Links

Here is some further reading, full of interesting information. There is more to human history than many historians wouild have us believe.

Come back to this page again, as I am sure to add some more sites soon.

Enjoy.

Across Before Columbus

Aboriginal Origins

Atlantis

Atlantis relics: Genes and Language

Atlantis is in Mexico

Alternative Archaeology and History

Anasazi Art

Ancient American

American People

Ancient city off India

Ancient Copper mines

Ancient copper mines 2

Andrew Collins

Archaeology, Borneo

Archaeological enigmas in Australia

Barry Fell and the Equinox project

Bimini

Bone Art NZ

Bradshaw Foundation

Chinese Treasure Fleet 1421

Cocaine Mummies

Comet/Earth impact related sites

Druids

Dingle Peninsula

El Dorado, BBC

Egyptians in Australia

Genetic Chaos

Giants

Giants 2

Golden Age Project

Graham Hancock, Kingdoms of the Ice Age

Herb Kane

James L Guthrie, American Human Lymphocyte Antigens

Jane's Oceania

Lapita

Library of Halexandria

Mississippi Mound Builders

Morien Institute - ancient cataclysms

OOPARTS, Nan Madol and underwater cities

Peru, Machu Picchu

Phoenicians in Australia

Pre-Celtic American Caucasians in NZ

Pygmies in Australia

Quest for Atlantis

Rhesus Negative

Welsh Genes

Yucatan Skeletons


 

New England Antiquities Research Association
 

 

Human Lymphocyte Antigens: Apparent Afro-Asiatic, Southern Asian, & European HLAs in Indigenous American Populations
by James L. Guthrie
 
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Section II
 

Appendix

1.  “American” HLAs

Ten HLA families are called “American” in this report because their highest modern frequencies are in the Americas (Table 10), and they are not likely to be recent introductions.  Four of these (A*9, B*15, B*16, B*40) are, outside the Western Hemisphere, now concentrated in New Guinea, Australia, and the Pacific islands.  A*9 and B*40 are prominent in North America, especially among Eskimos, but not in South America, where they exceed 20% in only seven samples.  B*15 is strong among both Paez-speakers of western South America and in Indonesia, while B*16 stands out in the Aracaunian region as well as among Austric-speakers of the Pacific.
Three other HLAs (A*28, A*31, and B*35) tend to cluster near the Brazilian coast and in the Caribbean, although B*35 seems mainly Araucanian.  These three are also important in West and North Africa, India, and the Near East.  More detailed comments on each of these ten follow.
 
 
Table 10.  Highest world frequencies (%) of “American” HLAs
(New World samples under-lined).
 
A*2   B*40   A*31  
17 Americansa 37-69 Canadian Eskimos 51 11 Americansc 25-65
Ryukyu 36.0 Altaic composite 49.7 Mande 20.6
Nahua 35.8 Australia 42.1  Warao 20.3
Sardinia 33.6 Guaraní 40.8 Makiritaré 13.5
Scandinaviab 33±1 Yanomama 40.0 Tigre 12.6
Assyria 31.9 Polynesia 36.1 Tuareg 12.0
Finland 31.4 Micronesia 35.1 Nahua 12.0
Yupa 31.0 Inupik 35.0 Guaraní 11.2
China 30.9 Bari 35.0 Zuni 11.0
Thailand 30.1 Tuva 29.4 Ainu 10.2
Emerillon 30.0 Yupik 25.0 Basque 9.8
Cherokee 30.0 Parakana 24.4 Uzbekistan 9.0
Germanicb 30±1 Greenland Eskimo 23.8 Papago 8.9
Ainu 29.6 Mataco 23.5 Navajo 8.0
Russia
29.4
Melanesia
21.8
Yupa
8.0
a Oyampí, 68.8; Makiritaré, 67.8; Central Amerind, 61.5; Quechua, 59.0; Navajo, 53.5; Guaraní, 52.6; Papago, 51.4; Yanomama, 51.2; Pima, 50.2; Zuni, 48.8; Cayapó, 47.9; Warao, 45.5; Trio, 43.9; eastern Maya, 41.7; Aymara, 41.0; Bari, 37.0.
b Composites; see text.
c Caingáng, 64.8; Emerillon, 45.0; Parakana, 43.8; Atacama, 40.5; Cayapó, 36.0; Aymara, 36.0; Mataco. 32.7; Ticuna, 29.6; Trio, 27.8; Yanomama, 26.9; Araucano, 24.6.
 
 
Table 10 (continued).
 
A*9    B*35   B*15  
New Guinea 77.5 11 Americansd 29-53 Warao 44.6
Grlnd Eskimo 68.2 Lebanon 22.2 Aymara 43.0
Inupik 68.0 Araucano 20.9 Atacama 39.9
Bari 68.0 Guaraní 20.9 New Guineae 38.2
NW Can. Eskimo 63.9 Greece 20.0 Cayapó 31.9
Micronesia 62.6 Mapuche 19.8 Bali 31.3
E Can. Eskimo 62.5 Papago 18.7 Sumatra 30.9
Yupik 57.0 Marathi 18.0 Ainu 29.0
Ticuna 56.3 Jordan-Palestine 16.0 Mataco 28.5
Altaic Compos. 51.6 Yupik 16.0 Guaraní 28.1
Bali 49.7 Italy 15.6 Grnld Eskimo 25.2
Philippines 49.2 Yugoslavia 15.6 Malaysia 23.5
Samoan Outliers 46.0 Ainu 15.4 Tuva 20.5
Melanesia 43.7 Finland 15.4 Philippinesf 19.1
Japan
36.3
Iran
15.3
Quechua
19.0
d Trio, 53.4; Central Amerind, 52.5; Parakana, 52.3; eastern Maya, 47.1;  Cayapó, 37.5; Quechua, 36.0; Caingang, 34.4; Oyampí ,31.9; Navajo, 31.5; Makiritaré 29.8; Zuni ,29.3.
e Highest value.
f Austric component.
 
 
Table 10 (continued)
 
B*16   B*5   A*28  
8 Americansg 20-51 Emerillon 51.0 7 Americansh 22-37
Philippinesf 17.6 Kyushu 25.0 Tuareg 19.3
Papago 17.3 Makiritaré 33.4 Tigre 17.8
Society Islands 16.3 Warao 32.3 Grnld Eskimo 15.0
Mapuche 15.6 Oyampí 28.0 Inupik 14.0
Nahua 15.4 Caingáng 25.3 Bantu 12.6
Ainu 14.8 Pakistan 24.8 Saudi Arabia 11.2
Easter Island 14.0 Japan 23.0 Yupik 11.0
Cayapó 13.4 Yanomama 22.4 Cherokee 11.0
Cook Islands 12.8 Tibet 21.2 Trio 10.9
Pima 12.0 Bulgaria 20.5 Warao 10.8
Navajo 12.0 Saudi Arabia 20.4 Ibo 10.2
Quechua 11.0 Punjab 19.4 Quechua 10.0
Aymara 10.0 Iraq 18.7 Mande 9.7
Mataco 10.0 Greece 18.1 Iraq
9.5
g Araucano, 50.7; Yupa, 39.0; Ticuna, 26.9; Cherokee, 23.0; Parakana, 20.8; Trio, 20.5; Bari, 20.0; eastern Maya, 19.7.
h Mapuche, 36.6; Araucano, 35.9; Guaraní, 32.7; Mataco, 32.7; Yupa, 26.0; Parakana, 24.5; Maya, 21.8.
 
 
Table 10 ( continued)
 
B*27  
Navajo 21.0
Yupiki 20.0
Inupik 13.0
Lapland 12.8
Pima 10.1
Tibet 8.9
Grnld Eskimo 8.3
Zuni 8.0
Finland 7.5
Papua 7.3
Sweden 7.2
Papago 7.2
Poland 6.6
Bali 6.5
Yugoslavia
6.4
iNo data from Canadian Eskimos.
 
           
A*2 (39.6%).  A*2 is a (non-Oceanian) Eurasian type that is present in all 32 American samples, at frequencies of 12-69%.  It has become concentrated in eastern South America and in some populations of Northern Europe and of Asia, including the Ainu.  It is also prominent in Thailand and South China.  A*2 is strong in basic Amerindian populations of North, Central, and South America.  It is weakest among Eskimos and a few South American populations that seem to have an Oceanian component (Ticuna, Araucano, Caingáng, Mataco, and Mapuche, 15-25%).

A*9 (30.1%).  A*9 is mirror image of A*2, reaching high levels in New Guinea, Micronesia, Melanesia, Bali, and among Philippine Negritos. Globally, with few exceptions those displaying levels above 50% are Eskimos, Altaic-speakers, or Oceanians.  A*9 occurs in all American samples, at frequencies of from 1% to 68%; North Americans average about 27%.  South American frequencies are generally low; only the Bari and Yupa (Lake Maracaibo) and the Ticuna (northern Peru) show levels above 25%.  Levels in southern South America are lowest, from 1% to 12%.  Belich et al. (1992) apparently designate this family as A*24 rather than A*9, listing values of 1% and 6% for the Guaraní and Caingáng, respectively, a finding consistent with other low levels in the south.

B*40 (21.8%).  B*40 seems Oceanian, with a distribution much like that of A*9, and is present in all American samples at frequencies of 3-52%.  Canadian Eskimos have the highest worldwide levels, and all samples above 20% in the global CS list are American or Oceanian except for two samples from Altaic-speakers, who probably have common ancestry with Eskimos.  South Americans have moderate levels (3-18%) except for the east-coast Guaraní, Yanomama, Parakana, and Mataco and for Venezuela’s Bari.  The Guaraní are notable for having the highest South American level of A*40 (41%) but the lowest level of A*9, suggesting possible recent influence from an Austric population.

B*5 (14.8%).  American frequencies of B*5 range up to 51%, but only 12 samples display above 10%.  B*5 would be unimportant if it were not for a few high levels that seem to connect the northern coast of South America with India and Japan.  Six populations of eastern South America average 32 ± 10%, and Aymara-speakers display 16%.  All other South Americans average only 5 ± 3%, the Tupian Guaraní and Parakana samples from eastern Brazil having the lowest levels (near zero).  Eskimos average 13 ± 3% and North American Amrinds 9 ± 4%.

B*15 (14.4%).  B*15 is present in 28 of 32 American samples at frequencies of up to 45%, but only 13 surpass 10%.  Highest world levels are found in America, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Japan (Ainu).  Two of the three highest occurrences are from Paez-speakers (Warao and Atacama), and the other is from Aymara-speakers, who are culturally and genetically closely related to the Atacama.  High frequencies in Bali and Sumatra suggest a connection between the Paez and Indonesia and seem also to support the idea of early Indonesian influences claimed by some to have occurred among the Guaraní and Quechuans.  B*15 is absent only from the Pima, Papago, Yupa, and Yanomama samples.

B*16 (14.0%).  B*16 is present in 23 of 30 American populations tested, but only eight had more than 20%.  It was not detected in five samples from eastern South America (Oyampí, Makiritaré, Emerillon, Guaraní, and Caingáng) or in samples from the Yupik and Inupik Eskimo (no data from Canadian Eskimos).  The Auraucano value of 51% is the highest in the world, followed by some from northern South America and the Caribbean, extending to the Eastern Maya and the Cherokee.  All other frequencies above 10% globally come from Japan (Ainu), Polynesia, and the Philippines (Austric-speakers).

A*31 (13.8%).  A*31 is a subtype of A*19 that is present in at least 28 of 32 American samples, at frequencies of up to 65%, with the highest levels coming from Brazil.  For some reason, distributions of A*19 were mapped but not tabulated by CS.  A*31 values for the Atacama and Araucano are shown as “blanks” but may be determined from levels indicated on the A*19 map combined with the missing values for A*31 needed to raise the HLA-A total to 100%.  In America, A*31 appears to be absent only from the Bari and the Greenland Eskimos.  Frequencies for the Eskimo in general average only 2% (no data from Canadian Eskimos) and for North American Amerinds only 7 ± 3%.  World frequencies are generally low outside of South America and parts of northern Africa.  A*31 probably marks remnants of an ancient Eurasian population whose legacy still is significantly displayed among the Basques, the Ainu, and North Africans.  However, the surprisingly high frequencies in the Mande, Tigre, and Tuareg samples could be the result of early intercourse between Brazil and Africa.

B*35 (25.7%).  B*35 is present in all 32 American samples at frequencies of up to 53%.  While still significant throughout Eurasia, it is currently strongest in Brazil, in Central America, and in the eastern Mediterranean/Aegean region.  Although backflow of B*35 from Brazil may account for elevated levels of B*35 in the eastern Mediterranean, the somewhat elevated frequencies among Ainus and Finns detract from the likelihood of this explanation.  The lowest American levels are in the north, averaging only 5% in Amerind North America and 8% among Eskimos.

A*28 (10.6%).  Although A*28 is present in 25 of 31 American samples, high frequencies are confined to six South American groups, which average 31 ± 5%, and to the Eastern Maya (22%).  All others average 5.3 ± 5.0%.  The atypical South American set, which may reflect relatively late arrivals, comprise the Mapuche and Araucano of Chile, the Guaraní, Parakana, and Mataco of Eastern Brazil, and the Yupa of the northern coast.  Other elevated levels occur in Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and Iraq.  Possible backflow through intercourse between Africa and South America should be evaluated after the genetic database has been further expanded.  A*28 was absent from the Atacama, Emerillon, Caingáng, Central Amerind composite, Navajo, and Papago samples (no data from western Canadian Eskimos).
B*27 (4.0%).  B*27 has a largely circumpolar distribution and is present in only 13 of 30 American samples (no data from Canadian Eskimos).  Highest frequencies occur in the Navajo, Eskimo, and Lapp samples.  Presence in the samples from the Pima, Papago, Zuni, Cherokee, and the Nahua and from the Central Amerind composite, probably results from admixture with the Navajo and/or other Athapaskans.
 
 
2.  Multivariate Analysis
 
The best way to compare populations is to use all available genetic data in statistical procedures that were impractical before the advent of computers.  A remaining problem is the paucity and poor distribution of data that have been collected during the last 50 years, often for medical and other purposes.  Analysis of this data base for the purpose of addressing questions that would not have occurred to some of those who collected the samples, is a good example of “data mining,” which is disparaged by purists.  Statistically, it is far better to design the experiment and to state the questions before collecting data.  Recent “miners” such as CS have used data from more than 40 genetic systems in extremely sophisticated statistical treatments, whereas pioneering attempts used considerably fewer.

In an important early study of indigenous American data, Spuhler (1979) used only seven systems (ABO, MNSs, Rhesus, Duffy, Kell, Diego, Lutheran).  In similar work, Szathmary (1979) used these seven plus data from P1, Kidd, haptoglobin, GC, PGM, AK1, and PGD polymorphisms, with limited comparisons of transferrins, immunoglobins, and glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase.

Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues used two methods to calculate genetic distances for thousands of population pairs, and seemed to favor the FST (standard) measure.  An informative matrix of FST distances among 42 populations (1,764 pairs) appears on page 75, and another, using Nei's distances, is on page 76.  Five Macro-American populations were used (Eskimo, Na-Dene, North, Central, and South Amerinds), and the following inter-pair distances (FST) are illustrative.  The smallest distance between any American group and others was 0.047 between Eskimos and Chukchi (Siberia). Uncertainties are such that, depending on sample size and other factors, distances less than about 0.030 are not statistically different from zero.  There are more than a dozen pairs of Amerindian samples in this category (pp. 327 and 329), including Nahua-Cherokee (0.017), Aymara-Atacama (0.019), and Quechua-Eastern Maya (0.015).  The set Nahua, Pima, Papago, and Zuni, displays no significant differences among its members.  Some strong differences in individual genetic systems are masked, however, when data from all systems are combined in a single mathematical result.

The average distances of all American samples were: from Japan, 0.083; from Mongol-Tungus, 0.088; from India, 0.100; and from West Africa, 0.245.  Differences between Africans and others are generally large because the first split in modern human populations occurred as they expanded beyond northeastern Africa.  The smallest difference between an African and an American population tabulated on page 75 is between North Americans and Berbers (0.127).  Distances among the five American sets ranged from 0.016 (South versus Central Amerind) to 0.107 (South versus Eskimo).
It would be an interesting (although massive) project to calculate genetic distances between each of the American samples and every other one globally, but the results would be only marginally rewarding.  Although occasional “exotic” genes appear in American populations, they represent a small fraction of the total and therefore have little “leverage” in distance calculations.  As discussed above, low-level genes are eventually lost with time, and the main value of hunting for survivors is to gain insight into possibilities that might otherwise be overlooked.
 
 
3.  Early Africa
 
Early Africans may have rafted to Brazil or the Caribbean, but evidence is scanty.  Some have argued for African influence between 8000 and 5700 B.C. on the basis of cultigens, including cotton, jackbeans, and the bottlegourd, which may have reached South and Central America from Africa before 5000 B.C. (Schwerin 1970; Simmonds 1976; Lathrap 1977).  Wendel, Schnabel, and Seelanan (1995) have now established the identity, through DNA sequences, of a cotton variety grown both in Africa and in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, presumably a result of early human activity.  It remains to be seen whether a connection will be made between postulated early African voyaging and the very early pottery of the lower Amazon (8000-6000 B.C.) reported by Roosevelt et al. (1991) and Hoopes (1994).  Hoeppli (1969) identified African parasitic diseases that were present in early America and was able to distinguish them from those brought later by the slave trade.  Some South American populations, especially the Ge groups of eastern Brazil, possess some seemingly African traits, but it does not seem possible at present to make a conclusive case for extreme antiquity of sub-Saharan African traits.  Africoid skeletons from Venezuela and Yucatán appear to demonstrate Atlantic travel from Africa to the Caribbean (Wiercinsky 1972), but they are from a later period.  Any early African colonists are likely to have been submerged beyond easy recognition by the more numerous Asians.  Apparent African genes discussed in this report probably arrived no earlier than the third millennium B.C.
 
 
4.  Pan-Atlantic Cultures
 
On the basis of stone points, axes, pottery, and other evidence, Kennedy (1971) connected the Caribbean with other “Pan-Atlantic” cultures of 3000-1500 B.C.  Focusing on pottery, he listed six traits, such as coil-building, that are typical of Atlantic Europe, Northwest Africa, Middle America, the Caribbean, and southeastern North America.  He said that Southeastern check-stamped wares (2000 B.C.) are identical to those of Morocco, that the red slip technique came from northwestern Africa or southern Spain about 2500 B.C., that rockering reached Ecuador by 2000 B.C., and so forth.

According to Kennedy, many traits of the European Late Neolithic period derive from predynastic Egypt, being preserved by Berbers, Maltese, and others, then being transmitted to the Caribbean, southeastern North America, and eventually to the Pacific Coast, where numbers increased owing to better conditions.  He called this era “one of the greatest periods of group mobility or voyaging in man's history,” and described the Bell Beaker people as an aggressive industrial culture exploiting copper, salt, and stone, marked by exceptional mobility by land and sea.  Much other evidence supports this view, especially the findings of Chadwick (1971) and Alcina Franch (1985 and many previous publications).  Chadwick put such elements of the Beaker complex as stirrup-spout pottery, as early as 2000 B.C. at Tlatilco (Central Mexico) and Kotosh (Peru), but he also thought there had been a second Pan-Atlantic wave at about 500 B.C.  Alcina's study of stamp seals led him to conclude that they had reached Middle America about 1500 B.C., from the Canary Islands.

Bray (1972) noted the remarkable similarity of Peruvian stone tools to those found in Bell Beaker graves associated with the earliest copper metallurgy in northern Europe, and Beirne (1971) thought axes of Ecuador appeared to be stone copies of metal axes of a type known only from Egypt and the Near East, while some from the Antilles seemed to be copies of metal axes of Bronze Age England.  Ibarra Grasso (1961, 1969) had noted the same phenomenon in stone axes of Bolivia, Ecuador, and Chile.  Some Andean artistic motifs, especially those of the Mapuche, look to me like Bronze-Age North African and Mediterranean designs: an owl goddess, Tanit-like figures, a bat with weeping eyes, a circle with radiating hooks, and others (see, for example, Bennett 1982).  Opus africanum architecture has been mentioned previously.  Some Araucanian pottery features red-and-white fields laid out in triangular or checkerboard patterns and resembles Iranian pottery of about 1000 B.C.   The sprang fabric-manufacturing technique also seems to connect Bronze Age Europe, Egypt, and Peru (Buhler 1948).  Sprang was used in Ecuador by 1100 B.C. (Anawalt 1992), in Peru by 500-300 B.C. (King 1975), and later in Guatemala, Mexico, and the southwestern United States.

Many of these traits are now characteristic of parts of sub-Saharan Africa, and it may be impossible to separate effects of the supposed “Pan-Atlantic” trade from postulated voyages of a much earlier date.

There may also have been some degree of backflow from America to Africa.  Johannessen (1992) proposed early backflow of maize from South America to Africa on the basis of names for maize in the hump of Africa similar to ones from the Orinoco and Amazon basins (also, Jeffreys 1971), and Stephens (1971) found that American cotton apparently reached the Cape Verde Islands in pre-Columbian times.  Backflow is also supported by the distributions of “American” HLAs B*28 and B*31, which reach high levels on the Brazilian coast and also appear, anomalously, in a few African populations.

Ethnological evidence for African presence in America includes: tooth alteration, that began at about 1400-1200 B.C. (Stewart 1974); details of Yucatan log-beehive construction (Crane 1983); distinctive uses of stilts and masks (Lindblom 1927); the “Nilotic” one-legged resting posture of Venezuela (Lindblom 1949; DuPouy 1957); distinctive watercraft; fishing techniques, including the use of poisons; and two-toned log signaling gongs (Lathrap 1977). Especially convincing to me are the hundreds of Mexican ceramic portrait heads collected by von Wuthenau (1975 and other publications) that clearly depict African and other non-Indian physiognomies and are considered authentic, many being found in archaeological context dating before 500 B.C. and as early as 1200 B.C.  Jairazbhoy, in numerous controversial treatises (e.g., 1974), claimed that extensive Egyptian influences in Mesoamerica began during the period of Rameses III (1186-1070 B.C.).
Substantive linguistic evidence for Afro-Asiatic contact is also beginning to appear, despite the fact that few professional linguists have deep understanding of both an American and an Afro-Asiatic language.  Mary LeCron Foster (1998), who has concentrated on Quechua and certain Mexican languages as well as Egyptian and Arabic, found a seemingly very old Afro-Asiatic component in Mixe-Zoquean and in Quechua.
 
 
5.  Aegean Region

Several investigators have described a complex of traits in America otherwise associated with western Anatolia, the Balkans, the Cycladic Islands, and mainland Greece.  Both transatlantic and transpacific transmissions seem to have occurred at various times.  The main putative effects appear along South American rivers, in Mesoamerica, and in northeastern North America.  One stimulus may have been Bronze Age commerce between the Aegean and Scandinavia (Glob 1970), which seems also to have reached northeastern North America.  Residual Cypriot or Greek influences on Algonquians and Eastern Eskimos have been claimed—for example, apparent Greek loan words in Micmac, noted by Silas Rand in his Micmac dictionary of 1888.

In South America, Greek inspiration has been claimed for such items as Peruvian jointed figurines of about 1200 B.C. (Lathrap 1973), European-style tweezers, and the Greek form of metal masonry cramps used at Tiahuanaco during the first or second century A.D. (Ibarra Grasso 1969).  Bosch-Gimpera (1970) suggested that gold- and copper-working techniques originating in Anatolia were introduced both to the Chavín culture of Peru and to the Dongson culture of Vietnam at about 500 B.C.  It could be argued that Aegean sailors explored South America sporadically over a period of more than a thousand years, explaining the apparent Proto-Anatolian elements in Quechua, Aymara, and Uru-Chipaya pointed out by Key (1994) and others such as Sauvageot (1930), Ferrario (1933), and Dumézil (1955).
Certain traits may have gone from South America to Mesoamerica—for example, the Near-Eastern type of incense burner and the “Greek” jointed figurines that appeared in Guatemala in 700-200 B.C. (de Borhegyi 1951, 1954).   However, the direct Pacific route may have been more important in later times.  Elliot Smith (1933) thought that modified Greek culture reached India about 100 B.C., continuing on to Indonesia and Central America.  Kelley (1975) said that Greek ideas were carried to Mesoamerica by Indians at about that time.  Trade between India and the eastern Mediterranean is known to have been established by 800 B.C. (Smith 1916).  At Monte Alban in Oaxaca, “paw vases” comparable to those of Greece appeared quite late—about 500-700 A.D. (Boos 1969).
 
 
6.  Transpacific Voyages

One may think of colonization of the west coasts by Pacific Rim people in 12,000-10,000 B.C. almost as part of the “initial” process.  Postulated voyages after about 3000 B.C., bringing distinctive traits from Southeast Asia, Indonesia, and Pacific Oceania, have been easier to reconstruct and therefore are the subject of the bulk of early-contact literature.  

Exploration of the Pacific seems to have been well underway by 4000 B.C., when long-distance sea trading apparently connected Borneo with Melanesia (Service 1996, summarizing findings of Stephen Chia on obsidian trade).  By the third millennium B.C., tropical Asian parasites, Jômon-like pottery, monumental architecture, and various Oceanic traits had appeared in western South America, and it is not unreasonable to attribute some of these developments to intensified ocean voyaging.  It is not necessary to identify each transmitted trait as specifically Indonesian, Japanese, Melanesian, Micronesian, or Polynesian in order to recognize an explosion of Pacific mobility that affected America to some degree.  Numerous effects on language have been claimed, including impressive recent findings by Foster (1998) of lexical elements shared by Austronesian and Quechua as well as by Mixe-Zoquean.  Previously, Imbelloni (1928b) had claimed that Quechua seemed to be 30% Polynesian and Christian (1923) had argued for a Sanskrit (via Indonesian) influence on Araucanian, all paralleling the genetic evidence.

Dates given by Ibarra Grasso (1982) for transpacific influences, based on decades of study, are a little before 3000 B.C. (from Indonesia to Ecuador and Mexico) plus three more waves to Ecuador, Peru, and Mexico from various Asian sources at 1800-1500 B.C., 1000-700 B.C., and about 500 B.C.  Tolstoy (1974) compiled an extensive list of traits that seem to have been transmitted from Southeast Asia to South America, and a similar list for Mesoamerica.  McLean (1979) listed 38 musical traits shared by Asia, Oceania, and America, including the musical bow, panpipes, and the slit drum.  Many others have compiled comparative trait lists, including Nordenskiöld (1924, 1933), MacLeod (1929), and Campbell (1983-89).
Perhaps the most thoroughly analyzed traits are bark-cloth technology (Tolstoy 1963, 1966), blowguns (Friederici 1915; Jett 1970, 1991), ceramics (Meggers, Evans, and Estrada 1965; Stocker 1991), and calendrics (Kelley 1960).  Schobinger (1956) examined the distribution of Mapuche ceremonial batons that have the same form as those of Polynesia, and Heine-Geldern (1958) reported stone sarcophagi at San Augustín, Colombia, that are much like those of Java, other Indonesian islands, and Taiwan.  Key (1964) noted unusual resin-glazing of pottery made by the Cavineño (Tacana) Indians of Bolivia, a process also used in Burma and by Austronesians of North Borneo, Fiji, New Caledonia, and the Philippines.  Other detailed comparisons have been made of clubs (reviewed by Skinner 1974) and music (panpipes, bow, trumpet, nose flute, mouth harp; e.g., M. Ling 1961).  See also the world “song map” of Lomax and Erickson (1968).  Some shared traits have ancient roots, while others, such as ikat dyeing, may not have been present in America for more than about a thousand years (VanStan 1957; Jett 1999a).
 
 
7.  China

Chinese and American artistic traits have been compared in detail (Proskouriakoff 1971; Shao 1983, 1998; and von Nachtigall 1960, who saw some Chinese art motifs as being the result of Mesopotamian contact at about 800 B.C.).  Other shared traits involve technology and customs pertaining to jade and metals (Balser 1968; Towle 1973), ceramic house models (Lehman 1964; von Winning 1971; Gartelmann 1986), geomancy (Heyden 1981), specific breeds and uses of dogs and chickens (Fiennes and Fiennes 1968; Carter 1971; Johannessen, Fogg, and Fogg 1984), mirrors (Probst 1963; Jett 1983), and panpipes (Pan L. C. 1963; Marschall 1966; Teikener 1977).  These traits are concentrated on the west coasts of Mesoamerica, Ecuador, and Peru, but seem to have arrived over an extended period.  Needham et al. said that significant Chinese influence began about 700 B.C. and continued to A.D. 1600.

Mirrors were known in China by 2600 B.C., and comparable devices appeared at Huaca Prieta, Peru, about 2500 B.C., then at La Venta, Mexico (Probst 1963).  Mexican mirrors of similar antiquity are now known from Olmec San Lorenzo and from Oaxaca.  However, these may reflect indirect Mesopotamian rather than Chinese voyages.  Distinctive forms of Chinese “ancestor stones,” carried to Indonesia and Japan as well, apparently did not appear in Mesoamerica until about 1000 B.C. (Lou 1971) and ceramic house models are later, first appearing in Ecuador about 200 B.C. (von Winning 1969).  Sporadic contacts over many centuries seem indicated.
Metallurgical techniques such as granulation and lost-wax casting, thought by some to have been introduced from South China of the Zhou period (e.g., Heine-Geldern 1972), were also relatively late in America.  They fell into disuse in the Old World until rediscovery in the twentieth century (Bray 1978).  Perhaps the most concise and reliable account of dates for advanced American metallurgy is that of Needham and Lu (1985:57, 58).  Although gold was worked from about 600 B.C. in Peru, and copper was smelted by A.D.  200, “the metallurgical arts came up from Ecuador about A.D. 400 and spread all over Mesoamerica.”  Tin bronze, together with arsenical copper, appeared by about A.D. 700 in Bolivia and A.D. 1200 in Peru.  However, it is the opinion of the present author that some of these developments stem from trans-Atlantic and not Chinese stimuli.
 
 
8.  India

In numerous publications, Barthel (e.g., 1974, 1981, 1982), proposed an Indian and Indonesian base for religious and calendric concepts, as did Heine-Geldern and Ekholm (1951) and Giesing (1984).  The most convincing demonstrations are probably those involving calendars and deities from the Indian system of lunar mansions (Kelley 1960, 1974, 1975; Stewart 1974).  The Mesoamerican calendar is likely to have come from Northwest India about 400-100 B.C.  A similar system is still in use in Java and Bali (Barthel 1973).  Similar influences seem to have reached Ecuador, perhaps as early as 500 B.C. (Gartelmann 1986).

Mesoamerican art, architecture, and religious practices have remarkable parallels in India.  Among these are mudras (Martí 1971; Medvedov 1982), ritual use of shell trumpets (Jackson 1916; Vokes 1963), medical uses of the Asiatic black-boned chicken (Johannessen, Fogg, and Fogg 1984), and details of the hook-swinging rite (Hewitt 1894; MacLeod 1934).  Turbans like those of specific regions of India were used in Mexico by 2000 years ago (Smith 1924), and the distribution of turban types elsewhere in America—for example in the southeastern United States—might give clues to later population movements.

Traits of apparent Indian or East Asian origin also appear in South America. These include Peruvian methods of hafting axes (Bierne 1971); textile technology (Silow 1949), including Peruvian tie-Dying (Kerr 1921; Jett 1999a); presence of, and customs regarding, various Asian chickens (Carter 1971); and traditions regarding the nose flute that are similar in India, Bali, Sulawesi, Tahiti, and Mato Grosso (Werner 1973).
There is evidence as well for backflow of Mayan influence to Indochina, India, and westward to Europe between the fifth and eighth centuries A.D., especially in the form of early presence of maize in Indonesia, Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan, and parts of India (Stonor and Anderson 1949; Koppers 1953; Gupta and Jain 1973; Vishnu-Mittre 1974; Johannessen 1989, 1998; Johannessen and Parker 1989; Sachan and Sarkar 1986).  The early Asian maizes appear to be “primitive” varieties and not the “Caribbean” type later carried to South Asia by the Portuguese.
 
 
9.  Europe

Early North American traits seem most like those of Scandinavia, the Baltic, and Ireland (Huscher 1974; Müller 1982).  Pottery has received considerable study (von Richtofen 1932; Fewkes 1937; Gjessing 1944, 1953; Kehoe 1962, 1964, 1971).  Kehoe saw Woodland pottery as associated with that of northern Eurasia, especially the Scandinavian Ertebølle pottery, while the Mississippian tradition seemed associated with the more advanced agricultural economies of southern Europe, the Near East, India and China.  Other items frequently compared are bannerstones (Holmes 1912; MacLeod 1928), art motifs (Lowie 1934; Greenman 1963; Gjessing 1944), steam baths (Lopatin 1960), stone tools (Fitzhugh 1975; Gjessing 1944; Holmes 1912), astronomy (Gibbon 1972), language (Sauvageot 1930), and whaling technology that occurs only among Lapps and Eskimos (Heizer 1941; Forbes 1988).

Atlantic voyaging may have brought some traits that have been interpreted as Egyptian or Mesopotamian because of their persistence in parts of Europe and Africa.  This might include some that Ibarra Grasso (1982) thought to have arrived between 1800 and 1500 B.C. from Mesopotamia, Elam, and India.  Such traits could have been carried across either ocean, because adventurers from connected cultures are likely to have been exploring both oceans during this period.

Claims regarding origins of the North American Archaic and Woodland cultures were reexamined by Dailey (1972), who concluded that certain details of burial customs, flint mining, copper use, and so forth, reflect influences of prehistoric traders and prospectors from Jutland, Brittany, and Britain of about 1500 B.C.  The “Old Copper Complex” may derive in part from European contacts of this period, and an interesting development is confirmation of earlier findings that many objects from the Old Copper period show signs of casting (Neiburger 1987, 1991).  These long-neglected ideas are being reexamined in light of new discoveries such as indications that unfluted spear points otherwise much like Clovis points may have precedence in Western Europe (Robson Bonnichsen, as reported by Mirsky 1999) and the existence of DNA data linking Europe to ancient America.
In discussing mitochndrial DNA results, Torroni et al. (1993) noted the long-known Caucasian admixture in the Algonquian Ojibwa (Chippewa), which ranges from 3% to 30% in various communities.  Torroni’s group termed the mtDNA haplotypes reflecting this admixture AM 29, 74, 75, and 76.  This exotic cluster was presumed to be of French or British origin, but this proved not to be the case.  Now known as “marker X,” this set of variations has been found in Italy, Finland, Israel, and possibly in Turkey, Bulgaria, and Spain, but so far not in eastern Asia.  It is considered sound evidence of a very early European presence in America (Morrell 1998).  Marker X has since been reported in Anasazi and Fremont mummies of the Southwest (O'Rourke, Carlyle, and Parr 1996; Parr, Carlyle, and O’Rourke 1996) and in an Illinois skeleton from the fourteenth century (Stone and Stoneking 1993).  More information on mtDNA is given in the appendix.
 
 
10.   Genetic Distances among Andeans

The five Andean samples with HLA data are somewhat diverse.  Araucanians are farthest from the others (average FST, 0.094).  Some investigators have noted traits reminiscent of the European Paleolithic among populations of southernmost South America (see remarks of Juan Schobinger in Greenman [1963:82]).  The Araucanians also possess Oceanian cultural traits, according to several investigators.  The Mapuche are a subgroup of Araucanians who seem genetically intermediate between the Araucano of Chile and Andeans farther north.  CS’s Mapuche sample is closer to the Araucanian sample than to others (FST, 0.045).

CS’s Aymara and Atacama samples are statistically indistinguishable from one another (FST, 0.019), despite the different language families of the peoples (Andean and Paez).  They are both genetically very unlike the Araucanians (average FST 0.118).  The Quechua composite used by CS included data from Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru, and these populations vary considerably.   This puzzled Mourant (1976:121), who apparently did not realize that the Inca had imposed the Quechua language on diverse populations.  The use of mixed Quechua data makes them seem central to the others (FST 0.044 ± 0.004 without Araucano).  The Araucano-Quechua distance is 0.094.  There was a general migration southward during the Inca expansion, which the Araucanians were able to resist.  Two other groups from the Titicaca region, the Chipaya (Uru) and the Calchaqui (Diaguita) lack HLA data but are known to have other “non-Indian” genes.
As described in the text, some Andeans are claimed to have preserved ancient Near Eastern culture traits that have been compared specifically to ones in Mesopotamia and Anatolia.  Linguistic influences are included; Key (1994 and previous publications) found what she considered to be Anatolian elements in Quechua, Aymara, and Uru-Chipaya (and others), as well as Proto-Indo-European elements in certain Panoan, Tupian, Ge, and, especially, nuclear Paezan languages.
    
 
11.   Genetic Systems Other Than HLA

Transferrins.  Transferrins are proteins that react with iron and transfer it to bone marrow.  There are at least 29 varieties that can be separated by electrophoresis, but most are rare.  More than 97% of the world population, including indigenous Americans, is characterized by type C (TFC).  There also are B variants, which migrate more rapidly than TFC during electrophoresis, plus D types, which are slower.  TFB is the main variant in Europe (but seldom to levels of exceeding 1%) and has also been found in Africa, India, Polynesia, and at least 23 samples of American indigenes.  Transferrin D occurs mainly in Southeast Asia, Oceania, and among some populations of sub-Saharan Africa.

Each type has sub-varieties that are usually not given in tabulations such as CS’s, but some information appears in the collections of Mourant and associates.  One type of TFD is called Chinese (TFChi), because it was discovered in China.  It occurs mainly in Southeast Asia, in the Pacific islands, and among certain American Indians, especially Chibchan Paez-speakers and Caribs, but apparently not Mayans.  Thirteen samples of Mayans and contiguous peoples were found to have the other major D variant, TFD1.   D1 reaches frequencies of up to 32% in Australia, New Guinea, and Melanesia, but approaches 5% in certain populations of India, China, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, other parts of Southeast Asia, and Subsaharan Africa.   The distribution of TFD1 provides part of the evidence for substantial backflow of Asians into sub-Saharan Africa.

Information on the subtypes of TFB is also limited.  Some American Indians have type B0-1, which seems to have a circumpolar distribution.  Americans with TFB0-1 listed in Mourant are: Zuni (9-10%), Navajo (3%), and Nahua (1%).  Others have B1, found occasionally at low levels in Europe, Africa, and Japan.  In America, B has been detected in the Araucano, Caingáng, Pima, and Mataco samples.  Variant TFB2 occurs in India, Oceania, and parts of Europe but apparently has been noted in only one American sample—a composite of Aymaran- and Quechuan-speakers.

Most American indigenes carry only the common transferrin C.  Of those for which we have HLA data, the Atacama, Guaraní, Macushí, Makiritaré, Trio, and Ticuna are in this category.  Other transferrins usually occur only at frequencies near 1%.  Notable exceptions are clustered in northeastern South America.  Certain Caribs of the Lower Amazon (Galibí, Roucouyenne, Wajana) have 15-22% of TFD, and the neighboring Tupians—the Emerillon and Oyampí—have 22% and 5%, respectively.  The Emerillon and Oyampí also have 3-5% of an unspecified TFB, as do some Caribs.

The highest frequency of TFD1 seems to be the 7% found in a Quechuan sample of Ecuador.   It seems reasonable to postulate a Southeast Asian, Oceanic, or Indian component in the Quechua on the basis of D1, DChi, and B2; in the Aymara (B2), Caingáng (D1), Warao (DChi), and eastern Maya (D, probably D1) samples.  An African component may be postulated among the Pima, Mataco, Caingáng, and Araucano on the basis of B1, and among the Papago, who have an unspecified TFB.  These observations are not proof of diverse origins for indigenous Americans but are part of the cumulative evidence.

GM Immunoglobins.   GM immunoglobins are serum proteins that possess nearly as much potential information about population movements as do the HL antigens, but coverage is scanty at present.  GM has four genes located on chromosome 14, but only G1 and G3 are commonly typed.  When tabulated in population studies, the combined G1 and G3 designations are separated by a semicolon—e.g., f;b0b1b3b4b5b—but CS abbreviated these further, in this case as f;b.  Few of the possible combinations have been recorded so far.  Nine appear in the CS tables, but American data are so few and scattered that only three or four are useful here.           

Za;bc35 is characteristic of West Africa and was found in only three of 17 American samples that CS listed: the Ge-speaking Kraho (1%), the Papago (0.4%), and a composite sample of Panoans (0.2%). This gives some support to the idea of an African element in these populations, especially in the Ge tribes of Brazil.

Distributions of fa;b and f;b indicate separate histories for the western and eastern Eskimos.  Greenland Eskimos have 13% of f;b, termed Caucasoid by CS (131), and the eastern Canadian Eskimos have 4%; but the northwestern Canadian Eskimos have none.   Conversely, the eastern Canadian Eskimos lack the Southeast Asian fa;b, while the Inupik and northwest Canadian Eskimos have levels of 10.5% and 8.6%, respectively.  Greenland Eskimos have 0.3%.

The “Caucasian” f;b is well represented in South America (Carib, Arawak, Aymara, Kraho, Makiritaré, Maue, Ticuna, Zamuco) but is nearly absent from North American Amerinds and Na-Dene.  This suggests that f;b was common in the earliest New World colonists, who may have reached South America before the Ice Age, but it was apparently not characteristic of later arrivals in North America except eastern Eskimos.  Traces of f;b were reported in the Papago and Guaymí (Panama) samples, but it was absent from those of Athapaskans (including the Apache and the Navajo), the Chippewa, the Zuni, and the Zapotec, as well as from the Central Amerind and Penutian composites.  In South America, none was found in the Baniwa (Arawakan) or Cayapó (Ge) samples or in composite samples of Panoans or equatorial populations; it seems to be concentrated in the extreme south.

South Asian fa;b is much more common, being found in 26 of 37 American samples.  It was absent in North America only from eastern Canadian Eskimos and the Dogrib, Ojibwa, and Guaymí samples.  In South America, it was absent from the Cayapó, Emerillon, Makiritaré, Maue, and Zamuco.  As mentioned above, Schanfield (1992) has proposed a classification scheme for the various founding populations based on the GM and KM immunoglobins.

Of samples in CS with HLA data, the Aymara and Central Amerind composite are the only samples in CS’s book having type Za;b.  This may reflect Indonesian or African influence, or it may be an artifact of sampling because there are so few American data.

The d-Negative Haplotypes of the Rhesus System.  Recent admixture with Europeans or Africans is no longer considered the only explanation for the presence of d-negative alleles in American indigenes.  Rhesus-system data are extensive and are available for many populations for whom we lack HLA data.  •Cde (r'):  Cde (r') is rare but occurs at frequencies above 10% in Basques as well as in some populations of India, Indonesia, Australia, the Middle East, and Mexico.  High American frequencies are concentrated in Central American samples, especially in the Chamula, Tarascan, and Mayan ones (10-20%).  Ramah Navajos have 17%, and various other Athapaskan groups display 4-7%.  The Micmac have 5%.  In South America, the Arawakan Palicour have the highest level, 8%.  The only others with Cde seem to be Aymara- and Quechua-speakers, the Trio, and the Nahua, with 1-4%.  I attribute the South and Central American occurrences at least partly to Indonesian or Indian influences.  •CdE (ry):  Outside of America, CdE (ry) has been reported at frequencies above 1% only among Dravidian-speakers of India (1.8%) and in one sample from Italy.  Traces have been found among Basques and in a few samples from Jordan, West Africa, South Africa, and China.  Occurrences in America seem limited to Mexico except for an enigmatic 3% in a sample from the Micmac of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.  Various Mayan samples have frequencies of 0.5-4%, but the highest level listed in Mourant was for the Otomí (Oto-Manguean) of Mexico, at 9.2%. A Tarascan sample exhibited 5.6%.  •cdE (r"): Haplotype cdE (r") has its highest frequencies among the Ainu (19%) and in Indonesia, India, and Burma.  Most American occurrences are in samples of Athapaskans, other Na-Dene-speakers, and Amerinds of western Canada.  The Zuni have 1-2%, which may be from Japanese admixture suspected on the basis of other genetic and linguistic evidence (Davis 2000).  Presence in Central America seems limited to one Mayan group of Guatemala, with 6%.  So far, South American occurrences are limited to South Andean populations, except for the Trio of Surinam.  The highest level was found among the Ranquel of Patagonia (10%).  Other South Andeans (Quechua, Araucano, Andean composite) have 1-5%.  A transatlantic input from Indonesia via South Africa seems to be a possibility.  •cde (r): Haplotype cde (r) is notable in samples from northern Na-Dene and contiguous Amerind groups, averaging about 8%.  Southern Na-Dene (Navajo) display only 2.7%.  Besides having the unusual Cde and CdE, the Micmac sample has 19% of cde.  It is not found in the Pima, Papago, or Cherokee samples, but appears in 38% of the Central American samples, including all three for which there are HLA data (Nahua, eastern Maya, Central Amerind composite).  It is present in 24 of 107 South American samples listed by Mourant or CS, including 19 for which there are HLA data, being concentrated in South Andean and Chibchan populations.  Highest by far were the Araucano, with 18%, but the Carib-speaking Trio were second, with 8%.  The distribution pattern seems to me more consistent with ancient origins than with historic ones.

V Antigen of the Rhesus System.  The V antigen is rare, and when associated with cDe (R0), it is considered an indication of African ancestry.  The CS volume presented a map of its distribution in Africa but did not tabulate any data.  However, Mourant listed 11 American groups with cDeV plus several others with V but not clearly cDeV.  Most of these were in Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, and Belize.  The highest frequency was 8%, in a Hokan (Jicaque) sample.  Others with V are Mayans, Chibchans (Miskito, Paya, Lenca), Arawakans of the north coast (Goajiro and Paraujano), and Hokan Subtiaba.  These form a tight geographic cluster that demonstrates an African influence in the Caribbean, not necessarily ancient.  Outside of this cluster are Quechua-speakers of Peru and two samples from Cajamarca, Peru. Aymara-speakers are among those with V but not specified as cDeV.

The B Allele of the ABO System.  The B allele is present in more than 240 of the approximately 436 samples of indigenous American groups listed in Mourant’s and CS’s ABO tables.  These numbers are hard to total accurately because of overlap, but it is clear that B is much more common than is generally imagined and that some was present before historic contact.  Its presence in Eskimos (up to 12%) is well known.   The idea that “pure” Amerindians lacked it is erroneous, probably arising from the common belief that all Indians derived from a single founding population and absence of B in half of the samples.  By my count, there are, combined, more than 58 samples in Mourant and in CS that display over 2% B.

Six samples of northwestern Indians had 2.4-4.2% (highest among the Na-Dene Hupa and Slave), but the Navajo had only 0.1%.  Eight samples of eastern Amerindians had 2.2-8.1%.  A Tuscarora sample, claimed to be unmixed, had 3%. Some B undoubtedly comes from fairly recent admixture.  The Zuni’s 5.5% is thought by some to have been introduced in the thirteenth century from Japan.5

In Central America, two Hokan samples (Jicaque and Subtiaba) had 8.8% and 3.5%, respectively.  The Otomí (Oto-Manguean) had 7.2%, and several other populations had more than 2%.  Paez-speaking Chibchan groups typically possess the B  allele.  A composite sample had 6.6%, and ten others had more than 2%.  The Paraujano (Arawakan) on the Venezuelan coast had 2.5%.  Six Mayan groups had 2.2% to 3.4%.  Highest values (7.3% and 13.4%) were from two populations of Black Caribs with probable recent African ancestry.  The antiquity of Africans in the Caribbean is controversial, as I have been mentioned.

In South America, B is concentrated among South Andeans and it is ancient, having been found in Peruvian mummies.  A South Andean composite of Yahgan, Pehuenche, and Ranquel had 7.2%.  Other examples are Quechua (2.8-3.7%), Mapuche (2.2-3.6). Araucano (3.1%), Atacama (2.5%), and Aymara (2.4%).  The B allele reached 9.5% and 6.8% in two Caingáng samples of the lower Plata; B apparently has not been reported from other Ge-speaking groups farther northward.  I suggest that the Caingáng are an old South Andean population that has assimilated an African or Indonesian component within the last thousand years. 

Jsa Allele of the Kell System.  The African allele Jsa was found at high frequencies in samples from the Oyampí and neighboring Wajana of the lower Amazon (25.8% and 24.6%, respectively). It appeared at lower levels (0.4-1.6%) in five tribes of a Caribbean cluster: Jicaque, three Arawakan groups (Paraujano, Goajiro, composite sample), and among Caribs of Dominica.  It was also found in samples of Quechua- (1.3%) and Aymara-speakers (0.9%) but was absent from 14 other South American tribes.  Jsa is characteristic of sub-Saharan Africans but also occurs in Asian Negritos and in Arabs.

K Allele of the Kell System.  The K allele, a Eurasiatic gene, manifests its highest levels in northern India (14-21%), in Arabia, and in parts of Africa, but scattered high values have also been reported in Scandinavia, Sardinia, and other places.  K occurs in about a third of American samples, usually at below 1%.  The only American populations displaying more than 3% are the Chippewa (6%), the Ingano of Colombia (6%), and several Ge tribes of Eastern Brazil (6-12%).  Several groups of northwestern North America have 1-3%, as do several in Central America; these are mainly speakers of Hokan, Uto-Aztecan, and Oto-Manguean languages.  The highest American levels have been documented in eastern Brazil.  Directly across the Atlantic in Gambia occurs the highest frequency that has been reported in West Africa (10%). 
Glucose-6-Phosphodehydrogense Deficiency (G6PD).  Many populations of India, Africa, the Near East, Southeast Asia, and Pacific Oceania have the Glucose-6-Phosphodehydrogense deficiency mutation, which confers immunity to malaria (see Tishkoff et al. 2001).  It is rare in Australia and America, being listed by CS for only four of 33 American samples: Trio (1.6%), Wajana (1.5%), Quechua (0.5%), and Aymara (0.1%).  This is another piece of evidence linking the lower Amazon with the Quechuans and Aymarans, and indicates to me that foreign traits were carried up the rivers, where they took root in Andean societies.
 
 
12.  Mitochondrial DNA

In 1985, Douglas Wallace and colleagues at Emory University began to publish on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of indigenous Americans, developing data for about twenty groups.  Two important questions are, 1) how many founding populations are represented, and 2) how long did it take American mtDNA varieties to evolve from their Asian progenitors. Antonio Torroni and Theodore Schur were among the authors of most of the papers from Wallace's group, and a nearly complete list appears in Torroni et al. (1994; see, also, Toroni et al. 1992, 1993).

Mitochondrial DNA mutates much more rapidly than does nuclear DNA (2.2-2.9% per million years), so that accumulated mutations not found in Asia allow estimation of separation times of Americans from Asians.  The Emory group determined that almost all American mtDNAs in their sample could be assigned to four founding clusters, which they labeled haplotypes A, B, C, and D.  Populations typically include more than one type.  A fifth type, now called “haplotype X” or “marker X” and first found in Ojibwa populations, was initially attributed to recent admixture; but this has been disproven.32  There has been much discussion as to how many “migrations” are reflected, and there is no consensus.   Eleven sub-lineages were known by 1990 (Morrell 1990), and a more recent study has identified 125 (Bonatto and Salzano 1997).  One problem is that only females transmit mtDNA, so low-level varieties disappear from small populations, much as some family names disappear in societies that take surnames only from males.  It is likely that people from a number of “migrations” became mitochondrially, if not literally, extinct.  Also, a group of foreign intruders, however large, would leave no mitochondrial trace if they were all men.

Founding types A, C, and D had progenitors, descendants of whom are now present in northeastern Asia.   Types C and D are concentrated in South America, and type A in Na-Dene and some other North American populations.  Separation times calculated as of 1994 made C seem the oldest, with an estimated arrival in America 33,000 to 44,000 years ago.  In other words, women present that long ago in America have living descendants.  Calculations by Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1988), based on non-DNA genetic-mutation rates, also indicated successful colonizations 30,000 to 40,000 years ago.  This time depth is supported by linguistic considerations (e.g., Gruhn, 1988; Nichols 1992) and by radiocarbon dates.  Mitochondrial-DNA separation dates calculated for types A and D were 26,000-34,000 years, and 18,000-24,000 years.  Various scenarios have been offered to explain the dates and distributions (here greatly simplified), but there is no consensus yet.  The view that there were many influxes of similar peoples is gaining favor, but some maintain that a single migration introduced all types.

Cluster B, found mainly near the west coasts, has antecedents in coastal southern Asia but apparently not in Northeast Asia.  Its separation time is only 12,000 to 15,000 years—about the same as the date postulated by Dixon (1994) for intensified voyaging by circumpacific peoples.  The physically distinct Paijanense people of Peru appeared at about that time.  Toroni et al. (1992) suggested that the cluster-B haplotypes, characteristic of Malaysians and related peoples of Southeast Asia, were carried in a separate migration by the same kinds of people who populated Polynesia.  The absence of cluster B in Beringia was published on in the same year by Shields et al. (1992), who found its highest frequencies among Samoans, Maoris, Niueans, Cook Islanders, and Fijians.
Athapaskan-speakers and contiguous groups are genetically and linguistically distinct from many other indigenous Americans.   They are thought to have arrived from Eurasia about 8000-10,000 B.C. to occupy northwestern North America.  Those that Cavalli-Sforza et al. called “Northern Na-Dene” seem to possess only type-A mtDNAs, but the Navajo and Apache, called “Southern Na-Dene,” have B types as well, having mixed with contiguous populations.  CS said that the latter occupy a genetically ambiguous position and tend to join Amerinds in statistical bootstrap tests, whereas the northern Na-Dene tend to join Eskimos.  There seems to be no genetic difference between Alaskan Athapaskans and the Inupiak Eskimo (Shields et al. 1992).  Unpublished work seems to show a close relationship between Athapaskan and Gaelic languages that parallels the genetic findings to some degree.
 
 
13.  Chronological Outline

The idea that America was populated by only a single migration about 12,000 years ago and that it was not again discovered by Old World denizens until the tenth century A.D., is not reasonable.  A more realistic model would involve periodic arrivals of small groups over a period of at least 30,000 years, whenever conditions were favorable.  There may be no way to draw the line between “initial” and “intrusive” groups except by convention.  The following is a trial chronological list of some events that now seem to me likely to have happened; much revision of this scenario will no doubt be required as more information becomes available in the future. 

Earliest Arrivals.  Asians entered America periodically between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C., as conditions allowed.  Details are controversial and are steadily being revised.  It seems likely that early “Beringians” lived on marine life, moving repeatedly along coasts that are now submerged, and that prolonged periods of activity must have been interrupted by millennia of impossible conditions.  The number of founding “migrations” depends on the definition of the term “founding” and on success in distinguishing various populations from one another.  Estimates of the number of major “founding” lineages vary considerably because they depend on interpretations of genetic, linguistic, and other information that is far from complete.  Important early movements best supported by genetic results are:

•Across or along the coast of Beringia, in at least two major episodes, between 40,000 and 30,000 B.C.  Descendants live mainly in South America.

•Across, or along the coast of, Beringia, about 22,000-16,000 B.C.  Descendants are concentrated in North America.

•Migrations of people resembling some modern Oceanic populations, from the Asian Pacific rim to the west coasts of the Americas, about 12,000-10,000 B.C. 

Other early movements that seem likely are:

•Migration of people resembling modern Eurasians to Alaska and the west coasts, 10,000-8000 B.C.

•Northwest Europeans to northeastern North America, 10,000-6000 B.C. (not yet generally regarded as a founding population).  Some may have reached South America as well, especially Patagonia.
•Africans to Brazil, 8000-6000 B.C., but not well attested.

7500-3500 B.C.  Most literature on early voyages to America is about evidence for later incursions.  These seem to form clusters, probably reflecting episodes of favorable climate and economic cycles that periodically generated societies with a combination of maritime prowess and commercial aggressiveness or the need to expand into new lands.  The Americas seem to have been “discovered” repeatedly and exploited to whatever degree was possible at the time.  Clusters of activity listed below reflect the findings that seem best supported or most frequently advocated:

•Expansion from China through the Philippines to Indonesia and certain Pacific Islands, conveying Austronesian languages, reaching Peru and Ecuador by 3500 B.C. and eastern Africa at an unknown B.C. time.

•Expansion from Japan beginning about 6000 B.C., southward to certain Pacific Islands and eastward to Ecuador by 3500 B.C.

•Oceanic trade network in place by 4000 B.C., connecting Borneo, Southeast Asia, and islands of the western Pacific; in a position to reach South America.

2500-2000 B.C.:

•Trade routes developed to link Mesopotamia, Baluchistan, Afghanistan, the Indus Valley, the Arabian coast, central Asia, Indonesia, and parts of Southeast Asia.  These overlapped with the Oceanic routes, allowing traits from India and the Near East to be transmitted in modified form to Southeast Asia and America.

•Trans-Atlantic voyages by “Pan-Atlantic” populations, both from Scandinavia to North America and from Iberia and Africa to the Caribbean region and eastern South America, extending up rivers as far as Ecuador and Peru.

•Increased navigation of the Caribbean, extending to the Gulf Coast and Mississippi River.

1600-1200 B.C.:

•Accelerated voyaging from India and Southwest Asia to Indonesia, Peru, and Mexico.

•Chinese voyages to western America.

•Trans-Atlantic voyages from North Africa and the Aegean region, with significant impact on the Andean societies and in northeastern North America.

800-500 B.C.:

•Indian influences on Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Colombia, Peru, and Mexico.

•Japanese and Chinese voyages to Mesoamerica and Northwest South America.

•Siberians and Chinese along coasts from Alaska to California and Mexico.

•Indonesians and Africans from East Africa around Africa to South America.

•Further voyages to American east coasts and rivers by various groups (Phoenician, Greek, Cycladic, Berber) based in North Africa.

200 B.C.-A.D. 100 A.D.:

•Renewed trans-Atlantic excursions of multicultural populations from Iberia and North Africa, introducing apparent Greek, Berber, Celtic, Punic, Sephardic Jewish, and Roman elements.   Activity may have resulted in part from the Punic wars.

400-1000 A.D.:

•Increased connections between Ecuador and Mesoamerica.

•Peak of interactions of Mexico with Indianized Indochina  as well as with India.

•Backflow from the Caribbean to West Africa, about A.D.  500.

•Tupi expansion up the Amazon and Paraná river systems, circa A.D. 500.

•Arabian expeditions to America via both Oceans, about A.D. 900.

•Norse voyages to North America by A.D. 1000.

•More trans-Atlantic expeditions bringing Mediterranean and Aegean influences.

 
14.  Supplemental Tables
 
Table 11.  Atypical American HLAs,  by Category.a
 
 
Population Afro-Asiatic South Asian European Total
Nahua 7.2 11.4 5.4 24.0
Cherokee 7.5 6.4 3.5 17.4
Mapuche 13.3 0.7 3.0 17.0
Atacama 12.4 1.7 1.7 15.8
NW Canadian Eskimo 1.5 6.8 6.6 14.9
Araucano 0.9 6.2 6.4 13.4
Papago 8.4 1.5 2.5 12.4
E Maya 4.2 6.2 1.1 11.5
Quechua 3.6 3.7 4.1 11.5
C Amerind 10.9     10.9
Pima 6.6 2.1 1.1 9.8
Caingáng 4.8 4.3 0.3 9.4
E Canadian Eskimo 0.2 1.7 5.7 7.6
Navajo 6.7 0.5   7.3
Greenland Eskimo 1.4 0.9 2.1 4.4
Oyampí   4.0   4.0
Aymara 0.5 1.6 1.6 3.7
Zuni 0.7 1.4 0.3 2.4
Warao 2.0 0.2   2.2
Guaraní 1.0 0.3 0.8 2.1
Inupik 0.05 0.05 1.1 2.1
Ticuna 0.1   1.6 1.7
Yupik 0.05   1.1 1.1
Trio 0.35   0.35 0.7
Parakana 0.5     0.5
Yupa 0.6    
0.6
aNumbers are percentages of HLA total for each population.  Rounding errors are present. 
See text for HLAs in each set.
 
 
Table 12.  HLAs ranked by percent of total reported, grouped by regional designation.
 
Afro-Asiatic   Southern Asian   European  
Mapuche 13.3 Nahua 11.4 NW Can. Eskimo 6.6
Atacama 12.4 NW Can. Esk. 6.8 Araucano 6.4
C Amerind 10.9 Cherokee 6.4 E Canad. Eskimo 5.7
Papago 8.4 Eastern Maya 6.2 Nahua 5.4
Cherokee 7.5 Araucano 6.2 Quechua 4.1
Nahua 7.2 Caingáng 4.3 Cherokee 3.5
Navajo 6.7 Quechua 3.7 Mapuche 3.0
Pima 6.6 Pima 2.1 Papago 2.5
Caingáng 4.8 E Can. Eskimo 1.7 Grlnd. Eskimo 2.1
Eastern Maya 4.2 Atacama 1.7 Atacama 1.7
Oyampí 4.0 Aymara 1.6 Aymara 1.6
Quechua 3.6 Papago 1.5 Ticuna 1.6
Warao 2.0 Zuni 1.4 Yupik 1.1
NW Canad. Eskimo 1.5 Greenland Eskimo 0.9 Inupik 1.1
Greenland Eskimo 1.4 Mapuche 0.7 Pima 1.1
Guaraní 1.0 Navajo 0.5 Eastern Maya 1.1
Araucano 0.9 Trio 0.35 Guaraní 0.8
Zuni 0.7 Guaraní 0.3 Trio 0.35
Aymara 0.5 Warao 0.2 Caingáng 0.3
Parakana 0.5 Inupik 0.05 Zuni 0.3
Trio 0.35        
E Can. Eskimo 0.2        
Ticuna 0.1        
Yupa 0.06        
Yupik 0.05        
Inupik
0.05
 
 
 
 
 
 
Addendum  

Publications on mtDNA have proliferated since this paper was submitted to Pre-Columbiana.  The May-June 2000 issue of American Scientist carried an excellent synopsis by Theodore G. Schurr of new findings about American mtDNA, citing 11 recent references.  Samples of indigenous American populations have an average of about 10% of mtDNA groups other than A-D.  In addition to Ojibwa (Chippewa), North American groups with haplotype X now include Nuu-Chah-Nulth (Nootka), Yakima, Cheyenne/Arapahoe, Pomo, Sioux Blackfoot, Micmac, Jemez, and Kiowa (Smith et al 1999).  Eurasian types H, I, J, K, M, and T as well as the African L, also have been identified in American samples.  Types H and T occur among the Chippewa, H and J among the Cherokee, and L among the Narragansett, Seminole, Mixtec, and Zapotec.  New variants of the Asian C and D have been noted in northeastern Amazonia as well.  The Mapuche and certain other South American groups apparently carry additional types now under study.

Also valuable is Anne Stone’s chapter “Reconstructing Human Societies with Ancient Molecules” in a new book entitled Who Were the First Americans? (1999), published by the Center for the Study of the First Americans at Oregon State University and edited by Robson Bonnichsen.  It provides an outline of basic concepts and methods, plus 63 references to pertinent papers through 1998.  Of special interest is the finding of haplotype X in two individuals from Florida’s Windover Pond site, which dates to about 7000-8000 years ago, removing all doubt about the haplotype’s antiquity in North America.  Brown et al. (1998) have calculated, on the basis of diversity, that X was present in America at least 12,000 and possibly 23,000-36,000 years ago—although such calculations are uncertain because they involve assumptions about sizes and numbers of founding populations, mutation rates, and other considerations.  Brown et al. supplied 45 current references.

Robson Bonnichsen and Alan Schneider (2000) recently published a concise, up-to-date comment on this subject in The Sciences.  Mitochondrial DNA and other evidence suggest to them that Europeans may have traveled to the Americas thousands of years before the Norse and Columbus.
In another important development, Stephen Oppenheimer has published Eden in the East (1998), arguing on the basis of archaeology, linguistics, genetics, geology, and mythology that flooding of the Sunda Shelf at the end of the Ice Age dispersed Southeast Asians to India, Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, and the Eastern Mediterranean, where they stimulated the first civilizations.  The main implication for the present paper is that certain genes that give the appearance of having been carried from the Near East to the Pacific Rim and the Americas may have originated in a Southeast Asian region now submerged.
 
 
Notes
                 
[1] I wish to thank Alice B. Kehoe, George F. Carter, and David H. Kelley for valuable comments as this study progressed.  Also, I have made extensive use of annotations from Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas Across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography, compiled by John L. Sorenson and Martin H. Raish (1996).

[2] Several scholars have postulated serial migrations to America (Jett 1971, 1983).  Some of the more important postulates may be found in the works of Ibarra Grasso, Grieder, Bárcena, and Canals-Frau.  Grieder (1982) proposed a major migration from Asia both to America and to Australia-Tasmania before 20,000 B.C. and another to America and Polynesia between 5000 and 1500 B.C.  Bárcena's synthesis (1975) featured, in addition to a Bering Sea migration 30,000-40,000 years ago, inputs from Europe before 10,000 B.C., Jômon influence by 3000 B.C., African voyages by way of the Canary Islands around 2000 B.C., voyages from Southeast Asia by 1000 B.C., and later Polynesian arrivals.  Dixon (1993) made a strong case for a significant migration by sea of Pacific Rim populations to the west coasts of the Americas at 10,000-12,000 B.C.

Proposals for later voyaging include those of Mesolithic “canoemen” to the Aleutians and American west coasts before 3000 B.C. (Canals Frau 1950) and inputs from Indonesia to Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Mexico (Ibarra Grasso 1967, 1982; Canals-Frau 1950; Jett 1968), followed by contacts from Polynesia.  Ibarra Grasso, whose scenarios evolved over a period of 50 years, saw two periods of influence from Mesopotamia (Elam) and India; one at 1800-1500 B.C. and another between 1000 and 700 B.C., and he claimed evidence for a variety of Mediterranean, Hindu, and Chinese influences around 500 B.C., an input from Greece to Mesoamerica and the Andes about 200 B.C., and a flow of Mayan culture back to Indochina around A.D. 500.  One of his themes was introduction of Neolithic agriculture to Amazonia from Indonesia.  A chronological list of the main proposals is included in the appendix.

[3] HLAs were first classified into families by serology and later more finely on the basis of the number of nucleotides present.  Types A and B have been the most useful in tracing population movements.  By 1996, 67 A and 149 B subtypes were known (Parham and Ohta 1996).  Much remains to be learned from distributions of subtypes.  For example, at least seven varieties of HLAB*35 are known.  Most published distributional data are limited to families and do not show subtypes.  CS found only 29 A and B families that had been sampled sufficiently for their purpose.

[4] Using stepwise discriminant analysis of genetic data, Spuhler (1979:150, 156, 171) found that the Cherokee were allied with Hokan speakers, especially the Diegueño of California.  His data appear to generate the cluster: Cherokee, Diegueño, Maricopa, Pima, Papago, and Zuni.  He lacked information from the Nahua, who, according to CS’s genetic-distance data (p. 327), are genetically nearly identical to the Cherokee.

[5] For example, two centuries of Manila-galleon commerce undoubtedly brought genetic and cultural traits from Africa, China, Hawaii, and the Philippines to Acapulco and other Pacific ports.  This may explain the presence of certain plants such as the tamarind and coconut, an apparently East Indian process for making palm wine in the Colima region of Mexico, the use of the “Philippine still” by the Huichol (e.g., Bruman 1944, 1945), and ikatted rebozos (Jett 1999a:46).  The Zuni provide another apparent example of undocumented admixture.  Several kinds of information, including genetic, linguistic, and dental, as well as tradition, indicate that they assimilated a Japanese component in the 13th century (Davis 2000).  The Zuni have the same HLA subtype B*3501 as the Japanese (Belich et al. 1992).

[6] Some scholars see South and Central America as endpoints in a process that carried elements of Mesopotamian and Near-Eastern culture throughout the Pacific (Heras 1953; Ibarra Grasso 1954, 1969, 1982; Heine-Geldern 1956; Kirchhoff 1964; Grieder 1982).  Two main routes are postulated: one by way of India and Indonesia and another through China.   Mesopotamian influence in China by 2700 B.C. was noted by Ling Shun-Sheng (1965), who also claimed periods of influence at about 1000 B.C. and 500-200 B.C.   The Indus Valley and Java are seen as key links in the other route.  Ibarra Grasso emphasized the role of Indonesians as carriers of Near Eastern, Egyptian, and Mediterranean traits to America, Japan, and New Zealand, starting before 3000 B.C.  Contemporary genetic and linguistic studies are beginning to demonstrate an important but unrecognized early connection between Japan and India.

Nordenskiöld (1933), Martínez del Río (1936), Milewski (1966), Geyer (1979), Sorenson (1971), Ibarra Grasso (1954, 1969, 1982), and Jett (1983) have compiled lists of possibly transmitted traits.   Recently, Holdaway (1996) dated rat bones in New Zealand that indicate human presence at least 2000 years ago, showing that there is much to be learned about early Pacific voyaging.   By 4000 B.C., long-distance trade apparently connected Borneo with Southeast Asia, Melanesia, and Polynesia (Service 1996, summarizing findings of Stephen Chia and Robert Tykot on obsidian distributions).  By the third millennium B.C., tropical Asian parasites, Jômon-like pottery, monumental architecture, and various Oceanic traits had appeared in western South America.  It does not seem to me unreasonable to attribute some of these developments to intensified ocean voyaging or to think that certain elements of Near Eastern culture were dispersed in this way.

[7] Reports of “Negroes” along the coasts of Panama, Colombia, and Campeche are attributed to Vasco de Balboa (1513), Lopez de Gomara, Alonzo Ponce, Fray Gregoria Garcia, and others.  Count (1939), Comas (1956), Vivante (1967), and Van Sertima (1995:66-68, 99-102) give references.  According to nineteenth-century scholar J. L. Armand de Quatrefages de Breau, quoted by Hrdlicka (1935), Padre Francisco Garcés saw “dark” people at Zuni in 1775, said by a native informant to have been the original inhabitants.  De Quatrefages also reported that Charruans on the north bank of the Plata River were black (Van Sertima 1995).  These reports are consistent with other evidence of African or Melanesian presence discussed in the literature of apparent early contacts.

[8] Apparent Polynesian traits occur in two west coast clusters: northern California to British Columbia, and on and near the Chilean coast. Such traits are often compared to those of the Marquesas and Cook Islands or New Zealand.  They include rank and kinship customs, canoes, tools, fishhooks, art, mythology, weapons, quipus, and details of music and musical instruments, as well as the languages and physical attributes of the people.  Howard (1967) reviewed some of this material.  Certain comparisons—e.g., of the venesection bow or the ceremonial baton of the Mapuche—are especially striking (Schobinger 1956).  There are numerous comparisons of axes, and Imbelloni (1928a) pointed out the near identities of Araucanian and Oceanic axes in both shape and name (toki; see also, Dixon 1933; cf. Heyerdahl 1953).

[9] The Central Amerind composite comprised the Uto-Aztecan-speaking Hopi, Ute, Chemihuevi, Cora, Cora-Huichol, Huichol, and Yaqui; the Yuman-speaking Mojave; the Oto-Manguean-speaking Chinanteco, Mazateco, Mixteca, Otomí, and Zapotec; Tanoan-speaking Tewa and Hopi-Tewa; Keresan-speaking Keres; and unspecified “Amerindian” and “Pueblo.”

[10] The Navajo sample had 2.5% of B*21.  Navajos are highly admixed with contiguous Uto-Aztecans and others.  If they are included in the Uto-Aztecan cluster, its contribution to the American B*21 total becomes more than 90%.

[11] Arabs and Ethiopians were sailing the Indian Ocean by the third century A.D. (Munro-Hay 1991), reaching Korea by the ninth century and perhaps America soon after (Ali 1980).  They were also exploring the Atlantic by the ninth century, according to Morales Belda (1970; see also, Jeffries 1971), and what looks like South America is shown on an Arab map of the ninth century (Gallez 1979).  Arab voyages could explain several anomalies that appear on gene-distribution maps near the Gulf of California.  However, a Semitic presence in that region might be much older.  Stubbs (1998) has found a strong Northwest Semitic influence in Uto-Aztecan languages that seems very old, and Key has suggested (1994 and previous publications) that Uto-Aztecan is one of several American language families that have common ancestry with the predecessors of Sumerian and Hittite; i.e., Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Anatolian. Denison (1908) and Swadesh (as noted by Gordon 1991) had made previous observations of Semitic elements in Nahuatl.  The elaborate chain-well infiltration galleries (puquios) of Peru and the Atacama region are like the qanats of the Near East, spread by Arabs and Persians.  Traditionally, they are ascribed to the Spanish, despite native lore to the contrary (Woodbury and Neely 1972), but patina on two gallery lintels at Nazca has been tentatively radiocarbon-dated by Ronald Dorn to about A.D. 600 (Bray 1992).

[12] Several investigators have argued that apparent North African traits in America reflect intrusions of aggressive “Pan-Atlantic” cultures, including “Bell Beaker” people, who explored the Caribbean and the South American rivers between 3000 and 1500 B.C. The evidence includes distinctive pottery, stone points, and textiles, as well as the presence of certain parasites and cultigens.  Some details are presented in the appendix. 

[13] Ruhlen (1994) postulated two major population movements from the Near East to account for the present distributions of the Eurasian and Dene-Caucasian languages.  First, Europe and central Asia were populated by speakers of Dene-Caucasian (Swadesh's [1959] Vasco-Dene), represented by Basque, Caucasian, Burushaski, Sino-Tibetan, Yeniseian, and “Na-Dene.”  The second expansion spread Eurasiatic languages, including Indo-European and Eskaleut (see also Kaiser and Sheveroshkin 1988).  I suggest that A*30 was dispersed from Africa to Southwest Asia, then to Europe and Central Asia by Ruhlen's Dene-Caucasian expansion.  Its importance in Greece may have been maintained by prolonged Greek presence in North Africa.

[14] CS’s Eastern Mayan composite comprised Cakchiquel, Ixil Maya, Kekchi, Mam, Pocomam, Quiche, Quiche Maya, and Tzutujil Maya.  CS tabulated no HLA data from other Mayan populations, so it is not known whether these Eastern Mayans are typical of the Maya as a whole.   Other Mayan groups are well represented in Mourant's genetic tables.

[15] Bingham (1915) thought Inca pottery so much like that of Greece that he used the same terminology to describe it (olla, pithos, diota-shaped, etc.).  Ibarra Grasso (1969) pointed out that the use of metal cramps in masonry, used in Anatolia by 1000 B.C. and in Greece by 500 B.C., appeared at Tiahuanaco in about the first century A.D., apparently without a developmental stage, and cited other parallels such as jointed figurines and game paraphernalia.  Jett (1983), following Rowe (1966), provided a long list of traits common to the Classical world and the Andes but rare elsewhere, naming such things as details of stonework, the steelyard balance, and the peplos dress.  The appendix includes additional comments on apparent Aegean influence.

[16] HLAs A*32 and B*14 have similar distributions and occur together in Japan.  They are currently most common in North Africa, Iberia, Iraq, northern India, Ireland, and Greece.  A sample from Honshu had the third-highest level of A*32 worldwide, although the Japanese average in CS was only 3%.  B*14, found in four Japanese samples at frequencies up to 4%, has a largely Pacific distribution in America.

[17] Preliminary HLA data of Mehra et al. (Anonymous 1997) suggest that a population of north China expanded into both Japan and northern India.  This movement may have continued to America.  CS (p. 251) postulated a “radiation of pastoral nomads, probably mostly Caucasoids,” across Asia plus “a previously unsuspected center of expansion from the Sea of Japan” that “might have been responsible for a migration to [the] Americas” (p. 253).  This migration seems to have reached Colombia, as shown by the data of Zamora et al. (1990) and Miura et al. (1994), who found the same rare variety of HTLV-I virus in Japan and among isolated Paez tribes of Colombia.  Miura et al.’s interpretation is that two lineages (A and B) were carried anciently from India to Japan, but that only lineage A reached America.  Lineage A is now found among the Paez, the Ainu, and the people of the Ryukyu Islands.  I think two movements from Japan may have occurred, one during Middle Jômon times and another about 600 B.C., bringing Near-Eastern traits.

[18] Tupians are genetically distant from most other South Americans.  The distribution of Tupian languages looks intrusive from the east, going up the Amazon and its tributaries and south along the Brazilian coast, encroaching on the territory of the Ge tribes (e.g., map in Coe, Snow, and Benson 1986:156).  Tupian expansion from the coast apparently began about A.D. 500 (Bruhns 1994:266).   One peculiarity of Tupians is that, unlike most indigenous Americans, they lack B*16.

[19] Some workers have postulated a “Hispano-African” complex of prospectors in the late third millennium B.C. as a carrier of Near Eastern traits (Kennedy 1971; Chadwick 1971; Whittall 1975).   The trail, marked by such items as distinctive pottery (patojos, stirrup-spout vessels, orange wares), figurines, and stamp seals, seems to lead from Anatolia through the Balkans, Italy, Iberia, North Africa, and the Canary Islands, to the Caribbean, Mesoamerica, Florida, and up the South American rivers.  This might explain the finding, by Key (1994) and others, of a seeming Proto-Anatolian element in Quechua, Aymara, and Uru-Chipaya.  Copper mining and shaft tombs seem also to be part of the transmitted complex.  The “shaft-tomb complex” was present in Panama, Venezuela, and Peru by 550 B.C. and reached Mexico about 140 B.C. (Smith 1977-78).  Chadwick (1971) proposed two waves of Near-Eastern influence: one about 2000 B.C. and another around 500 B.C.  Alcina Franch (1953, 1958, 1969, 1979), de Borhegyi (1950, 1951, 1954, 1967), Jett (1983, 1992a), and others have listed many traits of apparent Near-Eastern origin.  A distinctive Peruvian construction method used at Las Haldas, Cerro Sechín, and Chavín de Huantar (1600-800 B.C.), in which large upright orthostats are separated by sections of smaller stones or rubble, is known architecturally as opus africanum, because it is common in North Africa, especially in Tunisia.  Outside of America, it is considered to be Phoenician.

[20] Guanches from Morocco reached the Canary Islands by 2500 B.C. (Diego Cuscoy 1968), and these islands have been claimed to have been a base for early voyages to America, on the basis of petroglyphs, stamp seals, club types, trepanation, and other evidence.  Alcina Franch (1979) postulated voyages from North Africa and Iberia to the Canaries and from there to the Antilles, Guianas, Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela, citing a long list of apparently transmitted traits, including distinctive obsidian-edged swords, bolas, and bird motifs.  Pericot y García (1955, 1963, 1971), Palop Martinez (1970), and Bárcena (1975) compiled evidence for Canary Islands involvement.  Celtic mercenaries operating in North Africa in the late centuries B.C. may also have reached America from the Canaries, accounting for various alleged Celtic traits.

[21] FY*0 averages 90% in sub-Saharan Africa and 70% in Arabia, with high frequencies extending to North Africa (30%) and the Middle East (23% average).  It is virtually absent from Europe and East Asia.

[22] Especially striking are congruencies in details of Peruvian and Southwest Asian textile technology (Birrell 1970) regarding looms and spindles (Crawford 1924; Silow 1949), fabric structure (Buhler 1948, King 1979), and dyeing processes, a subject that has been reviewed in detail by Jett (1993, 1999a), who provided an extensive bibliography.  Some Peruvian textiles also display signs in an organized system that may be ideographic writing like that of Mesopotamia and Egypt (de la Jara 1973a, 1973b).

[23] The Ipiutak Eskimos, for whom there are no HLA data, have art styles that have been called “Scythio-Siberian” like those of the lower Ob region of the late first millennium B.C. (Larsen and Rainey 1948, Schuster 1952; Rainey 1971).   Their culture has also been compared to that of Iron Age Eurasia, especially China, and their masks are said to resemble those of Shang and Zhou China (Bandi 1974; see also, Shao 1998).  Keddie (1990) has discussed material evidence for little-known Siberian and Chinese activities along the northwest American coasts as early as 1200 B.C.  In an important recent work, von Sadovszky (1996 as well as previous publications) has shown through detailed linguistic and ethnographic evidence that northwestern Siberians related to the Voguls and Ostyaks, who speak an Ugrian language, migrated to the California coast about 500 B.C., although the date is not secure.  His demonstration of the close relationship between the Ob-Ugrian and California Penutian languages is the most comprehensive work so far that links an American and an Old World language.  The studies of Barbeau (1958; also, previous publications) anticipated and confirm some of von Sadovszky's ethnographic claims.  Ruhlen (1998) has also linked northern North America’s Athapaskan languages with the Yeniseian languages of central Siberia.

[24] Studies of mummies and coprolites have established the presence of tropical intestinal parasites, especially Ancylostoma duodenale, in ancient South America.  They were present at Boqueirão do Sítio da Pedra Furada (Brazil) by 5000 B.C. (Ferreira, Araújo, and Confalonieri 1988), in coastal Peru by 2700 B.C. (Verano 1992), and in Minas Gerais (Brazil) by 2500 B.C. (Araújo 1980), originating almost certainly in Southeast Asia or Oceania (Fonseca 1970; Ferriera, Araújo, and Confalonieri 1982).  Direct travel across either ocean by ancestors of people such as the Lengua of Paraguay (Fonseca 1970) seems to be the best explanation, because tropical parasites do not survive cold climates.  Soper (1927) indicated Indonesia or Polynesia as the likely source of American Ancylostoma duodenale.

[25] Some comparisons of Near-Eastern and American traits presented by Ibarra Grasso and others are astonishing in the details.  Publications too numerous to reference here but easily accessible through Sorenson and Raish (1996), compare details of astronomy, language, mythology, and religion (especially altars, incense, and figurines), art motifs, place-value arithmetic, music, domestic fowl, and basketry.  Individual authors who record remarkable identities usually assume convergence or independent invention.

[26] Gartelmann (1986) reviewed the well-known controversy over links between Valdivia and Japan (and related matters), and Meggers (1987) used new data to restate her position and to rebut critics.  León (1994) has published a summary updated to include virological and genetic (mitochondrial DNA, HLA) data supporting arrival by sea of Jômon people about 3000 B.C.  He cites the findings of Zamora et al. (1990) and Miura et al. (1992) regarding the Paez tribes (see note 17).  Ibarra Grasso (1982) rejected a direct connection, claiming instead an Indonesian influence on Japan, Ecuador, and perhaps western Mexico a little before 3000 B.C., although Beirne (1971) had discussed star-shaped and ring maces as well as the method of hafting, as evidence for direct influence from Japan.  Jômon pottery traits seem to have spread southward from Japan through the Bonin Islands (Izu and Ogasawara) and the Marianas, starting 6000- 4000 B.C. as a result of the obsidian trade (Oda 1990).  They have been reported from Vanuatu (Dickinson et al. 1999), and it is likely that Jômon remains will be found on other Pacific Islands (see Jett 1999b).

[27] Some workers have long noted the resemblance of Melanesian crania to those from the Fuegan region, Lower California, and parts of Amazonia, but the probable principal explanation is that the earliest Americans were part of an expansion that also populated Melanesia and Australia. Skeletons from Lagoa Santa (Brazil) with apparent Melanesian aspects date to 9500-8000 years ago (Guidon 1992). However, voyagers from Melanesia may have reached America at much later dates as well.  Sorenson and Raish cite many references on this question, beginning with ten Kate (1884).  Lehmann (1930) thought Melanesian influence accounted for “Negroid” traits in certain populations of California, Panama, coastal Venezuela, and Colombia (San Augustín).  Rivet (1925) compared the Fuegan Tson (Chon) languages to those of Australia, and Loukotka (1948) claimed vestigial Australian traits in languages of the Alakaluf, Puelche, and Araucano-Mapuche (but not Yahgan).  Swadesh (1961) put common origins back 5000 to 18,000 years. “Melanesian” traits noted in South America include bow culture, basketry, use of lime with narcotic plants, masks, axes, fire drills, pile dwellings, and horticultural practices (Graebner 1909; Nordenskiöld 1920; Koppers 1930; Ibarra Grasso 1961; and others). Musical similarities such as details of panpipe design and pitch seem especially valuable.  Von Hornbostel (1936) likened Fuegan songs to those of Australia, Ceylon, and the Andaman Islands. Most, but probably not all, “Australoid” traits came with very early colonization along the Asian and American coasts.

[28] The literature on early circum- and transpacific travel is enormous.  I have mentioned Dixon's recent book (1993) on movements along the Pacific rim at 12,000-10,000 B.C., and Sandweiss et al. (1998) and Keefer et al. (1998) have added new details of the early Peruvian maritime culture, with numerous radiocarbon dates.  However, most of the literature on Pacific contact deals with the period after about 3000 B.C.  Some important contributions in this area in recent decades are those of Jett (1983, 1992b), Needham and Lu (1985), Grieder (1982), Schneider (1977), Tolstoy (1974), Schobinger (1969), and Mason (1968).   A brief account of some of the more important results is appended.

[29] Most of the important themes from the vast literature on apparent Chinese influences appear in the works of Covarrubias (1957), Shapiro (1964), Needham, Wang, and Lu (1971), Needham and Lu (1985), and Jett (1983, 1992). The critical assessment of Needham and Lu (1985) is held in especially high regard and has been reviewed by Tolstoy (1999).  Jett (1992b) is a superior concise summary with key references that divides periods of influence into those from southeast China before 3500 B.C., the dynastic period (1450-1100 B.C.), Middle Zhou (770-475 B.C.), and later pre-Buddhist China that seems to have brought metallurgy and a variety of distinctive traits.  Further comments are appended.

[30] Indian, especially Hindu, influences seem to have reached Mesoamerica from Southeast Asia and Indonesia, peaking during the second to ninth centuries A.D. (Ibarra Grasso 1954, 1982; Heine-Geldern and Ekholm 1951; Ekholm 1953; Kirchhoff 1964; Heine-Geldern 1964; Kelley 1960).  Jett (1983, 1992b) and von Winning (1989) have provided summaries.  Further information is appended.

[31] Glenn Whitley (1974a, 1974b) argued for transfer of southern Asian traits to eastern Brazil through Madagascar and South Africa, partly on the basis of Arawak and Tupi names for the fulvous tree duck and for the jangada raft, that are very similar to the Asian names.  Details of duck domestication, fishing techniques, and blowgun use are similar as well.  Others have claimed that Indonesian traits extended to West Africa (Hutton 1946; Jones 1964) and from there to America (Buhler 1946, comparing ikat reserve dyeing in Madagascar and America; Marschall 1972 and Jett 1970, 1991, comparing blowguns).  Also, Solheim (1968) suggested that Madagascar provided the link for puzzling trait similarities in Africa, certain Pacific islands, and South America.  Madagascar is known to have been colonized from Indonesia by at least A.D. 400 and probably significantly earlier.

[32] Much evidence has been presented for contact between Northwest Europe and northeastern America, starting as early as 10,000 B.C. (Gridley 1960; Kehoe 1962, 1971; Greenman 1963) and continuing sporadically until historic times. Most recent discussions concern the period of about 6000-4000 B.C., when influences on pottery, point types, tools, and so forth, seem strongest.  Related effects are claimed in South America, especially in Patagonia, from about 9000-7000 B.C.  Examination of these possibilities should gain impetus from the recent discovery of mitochondrial “haplotype X,” that seems to connect Algonquians and certain other American populations with ancient Europe.  Some American archaeologists now seem to have shed inhibitions about working in this formerly taboo area.  Certain details are appended.

[33] The distribution of B*7 is part of the evidence connecting Northwest Europe with both eastern Canada and with North Africa, where the ancient amber and gold routes met. The Algerian Flitta, like the Tuareg, have a genetic link to northern Europe: 17% of allele A2 of the ABO system.  Mourant, Kopec, and Domaniewska-Sobczuc (1976:86) said, “The high A2 frequency remains a mystery—it is presumably the result of genetic drift or selection within this particular population, but why would only the Flitta, the Lapps, and the Naga of Burma (with 17% of A2) have evolved this way?”  I suggest that both the high B*7 frequency of the Tuareg and their use of the tifinagh alphabet are a result of the amber trade.  Proto-tifinagh in Scandinavia seems to predate the African form by several hundred years and also occurs in northern Italy and eastern Canada (see Kelley 1990 and 1994 for details and bibliography).

[34] Birdsell (1951) thought that early Americans had been “archaic Caucasoids” he termed “Amurians.”  “A Caucasoid” type seems to have reached western America at an early date, as shown by several recently publicized skeletons from 8000-7000 B.C. (Preston 1997; Rensberger 1997).  Hrdlicka and Hooton debated the origins of Caucasoid traits, and nineteenth century painters accurately portrayed the Europoid features of some of their native subjects (Howells 1940; Horan 1982).  Schobinger (in Greenman 1963) pointed out parallels between the South American Toldean culture of 9000-8000 B.C. and the European Upper Paleolithic, and Lacombe (1986) has made similar comparisons for the Peruvian Paijan culture.  An early, unexpected observation was that of Hatt (1916), who thought that the “old European sandal” was invented independently in southern South America.  Fladmark (1979, 1983) proposed a coastal route for early colonists, saying (1986) that they could have traveled the entire length of America’s west coasts in ten years’ time.

[35] Some allegedly “Europoid” traits such as pit houses (Jochelson 1907) and certain art motifs (Fraser 1966) seem very early, while others are postulated to have come later, in the third to first millennia B.C.  These include arrow-shaft straighteners (Yamanouchi 1968), distinctive pottery (Tolstoy 1953; Piña Chan and Covarrubias 1964; Ackerman 1982), mirrors (Probst 1963), and rocker stamps (Porter 1953).  Still other traits probably came after 500 B.C.: shell trumpets (Rouget 1948), units of measure like those of Egypt (Rottländer 1982), games such as patolli (Tylor 1878, 1879, 1896), bronze needles (Virchow 1883), and certain metallurgical techniques such as the lost-wax process (Heine-Geldern 1972).

[36] The important HLAs in Japan are the “ubiquitous” A*2, A*9, and B*15, the Southern Asian A*10, A*11, and B*22, together with A*31, B*35, and B*40 that are also important in America.  But three “European” types appear as well: B*7 and the apparently linked pair B*8 and B*12. Types B*7 and B*12 were at significant levels in all nine of CS's Japanese samples, and B*8 was absent only from the Ainu sample and two others.

[37] American cotton reached the Cape Verde Islands, apparently by boat (Stephens 1971), and Miracle (1966), Forbes (1988), and Johannessen (1992) have discussed other evidence for early travel from America to Africa.

[38] The circumpolar distribution of certain traits is well documented.  Perhaps the best-known presentations are those of Gjessing, but there are more recent discussions of circumpolar gene distributions (Mourant, Kopec, and Domaniewska-Sobczuc 1976), religious concepts (Hultkrantz 1981), and clothing such as the distribution of distinctive moosehair embroidery (Turner 1955).
 

Section I: Text of Report

Section III: References Cited
 
 
Originally published in Pre-Columbiana, Volume 2, Number 2 & 3, December 2000 & June 2001
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

 
Copyright © 2000 & 2001 by James L Guthrie
 
New England Antiquities Research Association
 
NEARA Home Page
 

 

 



peterpanther08@hotmail.com