Thanks Spencer. That was a fun read. I’m smiling through the pain. I have a little different thought about the situation—call me a fence stradler. I believe that Clovis is the first “culture” in the New World, but leave open the possibility of other unsuccessful, perhaps accidental forays into the Americas that simply were here and then gone, but their presence left a scattered archaeological record. Imagine, if you will, a group of men hunting whales off the Sea of Japan. Through fluke winds they get blown a sea and somehow survive the journey into the New World. Absent women they are destined to die out but in pursuit of them they range far and wide in the New World leaving traces of their misadventure!
I'm open to that too. In fact, I think exploration was guaranteed given the risks of moving your family into unfamiliar territory. I just think that a) their archaeological signature should be largely comparable to that of later colonizing populations and that b) we haven't yet found much evidence for that with the exception of one or two pre-Clovis sites that I find hard to refute on empirical grounds alone.
How would you explain the paleogenetic data in Skoglund 2016 within a “Clovis First really is right after all” framework?
I don’t think it is possible, myself, but I am interested to hear it done
Full disclosure: I do not have a yard full of crushed beer cans, use drugs, or own a pickup truck. Interesting choice of opener for an article lamenting the stigmatizing vituperative tone of …other scholars.
It is very easy to do so. Skoglund and Reich's 2016 paper is outdated, they did not know about major metapopulations like Ancient Beringians and Ancient Paleosiberians. With more data, the split times between these groups, including FIrst Americans and sub-branches thereof, have been estimated, (Moreno-Mayar et al. 2018), and are still used today (e.g., Gusareva et al. 2025). NNA and Ancient Beringian divergence times are irrelevant as neither group passed south of the ice sheets. Only SNA did. SNA within North and South America averages 14,900-12,900. Expansion of populations and lineage diversification from mtDNA and yDNA analyses are between 15,300-14,300, for the initial expansion (Including Ancient Beringians, NNA, and SNA). It all depends on where they were at the start of this expansion. If still in Asia, very likely given lack of sites in Beringia before, 14,800, then this represents initial expansion into Beringia/Alaska. All of this is consistent with an expansion into Alaska around 14,500-15,000, with subsequent expansion into the Americas as soon as the ice free corridor was viable, likely around 14,000-14,500, with tiny populations until we see them visible around 13,500 at Wally's Beach and elsewhere, directly leading to Clovis. This model cannot be refuted based on the genetics.
Sure thing. First, they did NOT have Australasian admixture. What we have observed in a few modern groups, and a few (but not most) early Holocene individuals is a possible admixture (very small amount) of a hypothetical population Y, who is most similar (but not identical of course) to some populations now present in Australasia. We have no idea or constraints as to when this admixture took place - it could be anywhere from the Americas to when FAM ancestors were in Asia. Pop Y will remain hypothetical until we actually have an individual from this population. Genetics provide no constraints on where this admixture took place.
This is like saying ghost populations contributing to Subsaharan African ancestry are "hypothetical". we don't know who they were, but they for sure existed. This is not what "hypothetical" means.
Oh dear god. That we don't know who Population Y was doesn't make it "hypothetical", it definitely existed and contributed to some South Americans. It also had to have been an ancient contribution, Skoglund et al are really clear on this. It's incompatible with Clovis First and it's definitely there, so....
I beg to disagree. I have published with geneticists who thought Pop_Y was an artifact of the analytical software rather than a real phenomenon. One group expected to find this tentative signal, and did not find it in a range of ancient individuals. Regardless of your incredulity, we actually do not know where nor do we know when this admixture took place. It easily could have occurred in Asia. In fact, the signal is at such a low point of detection, we cannot even estimate what percentage admixture occurred, as we can do with other samples.
Thanks Spencer. That was a fun read. I’m smiling through the pain. I have a little different thought about the situation—call me a fence stradler. I believe that Clovis is the first “culture” in the New World, but leave open the possibility of other unsuccessful, perhaps accidental forays into the Americas that simply were here and then gone, but their presence left a scattered archaeological record. Imagine, if you will, a group of men hunting whales off the Sea of Japan. Through fluke winds they get blown a sea and somehow survive the journey into the New World. Absent women they are destined to die out but in pursuit of them they range far and wide in the New World leaving traces of their misadventure!
I'm open to that too. In fact, I think exploration was guaranteed given the risks of moving your family into unfamiliar territory. I just think that a) their archaeological signature should be largely comparable to that of later colonizing populations and that b) we haven't yet found much evidence for that with the exception of one or two pre-Clovis sites that I find hard to refute on empirical grounds alone.
How would you explain the paleogenetic data in Skoglund 2016 within a “Clovis First really is right after all” framework?
I don’t think it is possible, myself, but I am interested to hear it done
Full disclosure: I do not have a yard full of crushed beer cans, use drugs, or own a pickup truck. Interesting choice of opener for an article lamenting the stigmatizing vituperative tone of …other scholars.
It is very easy to do so. Skoglund and Reich's 2016 paper is outdated, they did not know about major metapopulations like Ancient Beringians and Ancient Paleosiberians. With more data, the split times between these groups, including FIrst Americans and sub-branches thereof, have been estimated, (Moreno-Mayar et al. 2018), and are still used today (e.g., Gusareva et al. 2025). NNA and Ancient Beringian divergence times are irrelevant as neither group passed south of the ice sheets. Only SNA did. SNA within North and South America averages 14,900-12,900. Expansion of populations and lineage diversification from mtDNA and yDNA analyses are between 15,300-14,300, for the initial expansion (Including Ancient Beringians, NNA, and SNA). It all depends on where they were at the start of this expansion. If still in Asia, very likely given lack of sites in Beringia before, 14,800, then this represents initial expansion into Beringia/Alaska. All of this is consistent with an expansion into Alaska around 14,500-15,000, with subsequent expansion into the Americas as soon as the ice free corridor was viable, likely around 14,000-14,500, with tiny populations until we see them visible around 13,500 at Wally's Beach and elsewhere, directly leading to Clovis. This model cannot be refuted based on the genetics.
One of those two populations had Australasian admixture? Have you got a citation for that?
Sure thing. First, they did NOT have Australasian admixture. What we have observed in a few modern groups, and a few (but not most) early Holocene individuals is a possible admixture (very small amount) of a hypothetical population Y, who is most similar (but not identical of course) to some populations now present in Australasia. We have no idea or constraints as to when this admixture took place - it could be anywhere from the Americas to when FAM ancestors were in Asia. Pop Y will remain hypothetical until we actually have an individual from this population. Genetics provide no constraints on where this admixture took place.
This is like saying ghost populations contributing to Subsaharan African ancestry are "hypothetical". we don't know who they were, but they for sure existed. This is not what "hypothetical" means.
Oh dear god. That we don't know who Population Y was doesn't make it "hypothetical", it definitely existed and contributed to some South Americans. It also had to have been an ancient contribution, Skoglund et al are really clear on this. It's incompatible with Clovis First and it's definitely there, so....
I beg to disagree. I have published with geneticists who thought Pop_Y was an artifact of the analytical software rather than a real phenomenon. One group expected to find this tentative signal, and did not find it in a range of ancient individuals. Regardless of your incredulity, we actually do not know where nor do we know when this admixture took place. It easily could have occurred in Asia. In fact, the signal is at such a low point of detection, we cannot even estimate what percentage admixture occurred, as we can do with other samples.
lol okay buddy
I'm glad somebody else chimed in because I suck at genetics. Pareal's response mirrors my understanding as well.
As for the opener....they started it.
looking forward to Santa Fe in Oct