"DNA analysis of Polynesians and Native South Americans has revealed an ancient genetic signature that resolves a long-running debate over Polynesian origins and early contacts between the two populations."
Nätschör Artikel:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01983-5
Thor Heyerdahl klatscht und lacht vergnügt im Grab.
Südamerikanische Indianer in Polynesien
Re: Südamerikanische Indianer in Polynesien
Das sind fantastische Neuigkeiten! Danke für den Beitrag.
-
Roeland Paardekooper
- Site Admin
- Beiträge: 535
- Registriert: 08.03.2008 22:09
- Wohnort: Nykøbing F. (DK)
- Kontaktdaten:
Re: Südamerikanische Indianer in Polynesien
@molleguillaume schreibt dazu (Twitter):
A new paper on pre-european contact between Polynesians and Native Americans is out today in Nature. I rarely do this on Twitter but regarding this is my area of expertise, I need to say something about how problematic this article is: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586- ... Qc#ref-CR1
It based on modern genome analysis of individuals on today’s French Polynesia, Cook Is. and Rapa Nui. ADMIXTURE analyses show that many islanders appear to have a European component from colonial admixture, but also detect admixture in eastern Polynesia from Native American ind. Authors explained that this admixture did not happen on Rapa Nui but likely on other Polynesian islands in the West. Dating this contact event between AD1150 and 1230, they suggest that contact and admixture happened during Polynesian expansion in the region when they arrived on islands (Marquesas) already inhabited by Native Americans.
Problem 1: complete lack of engagement from the geneticists authors with the abundant archaeological and anthropological literature on the topic and contexts, not even to the key-synthesis by @MatisooSmith and colleagues in 2011 which discussed many lines of evidence.
The only reference cited is Heyerdahl which thesis has long been dismissed. Before dropping big news such as these with big implications, there NEED to be cross-disciplinary engagement and more discussions! A point that should also in my view be made during the peer-review.
Proposing that Polynesians discovered islands already inhabited 1/ dismisses all archaeological evidence gathered for 70 years,
2/ suggests that they wouldn’t have been able to sail themselves to South America despite their incredible navigating abilities, and...
3/ presents a high risk of resurgence of old, and often racist, ideas about the history of the region.
Problem 2: no context nor information on the 1980s sampling process on Polynesian populations who by that time were not required to give their consent. Let’s not forget that people who gave their blood samples have family and personal trajectories that matter. The dating model implies that these admixtures are not modern. I have concerns about the dating process that leads to such a narrow chronological range, coincidentally fitting well with Wilmshurst et al. model (2011). While we see a demographic expansion in the region at that time, we also have more and more evidence of human presence on the island two to three centuries earlier.
Other problems exist here, but I will only kindly suggest to pay attention to the real names of the islands you describe: Palliser Is. in the Tuamotu is the colonial term referring to the northwestern group of atolls around Rangiroa. Please use the indigenous name of the place. The engagement with this post is quite incredible. I’d like to make one point very clear: I, as a Polynesian archaeologist, have absolutely no problem considering a pre-european contact between Polynesians and Native Americans, as many other lines of evidence strongly suggest. Polynesians were present in the region by AD1200, and probably two centuries earlier. They were navigating, exchanging, and developing rich cultures on the islands. They had, with absolutely no doubt, the capacity to sail to the South-American coast and return, with the kumara. This hypothesis has been mentioned by the authors. What I criticized is that it was presented as “an alternative explanation” while the idea that Native Americans inhabited the Marquesas prior the Polynesians' arrival is put forward. This, building up on Heyerdahl’s, is untenable.
A new paper on pre-european contact between Polynesians and Native Americans is out today in Nature. I rarely do this on Twitter but regarding this is my area of expertise, I need to say something about how problematic this article is: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586- ... Qc#ref-CR1
It based on modern genome analysis of individuals on today’s French Polynesia, Cook Is. and Rapa Nui. ADMIXTURE analyses show that many islanders appear to have a European component from colonial admixture, but also detect admixture in eastern Polynesia from Native American ind. Authors explained that this admixture did not happen on Rapa Nui but likely on other Polynesian islands in the West. Dating this contact event between AD1150 and 1230, they suggest that contact and admixture happened during Polynesian expansion in the region when they arrived on islands (Marquesas) already inhabited by Native Americans.
Problem 1: complete lack of engagement from the geneticists authors with the abundant archaeological and anthropological literature on the topic and contexts, not even to the key-synthesis by @MatisooSmith and colleagues in 2011 which discussed many lines of evidence.
The only reference cited is Heyerdahl which thesis has long been dismissed. Before dropping big news such as these with big implications, there NEED to be cross-disciplinary engagement and more discussions! A point that should also in my view be made during the peer-review.
Proposing that Polynesians discovered islands already inhabited 1/ dismisses all archaeological evidence gathered for 70 years,
2/ suggests that they wouldn’t have been able to sail themselves to South America despite their incredible navigating abilities, and...
3/ presents a high risk of resurgence of old, and often racist, ideas about the history of the region.
Problem 2: no context nor information on the 1980s sampling process on Polynesian populations who by that time were not required to give their consent. Let’s not forget that people who gave their blood samples have family and personal trajectories that matter. The dating model implies that these admixtures are not modern. I have concerns about the dating process that leads to such a narrow chronological range, coincidentally fitting well with Wilmshurst et al. model (2011). While we see a demographic expansion in the region at that time, we also have more and more evidence of human presence on the island two to three centuries earlier.
Other problems exist here, but I will only kindly suggest to pay attention to the real names of the islands you describe: Palliser Is. in the Tuamotu is the colonial term referring to the northwestern group of atolls around Rangiroa. Please use the indigenous name of the place. The engagement with this post is quite incredible. I’d like to make one point very clear: I, as a Polynesian archaeologist, have absolutely no problem considering a pre-european contact between Polynesians and Native Americans, as many other lines of evidence strongly suggest. Polynesians were present in the region by AD1200, and probably two centuries earlier. They were navigating, exchanging, and developing rich cultures on the islands. They had, with absolutely no doubt, the capacity to sail to the South-American coast and return, with the kumara. This hypothesis has been mentioned by the authors. What I criticized is that it was presented as “an alternative explanation” while the idea that Native Americans inhabited the Marquesas prior the Polynesians' arrival is put forward. This, building up on Heyerdahl’s, is untenable.
Unsere Arbeit ist ernsthaft, aber wir brauchen nicht Ernsthaft zu sein wenn wir arbeiten" (our work is serious but we don't need to be serious while working)
Re: Südamerikanische Indianer in Polynesien
Abgesehen davon, dass man eine solche Kritik als Review des Artikels oder als Gegenartikel veröffentlichen sollte, finde ich die Gegenargumente, die hier gebracht werden, nicht unbedingt stark. Zum Beispiel der Punkt:
"suggests that they wouldn’t have been able to sail themselves to South America despite their incredible navigating abilities, and..."
Wenn ich es richtig gelesen habe, wird die Möglichkeit, dass Polynesier sich entweder in Südamerika gemischt oder Südamerikaner mit nach Polynesien genommen haben nicht ausgeschlossen. Stattdessen schreibt man, dass es weitere Untersuchungen brauch und noch viele Fragen zu klären sind. Den Polynesiern wird die Schifffahrt also nicht abgesprochen.
Trotzdem werden in dem Post auch wichtige Punkte angesprochen: Woher stammt das genetische Material und gibt es im Falle der modernen DNA das Einverständnis der jeweiligen Spender? Wurden Heyerdahls Ideen vornehmlich favorisiert, um die Daten zu interpretieren? Wurde der Artikel zu früh und zu wenig untermauert publiziert, wie wir es heute so häufig sehen?
Zudem ist es in diesen Studien immer schwierig, dass zwei Fronten aufgemachten werden: die, die schon da waren und und die, die ankommen oder die, die vor den anderen zuerst da waren. Das ist immer Sprengstoff und kann in langer Hinsicht zu verklärenden Ursprungsmythen führen, die in den falschen Händen dann viel Schaden anrichten.
Man sollte menschliche Migrationsbewegungen immer in seiner Gesamtheit betrachten. Ich empfehle jedem, der sich dafür interessiert, David Reichs Buch: Who we are and how we got there zu lesen, denn hier wird der bisherige Forschungsstand und die Entwicklung dahin aus erster Hand geschildert. Letztlich handelt es sich immer um dieselben Menschen, die sich mal aufteilen, wandern und sich wieder mischen. Die Frage, wie die Migration und das Mischen ablief, kann nur die Archäologie beantworten und leider nur sehr, sehr unzureichend, da wir jeweils kaum Daten haben oder uns die meisten bereits verloren gegangen sind. Deshalb sollte gerade auch von der archäologischen Seite her darauf geachtet werden, bei unzureichender Datenlagen keine steilen Thesen zu formulieren, die Ideen in die Welt setzen, welche sich letztlich im Hirn vieler festsetzen, ohne dass es dafür ausreichende Belege gibt.
"suggests that they wouldn’t have been able to sail themselves to South America despite their incredible navigating abilities, and..."
Wenn ich es richtig gelesen habe, wird die Möglichkeit, dass Polynesier sich entweder in Südamerika gemischt oder Südamerikaner mit nach Polynesien genommen haben nicht ausgeschlossen. Stattdessen schreibt man, dass es weitere Untersuchungen brauch und noch viele Fragen zu klären sind. Den Polynesiern wird die Schifffahrt also nicht abgesprochen.
Trotzdem werden in dem Post auch wichtige Punkte angesprochen: Woher stammt das genetische Material und gibt es im Falle der modernen DNA das Einverständnis der jeweiligen Spender? Wurden Heyerdahls Ideen vornehmlich favorisiert, um die Daten zu interpretieren? Wurde der Artikel zu früh und zu wenig untermauert publiziert, wie wir es heute so häufig sehen?
Zudem ist es in diesen Studien immer schwierig, dass zwei Fronten aufgemachten werden: die, die schon da waren und und die, die ankommen oder die, die vor den anderen zuerst da waren. Das ist immer Sprengstoff und kann in langer Hinsicht zu verklärenden Ursprungsmythen führen, die in den falschen Händen dann viel Schaden anrichten.
Man sollte menschliche Migrationsbewegungen immer in seiner Gesamtheit betrachten. Ich empfehle jedem, der sich dafür interessiert, David Reichs Buch: Who we are and how we got there zu lesen, denn hier wird der bisherige Forschungsstand und die Entwicklung dahin aus erster Hand geschildert. Letztlich handelt es sich immer um dieselben Menschen, die sich mal aufteilen, wandern und sich wieder mischen. Die Frage, wie die Migration und das Mischen ablief, kann nur die Archäologie beantworten und leider nur sehr, sehr unzureichend, da wir jeweils kaum Daten haben oder uns die meisten bereits verloren gegangen sind. Deshalb sollte gerade auch von der archäologischen Seite her darauf geachtet werden, bei unzureichender Datenlagen keine steilen Thesen zu formulieren, die Ideen in die Welt setzen, welche sich letztlich im Hirn vieler festsetzen, ohne dass es dafür ausreichende Belege gibt.