a saint and by the time we judge the boy, he is a man trapped by his own actions.
            What is also not tracked as well (because few are around long enough to interact with multiple generations) is the degradation of any crossbred vigor into slump.
            In this, as adult features materialize, you see a homogenic preference leap forth which isolates and excludes hybrid populations into breeding with others who have no racial bond group identities either. This often makes them 4th-5th generation mixes of features with no appeal to -any group-. Even before you judge their behavior.
            Genetically, this lack of breed back opportunity collapses the sweep condition by which any advantaged haplotype can move through an entire society.
            Which is a way of saying that humans who knew nothing of DNA still knew enough to know that someone who looked like they did carried the traits, physical and mental, which would both make them a match to the environment and not drive them away from others of their kith as kindred.
            OTOH, the fact that some societies have seen multiple sweeps (whites) and others got even the basics of FOXP2 only very late further indicates that mutative or recombinative genetic change is not a factor of intergroup breeding since _even success_ doesn’t bridge gaps where it’s application has no immediate cultural value.
            Yet, today, everyone wants to have the white man’s world delivered unto them as though they were born to it’s creation.
            They were not, or it would not have to be provided.
            We are a beautiful, intelligent and exceptionally imaginative people because we are a people who are smart enough to live apart from others.
            The natives of the Iberian Peninsula noted this behavior in the Germanic tribes who conquered them, setup institutions of law and fair trade and then let them get one with their lives. They admired it’s purity of culture and look enough to use it as the root basis of the Spanish Casta` system which the Mestizos of Mexico emulate as a ‘Color Continuum’ envy of blondes to this day.
            The Gaels of Caledonia noted it in the early Norse populations as well. Which is why there are cultural and genetic ‘prints’ all over the north country of England and yet the native populations are not heavily interbred nor show bottleneck signs of being wiped out.
            We are among the few peoples who DO NOT LOSE OURSELVES to native populations by ‘going native’.
            That we have such a brilliant history as a result should point towards an endogamous basis for our cultural achievement being a good thing.
            Anything else is envy as the subconscious instinct of one genetic algorithm seeking to steal from another which is clearly far ahead of it.

        • M&S

          Live in a cold clime where you may not see another face outside your family group of 3-10 individuals for most of a year between trading rendezvous and _depend_, utterly, on the friendly and free interchange of ideas, materials as genelines to survive.
          We are what happens when intra-cultural isolation leads to a great need for affirmation and pragmatic exchange of empathy.
          We are vulnerable today because we were among the few who were NOT red of tooth and claw. We couldn’t afford to be.
          Our modern altruism shows this.
          Our continuing naievete` shows this. The other races _know this_. They prey upon it. They count on it.

      • Bossman

        Europeans were at the cross-roads of the world. They were able to learn from everybody and improve upon it.

      • joesolargenius

        Mr. Engleman you have finally wrote something that I can get behind , such as the Mayans showing advanced knowledge of math , however they also had landing strips as well. Your mentioning the crops they grew also raises a point I wish to further express which is where did they get the tomato seeds , this fruit dose not grow wild any where in the World to my knowledge.I have often thought that space travelers came to this earth a long time ago and interacted with certain civilizations thus giving them a jump on their competitor so to speak. Perhaps this sheds light on the missing link theory and explains the biblical verse ( and the sons of God went down into the daughters of man)

        • Luca

          The further the Indians moved south from the Bering land bridge the less likely they were to encounter large herds of mammals. They had to find another way to survive. The smarter ones incorporated primitive agriculture into their lifestyles. The land further south was generally more fertile with more varieties of plants and vegetables and had a longer growing season. They simply started noticing that seeds passed through their gut and plants grew from those seeds. They started selectively taking seeds only from the most desirable fruits and vegetables and only planting them. After a while they innocently developed larger fruits and vegetables that became close to modern varieties. For example, corn is actually a grass and the vegetable it originally produced in the wild was very small. Every time they saw the odd large ear of corn they saved it and used it for seed. This is called selective breeding. They didn’t know how it worked, they only knew that it did work.

          • Bossman

            A lot of science began that way: by careful observation and then making the right decision based on guesses.

      • Andy

        There’s probably truth to what you’re saying, but with at least 20,000 years under their belts, I think if Amerinds were precisely the same mentally as Eurasians they would have populated the continent more thoroughly and created their own group of civilizations to learn from each other. And the IQ tests, crime statistics, and medical records definitely don’t support the idea that we’re all just the same.

        • JohnEngelman

          I never said that American Indians and whites have the same average intelligence. Civilization selects for superior intelligence. Because fewer American Indians practiced civilization, and because they had begun it more recently, the Europeans had an IQ advantage over them.

          • Andy

            Yeah, I just think we’re disagreeing over which came first. Surely civilization would have improved IQ, but higher IQ would have led to to more civilization as well. I’m thinking it was different climates that made the difference, because 24,000 years ago there wasn’t much difference between Eurasians and Amerinds and then we moved into two different hemispheres and developed very differently.

          • Bossman

            I believe 24,000 years ago everybody were pretty much alike but over time certain groups were able to move ahead of each other.

          • Andy

            Well, there was already differentiation between Eurasian-Amerinds, Africans, and Australoids. Australians were almost entirely isolated starting 40,000 years ago, and some African groups’ most recent common ancestor with the rest of humanity is up to 100,000 years ago. I suspect that Eurasians looked a lot like modern Amerinds, with west Eurasians tending toward a Caucasoid phenotype and east Eurasians toward a Mongoloid. Africans and Australians probably looked a lot like they do now.

          • wayne carver

            Consider population density and competition.

      • bigone4u

        OK John, you’re winning the battle of votes and supporting comments, but here’s a question for you. Mestizos of TODAY must have more Euro DNA than the Native Americans. Right? And they benefit by huge technology transfers from white countries. Right? Yet, they do not prosper to the degree that your beloved East Asians prosper. Does the Mestizo = Mongrel = inferior equation apply or is there another explanation? The “isolation” explanation you offer does not work today.

        • JohnEngelman

          Civilization selects for intelligence more than a paleolithic or neolithic existence. The Bantu never developed urban civilization. The American Indians did to a limited extent. The Europeans did to a much greater extent. Mestizos are a hybrid race composed of American Indians, Europeans, and some Negroes. That is why in average intelligence and crime rates Hispanics are between whites and Negroes.

      • LolKatzen

        Even though he is politically correct, Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel” is well worth reading.

        • JohnEngelman

          It is an interesting book. However, Jared Diamond denies, with no evidence, that some races are intrinsically superior to others. He ignores the fact that once civilization begins it places population pressure on superior intelligence while suppressing physical aggressiveness.

          • LolKatzen

            Absolutely. It must be read “with a grain of salt”. But it has a lot of information on how different plants were domesticated. It also explains why the New World people died off so much from Old World diseases without having much (perhaps syphilis) to offer in return.

            No doubt the same info is scattered around in other sources too.

            I had an ultimately extremely frustrating argument with a far leftist who was convinced the Europeans killed the natives on purpose, there was none of this disease stuff (apparently an idiot historian called Howard Zinn, that I have not read, made this claim).

            I tried to use Diamond’s book as a counter-argument. After all, he is a scientist while Zinn wasn’t and he is respected highly in the PC crowd. But he wasn’t PC enough. The guy I was arguing with said Diamond “was a whitewash.” I tried everything. He flatly refused to accept it.

          • LolKatzen

            And now, in Canada, we have a vile opportunist and idiot called Bernie Farber trying to get on the genocide bandwagon. A career enhancing move. This is very dangerous for us as we have relatively quite a few more natives than the US and they are starting to become very annoying–blockading highways and stuff.

          • JohnEngelman

            American blacks are better off because their ancestors were brought over here as slaves. It cannot be said that American Indians are better off because we killed them and took their land.

          • LolKatzen

            True. Even if they weren’t killed on purpose, dead is dead. In Canada, they were treated somewhat better, they were not moved en masse anywhere as in the US. There are reservations in the middle of big cities like Vancouver.

            But watch out. These Latinos are part native and they might start playing the same card some day. Did I mention that the meddlesome Iranians are helping to stir the pot, inviting select chiefs to Iran (likely thinking of trying to convert them to Islam)?

            WSJ had an article in their op-ed section yesterday about Bolivia–their president is full-blood native with a bad attitude. The Iranians are in there too.

      • Jotun Hunter

        Youve obviously never even been to a reserve

      • panjoomby

        & also the indians were stupid-er 🙂

    • Andy

      24,000 years ago we were not as civilized as we are now. I suspect they just adapted to a different environment than we did. We became civilized, in the technical sense of the word, and they did not. Amerinds pre-contact were probably what our ancestors were like during the ice ages in mentality and behavior. They lived similarly.

      • LolKatzen

        Good point.

    • Le Fox

      The same thing happened in Central and South America, except those are less well-known and covered.

      • gemjunior

        Maybe in the past they were less covered – but now today scholars dig through their histories like it’s buried treasure. There can never be enough Central or South American stuff to suit the revisionists. Next thing will be ancient cave carvings in Patagonia detailing ancient South American civilizations walking on the moon and taking one giant step for mankind. Certainly that doesn’t apply today or for the last 30 years.

    • sbuffalonative

      Can you think of a hybrid genius? Mulattoes IQ is somewhere between black and white. There appears to be a genetic regression to the mean. Mixing isn’t good for whites.

      • Jesse James

        Just because I really like “The Three Musketeers” and “The Count of Monte Cristo” I submit for your review Alexandre Dumas. Genius? Perhaps, he certainly overcame the undeniable disadvantage of being not only 1/4 black but also fully French. He was born in the French colony of Saint-Domingo now known as Haiti.

        • rowingfool

          I agree. “The Count of Monte Cristo” was just a heckuva read.

          • Jesse James

            They just don’t make French mulattoes like they used to do they?

      • BulgAryan

        Well Pushkin was mulatto as well. There is a conspiracy theory that Alexandre Dumas IS Pushkin, who escaped Russia after a faked death to start a new life under new personality in France

    • Terra Magnum Imperium

      I have always suspected some Euro-DNA in the Native American genome, compared to Caucasians most East Asians lack the drive for exploration. Despite our slightly lower IQ’s we where the first race to reach and explore space and the true irony, the rocket was invented in China.

      • Bossman

        The Chinese built a great wall to keep foreign people out.

    • LolKatzen

      It’s hard to get an idea of what the natives would be like if they weren’t so susceptible to alcohol (they had no exposure to it pre-Columbus). Canadian natives are so severely impacted by alcoholism it’s virtually impossible to know what they’d be like without it.

      • BaronBaal

        Yes they did. They made their own.

    • frederickdixon

      Agree with you about the undesirability (to put it mildly) of race mixing but I think you’re a little unfair to the Amerinds – did they not create a succession of advanced civilisations in central and South America wherever the conditions were suitable?

    • NeanderthalDNA

      The liblefties attribute all human group differences to environment. In this they are wrong, and any adherence to anything else is heresy and thoughtcrime. Also wrong, however, is a complete abnegation of environment, circumstance, and will when analyzing human events.

      Whoever and whatever the Amerinds were, a few observations…

      1. Those of North America, a geography not unlike a sort of bloated Europe, lived in fairly complex tribal societies not terribly unlike those of early Germanic and Celtic and Slavic (Indo-Europeans) in many ways. They were agriculturists as well as hunters, but…

      2. Unlike the Indo Europeans, they had not a single head of cattle nor a horse. Thus they missed out on the lactose tolerant gene as well as a heck of a lot of protein and “horsepower”.

      Yet, unlike their very distant African cousins, the Amerinds managed to build some pretty impressive horseless, cow-less, civilizations, usually in some of the most inhospitable environments imaginable – fetid jungle and rugged mountains.

      Had the Amerinds been a thousand miles closer to Europe who knows how things might have gone. They adapted pretty quickly to the horse, as the ruthless Comanches (the descendants of whom have proven amongst the most economically successful of Amerind tribes, pre-casino days) proved, and once interaction began, some tribes made impressive strides as they quickly intermarried with early White colonists, such as the Scots-Cherokee of southern Appalachia.

      Regardless, the full picture of historical development requires an appreciation of both nature and nurture. The balance? That’s the question, certainly, but let’s not discount environmental (non-genetic) factors completely.

  • Rick Brooks

    If these findings are true, it means Europeans WERE here before 1492. In fact, they were here long, long before 1492. How will the anti-white cultural Marxists who (probably) give illegal aliens the types of signs pictured below going to respond to this?
    (rhetorical question)

    • Spartacus

      They’re gonna call you a nazi .

    • Bossman

      What the article seems to be saying is that all the native peoples of America were already mixed with Caucasians before they arrived in the Americas. It does not say that the first Americans were white Europeans.

      • Jefferson

        Some Amerindian people have hooked noses, which is a Caucasian trait since it comes from the Caucasian subraces known as Armenoids, Arabids, and Dinarics.

        Hooked noses is not a Mongoloid trait nor a Negroid trait, hence why you never see any Koreans or Filipinos for example with hooked noses. And you also don’t see any Congoids or Kenyans for example with hooked noses.

        The Amerindians with hooked noses are definitely not pure Mongoloid.

        • Funruffian

          I have seen numerous Negroes with hooked noses. They didn’t even appear to be hybrid Negroes. They were fully prognathous, very dark and with very Negroid features. Those generalizations you make are not 100% certain.

          • Jefferson

            A wide nose and a hook nose are 2 completely different things. Hook noses among Sub Saharan Africans is mostly found among Somalis and Ethiopians who are not pure Negroids and have Arab admixture.

          • Bossman

            I believe you to be correct in your assessment. The most distinguishing thing about the black race is a broad and flat nose.

          • Funruffian

            Well it’s not like I approach every random Black person and ask them if they are Somali, Ethiopian or Nigerian. I just happen to notice their physiognomy. You seem to be an expert of African physiognomy. I live in the USA so I wouldn’t no one way or the other about the exact heritage other than that they are Negroes.

          • Sick of it

            Prior to the trans-Atlantic slave trade, numerous Caucasoid peoples interbred with black tribes in Africa. The slave trade didn’t start in earnest until the 16th century…a rather late date.

    • NordicHeritage

      They will only say what their handlers tell them to say.

    • Talltrees

      They say it’s not true even with evidence. Won’t even consider the possibility. This photo reminds me of the discussion I had with a Mexican, an American citizen, who said the U.S. was his country not ours. He knew nothing of American history except it was never a majority of Whites and belonged to foreigners, too. I suppose this is what they are being told.

  • D.B. Cooper

    Ok, I’ll play.
    While looking into “our” ancient North American ancestors, I uncovered this conspiracy that “they” don’t want us to know about. Apparently, we had real giants living among us back then, but “they” don’t want us to know that!!

    • joesolargenius

      Well just how big was Goliath supposed to be ?

      • D.B. Cooper

        Goliath’s height was 6 cubits and a span.

        • There were many different cubit measurements. The customary version was elbow to fingertips. but this was not always the case.

  • John R

    My take? This will help blow the “out of Africa” myth of the origins of the human species. It should come as no surprise: Just look at American Indians physically. Now, look at the various Caucasian peoples. Finally, compare these to the Mongoloid people. Isn’t it OBVIOUS that the American Indians look like a cross between the Mongoloid and Caucasoid races? Funny that even the European colonists kind of guessed this. The popular theory of the day was that the Indians were once White, but changed over time. This in contrast to their view of black Africans, who were always looked upon as a backward race.

    Look at the anatomy of humans. The hands, feet, proportion of the legs and arms. Look at the trunk structure of people, shoulder width, etc. It is obvious that Whites and Asians look vaguely similar, but that both are in sharp contrast to blacks. Blacks have huge hands; outlandishly long arms and legs; funny curved spines; their buttocks are protruding and even ridiculous in the females. They look human only in the broadest sense of the
    term.

    On a final not, isn’t it interesting that Hollywood could always find White people to play Indians- (The famous crying Indian in that old pollution commercial was actually a Sicilian!)-found it a little harder to get Whites to play Orientals, and almost NEVER attempted to get Whites, even with makeup, to play blacks? (Exception: The old time minstrel shows, that looked ridiculous for that very reason).

    In the end, just a study confirming the obvious. But then again, isn’t that what we do on American Renaissance?

    • Andy

      Unless there is a major academic conspiracy going on, I don’t think the Out of Africa theory is wrong. I suppose it says something that I don’t dismiss the possibility of widespread fraud out of hand.

    • Talltrees

      Blacks also have larger teeth than all others.

      • I am not partly black, but have long arms and fairly short legs. I have the wrong number of teeth and some of these have shearing ridges. My suspicion is that what we call “humans” are really just a related group of similar species.

        • Talltrees

          My dog has the wrong number of teeth, too. Does that mean you might be part dog? LOL!

          • To put it a slightly different way, we have zebras and horses that are interfertile. Horses and donkeys can produce (sterile) offspring even though they do not possess the same number of chromosomes. The mule is normally more intelligent and tougher than either parent. Sterility is do to the odd number resulting from the mix.

            Canids are inherently more variable than hominids because they have more chromosomes; they have about 76 or so.

            So far as I know, I am “human”.

      • John R

        They also have larger, uhhh, never mind. Don’t want to get in trouble with the moderator! LOL!

    • Hal K

      Black Africans mixed with an archaic human species in Africa after modern humans left Africa. My guess is that they have a large dose of archaic hominid ancestry. They appear different because they are.

      • John R

        Interesting point. Even IF we are “out of Africa”, that in no way means our ancestors were-dare I say it?-Negroes.

  • Andy

    This really doesn’t mean Indians are “Europeans” or that Europeans colonized North America earlier than we thought. 24,000 years ago, Europeans weren’t Europeans. It just means Europeans and Indians are genetically closer than we thought. However, some of the genetic evidence among mtdna haplogroups in eastern Canada makes me think there probably was more contact than we know about. There’s a strand of X (X2a) that’s only found in Amerinds, and the only X2s in Asia are X2es and haven’t been there so long.

  • Bossman

    The boy carried no East Asians genes but is related to present-day Indians of North America and South America. How interesting! So what exactly was he? A proto-Caucasian? A real Caucasian?

  • ZeitTrash

    “At the very least, says geneticist Dennis O’Rourke of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, ‘this is going to stimulate a lot of discussion.’”

    Well, it would stimulate a lot of discussion if it were actually reported to the American people but you’re not going to see it in the New York Times or on Diane Sawyer’s ABC Evening News or on Jon Stewart’s show. You’ll see it here and at sciencemag(dot)org. That’s it.

    It irks me how some people still think they’re free in America when the public in the US is so sculpted and so (easily) brainwashed by propaganda and withholding of information. We’re sociologically engineered to within an inch of our lives.

  • IstvanIN

    So American Indians really do look like the man on the nickel!

  • Fr. John+

    This is, of course, tacit confirmation of the Solutrean Hypothesis.
    End of Story. Which way now, Kennewick Man?

    • Andy

      No, this would have been a different infusion of proto-European blood from the east rather than from the west.

  • MekongDelta69

    How many people are sick of that idiotic PC phrase, “Native Americans”?

    *raises hand

    • Andy

      If Amerinds are the “Native Americans”, then the “Native Kazakhs” are white.

    • Bossman

      How about First nations or First Americans. They gotta be called something. Right?

      • Franklin_Ryckaert

        Call them First Immigrants (of the “undocumented” sort that is).

  • Alfred the Great

    My take on the article is that the contact between whites and browns happened long ago in some area like western China or up in Mongolia or both. I’m pretty sure that they had already made contact with the browns in the Indus Valley, some going farther into Indian, but others heading farther east and northeast. I read an article about the 6’6″, red-headed mummies that were found in western China. It is possible that there was enough mingling to leave a lasting affect on the races that resulted, the American Indian possibly being one. Our ancestors who remained in the east were totally lost. But the others turned west and entered Europe from Russia and along the Danube. We also had ancient explorers into the Americas.

    • It’s a Wonderful Race: www(dot)tomatobubble(dot)com/wonderfulrace1(dot)html

      • Alfred the Great

        Yes, great website. I read through it quite sometime ago. Thanks!

  • D.B. Cooper

    If European DNA is indeed part of the native bloodline, then perhaps the 2005 film, The New World was pretty accurate about Pocahontas after all.

    Going for accuracy, they found a girl of Native American ancestry close to the real Pocahontas’s age (she was 12 at first contact, actress Q’orianka Kilcher was 14 during filming), resembled the cartoon version, be the stereotype Pocahontas appearance known throughout the world, and be attractive enough to garner interest from men a decade older.

    Well, Kilcher delivers in all aspects, BUT there’s just one teensy bitsy problem…..
    Q’orianka Kilcher is half white, and was even born in Germany to a natural blonde haired, blue eyed mother!! Her father is of Peruvian descent. Mom even looks like the stereotype activist liberal. Q’orianka IS a pretty girl, just remember the genetic reason why.

    • Pocahontas in the cartoon didn’t have realistic Amerindian features at all. They just gave her brown skin and straight black hair to emphasize that she was a “different colour” than John Smith the White race mixer.

    • Bossman

      Many real Indians look like her. She is not the classic Mestizo. She looks more native American than white.

  • Luca

    If not for migrations and DNA mutations, we would all still be Africans (shudder) of one kind or the other. The further our ancestors got from Africa, the smarter and more civilized they became. This doesn’t bode well for the ones who never left.

    “Native Americans” should probably more accurately be called “Herd Followers” because that’s actually how they got here. They simply followed the large herds of mammals like the mammoth. Once they got here, they became isolated from their original DNA stock and over time and through breeding patterns, they developed a unique DNA haplogroup. That does not distract from the fact that they are ancient Eastern Asians and Europeans

    The more I learn about DNA, the happier I am about who I am and where I came from.

    • Bossman

      Their original home appears to be Central Asia. Central Asia could also be the original home of white Europeans.

  • Northern American-Nationalist

    This helps explain why Thomas Jefferson claimed that the Indians (“Native Americans”) were racially equal to Whites (unlike Blacks). The Indians he experienced probably all came from east of the Mississippi River and likely had the most European ancestry of them all even then. It’s funny how one’s intuition can really produce a fair understanding of in-group and out-group realities.

  • Northern American-Nationalist

    “The new findings are consistent with a report published in Genetics last
    year (and almost entirely ignored at the time) that used modern DNA to
    conclude that Native Americans have significant—and ancient—ties to
    Europeans.”

    Why am I not surprised?

    It’s ‘almost entirely ignored’ for now. . . The foundation (of truth) for a White (racial consciousness) awakening is being built now.

  • gemjunior

    I wondered that too. I think it was because they were still savage morally; despite their scientific and astronomical advances they were cutting out hearts of human sacrifices and eating body parts and stuff. Maybe they ate each other’s brains and developed early prion diseases like Mad Cow Disease or Cruetzfeld-Jacob Syndrome, causing them to die off in a disease. Maybe we will never know…..

  • JohnEngelman

    Civilizations have often fallen apart. The Mayan civilization is believed to have fallen apart through over population and over exploitation of natural resources.

  • Andy

    Proto-Europeans hadn’t developed their tolerance for alcohol yet 24,000 years ago. That came with agriculture.

  • Bossman

    Well, at least it means that they are not East Asians because East Asians are generally intolerant of alcohol and generally avoid it.

  • Bossman

    I’m glad you didn’t say Mexicans and Mestizos because by this account, they are part of the American family too.

  • Chris

    I hope this means we can keep the Redskins mascot.

  • Bossman

    Jews generally look like the people of the countries that they are from. North African Jews look North African. A lot of European Jews look European. The Icelandic population are immigrants from various part of North Europe—-not an indigenous population.

    • M.

      The Icelanders have been quite isolated for a few centuries now. And they’re not that numerous.
      Another example of an isolated phenotype is the Japanese. Today, they top the world’s IQ ranks. (they’re among the first 3 anyway)
      Same could be said of the Koreans.

      • Bossman

        The Japanese are transplanted Chinese who interbred with an old indigenous population called the Ainu. If they remain isolated for long enough, they will degenerate into something else.

        • M.

          Still, the Japanese and the Korans remained isolated as distinct ethnic groups for at least a couple of centuries now, and they don’t seem to be regressing at all.
          Same could be said of the English who remained isolated for centuries too.

          Has this “isolated people degenerate” theory even been proven in any human population ever?!
          I could understand if a “handful” of people were concerned, like a 5,000-people population, but today’s ethnic groups’ populations are counted by the millions. That’s more than enough diversity to go around within their own phenotype.

          And to tell you the truth, I’m not seeing any hybrid vigor in today’s Brazilians or Mexican mestizos. They’ve just dumbed down and become more primitive than their Iberian counterparts. Which is what happens when you mix with inferior races.

  • Gereng

    I recall reading an article about 15 years back wherein the author discussed what he considered European features among many Indians from the east coast tribes. He was looking at early photos and paintings of Indians who were not interbred with whites. There was no mention of DNA only physical appearance. Seems he was on to something after all.

  • Sick of it

    First of all, their suggestion that American Indians are only 1/3 European is patently ridiculous. When an Indian married a white person and had kids, their children were 50% white (that’s just one generation). Look at American Indians from North of the border. We’ve been joking about how white our Indians are for generations now. They must have limited their sample to something that would allow them to maximize the PC results.

    Similarly, they tried to peddle some nonsense about whites and Asians branching off from one another relatively recently so they might ignore a rather strong alternative hypothesis which actually fits with the archaeological record – White people were once far more widespread than they are today, particularly in Asia. If I recall correctly, we were once the the native population of Western Mongolia, while the Mongoloids inhabited the Eastern half. Now, look at Asia today and tell me the same thing that happened to Kennewick Man’s tribe did not also occur to whites in Asia proper.

  • Hal K

    According to Wikipedia, only ~3% of Native Americans have the special X mtDNA European haplogroup. If one-third of the Native American ancestry is European, then there is a disconnect. Is the implication that there are other European mtDNA haplogroups among Native Americans? If so, which are they? I thought all of the other Native American mtDNA haplogroups were East Asian.

    On another topic, Wikipedia has an interesting plot showing the distribution of R haplogroup yDNA. It is concentrated in Europe and the northeast region of North America. This story raises more questions than it answers. For instance, why is the European DNA concentrated in the northeast? Are there other European mtDNA haplogroups besides X found among Native Americans? What sort of migration brought the European DNA? Was it an invasion bringing mostly males, or was it colonization bringing males and females?

  • Bossman

    Really? How so? Lets hear your explanation of it.

  • William Allingham

    that would explain why some indians had some glimpses of social organization while at the same time having the most gruesome and savage of habits.

    they were almost in the borderline between animal brutality and some kind of organization.

  • “Figured out.” They didn’t marry their cousins. It’s not too hard.

  • Bossman

    I believe most of the things you say. A lot of the handsome macho men in the old movies were part Indian. It is only now with the internet that a lot of people are discovering these things.

    • Jefferson

      Bossman which race box did you check on the 2010 U.S census form ?

      • Bossman

        You keep on asking this irrelevant question. I’m a white man and maybe much closer to Europe than you’re because my father was born there. I’m interested in anthropology, sociology, biology, genetics, history, geography, etc. When I look at people, I like to deduce their ethnic makeup.

  • Swanny Feather

    You are correct that we do not have photos of north American Indians from early colonial times. But we do have forensic Anthropologists so we can get a fairly rough but accurate idea of what the Amerinds looked like before they had extensive contact with Europeans. They very definitely had the Armenian nose even before colonial times. I suspect the skin is no darker than that of the Armenians. In many cases Indians are much lighter than the middle easterners. In fact the conquistadors reported that the Canary Islanders were the same hue as the Indians of MesoAmerica. The Canary Islanders are thought to be descendants Crogmagnon ,but they also had red hair and dark blond hair. If the Indians had only inherited light hair and or light eyes from their Russian/Siberian ancestors no one would have been able to pass them off as a distinct race just a distinct culture.

    To give you an example of how similar American Indians are to Europeans. When Cynthia Ann Parker (mother of the Comanche Chief Quanah) was recaptured the only feature which distinguished her from the Indians was her blue eyes. Think about it; if she had been brown eyed ,as many caucasians are, she would have been allowed to stay with the Comanches. There is not just circumstantial evidence that the Europeans and Indians are physically similar. DNA evidence now absolutely confirms Indians and Europeans are infact anciently linked.

    • Giuseppe Verdi

      I think you are engaging in pure wishful thinking if you honestly believe Indians would look white if they only had blue eyes! When I look at the old photos (easy to Google) of Cochise, Sitting Bull, Geronimo or the others of the famous American Indians (or just of the various Indians on the Wikipedia page for “Apache”), what I see are brown skinned men with flat noses, very prominent cheek bones, round faces, and somewhat slanted eyes. If that is what you think Northern Europeans look like then fine. That’s your opinion.

      Interesting that you should mention forensic anthropologists. A few years saw a temporary exhibit at a natural history museum (it may have been the Smithsonian one in D.C.), that displayed skulls from Jamestown and early 1600s Virginia. They had a skull of a white man, an Indian, and a black man from that era. Each skull was labeled and very clearly distinguishable by features. And by the way, it is very easy to tell a white from an Indian just by the person’s bones–eye color has nothing to do about it.

  • Swanny Feather

    I’ve seen plenty of Indians and Mexicans. To be honest I never thought they were all that dark. They would certainly not be dark by mediteranian standards. How else was Anthony Quinn able to believably play Zorba the Greek. No half asian could do such. In fact many Half Northern Europeans could not believably play mediteranians. However many North American Indians do have the aquiline nose so popular on ancient Greek statues. The new DNA evidence linking Europeans and Indians together confirms the common source for these and other shared charcteristics.

  • Clovis people were Amerinds.

    Although there are no skulls directly associated with Clovis points, almost all Paleoamerican skulls are Otamid, similar to the extinct, indigenous Fuegians.

    Even the Kennewick Man isn’t that odd overall. He has been likened to the Ainu and Birdsell believed there to be an ‘Amurian’ strain (ie. approximating the Ainu) among the native Californians.

  • M&S

    What I think we are agreeing upon, is that there are aspects of genetics as anthropological history which don’t follow the ‘agreed dialogue’ of descendency as geographic distribution.
    It almost seems as thought there is a third group which exists outside the acknowledged record and if so, it is -that- group which, because it remains unacknowledged and because it has so many Caucasian features, which is likely key to unraveling the major differences in race and genetics.
    The Native Americans (Paiutes among others) of such diverse places as Arizona, Utah and Washington all speak of Red Haired Giants.
    Often accusing them of cannibalism and ‘making war on our people’.
    Yet it is always the giants whose lives are ended and whose cultural artifacts indicate a superior degree of advancement, despite the ‘peaceful’ native’s supposed victimization. Why?

  • Angelina

    Remember, we all came from stardust.

  • Iman Robota

    Yeah right. Someone made a bad piece of art and THAT is your evidence that the Vikings were blacks?

    Oh boy, I guess when anthropologists find my son’s crayon drawings 2,000 years from now, they’ll believe that we were all stick figures who worshiped the family dog.

  • Iman Robota

    HA ha, okay buddy.

    The reason most of these studies are done by white people is because you blacks and hispanics are too stupid to be scientists.

  • mackaveli

    Yes yess esau deletes my comment becuase he is scared lmao, another great lie told by the great white liar scientist, dna links edom with europe

  • mackaveli

    Lmao esua thought i wouldnt return smh at these scientific lies to help u feel better about youre selfs, i mean u did slaugher them, they are not european lmaos they are americans native americans, stop lian you are only white and no other color or nationality