Faces Divulge the Origins of Caribbean Prehistoric Inhabitants

The multifaceted genomic history of Ashaninka from Amazonian Peru

Despite its crucial location, the western side of Amazonia between the Andes and the source(s) of the Amazon River is still understudied from a genomic and archaeogenomic point of view, albeit possibly harboring essential information to clarify the complex genetic history of local Indigenous groups and their interactions with nearby regions,^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8} including central America and the Caribbean.^9,10,11,12 Focusing on this key region, we analyzed the genome-wide profiles of 51 Ashaninka individuals from Amazonian Peru, observing an unexpected extent of genomic variation. We identified at least two Ashaninka subgroups with distinctive genomic makeups, which were differentially shaped by the degree and timing of external admixtures, especially with the Indigenous groups from the Andes and the Pacific coast. On a continental scale, Ashaninka ancestors probably derived from a south-north migration of Indigenous groups moving into the Amazonian rainforest from a southeastern area with contributions from the Southern Cone and the Atlantic coast. These ancestral populations diversified in the variegated geographic regions of interior South America, on the eastern side of the Andes, differentially interacting with surrounding coastal groups. In this complex scenario, we also revealed strict connections between the ancestors of present-day Ashaninka, who belong to the Arawakan language family,¹³ and those Indigenous groups that moved further north into the Caribbean, contributing to the early Ceramic (Saladoid) tradition in the islands.^14,15.

The need to incorporate human variation and evolutionary theory in forensic anthropology: A call for reform

In 1992, Norm Sauer called for a language shift in which practitioners would move away from the socially loaded term "race" and replace it with the less provocative term "ancestry." While many heeded the call and moved towards ancestry in their research and reports, the actual approach to research and analysis did not change. In response to this change, there was a large growth in ancestry estimation method development in the early decade of the 2000s. However, the practice of ancestry estimation did not adequately incorporate evolutionary theory in interpretation or trait selection and continued with little critical reflection. In the past decade, there has been an increase in ancestry validation methods with little critique of the "race" concept or discussion of modern human variation or reference samples. To advance, forensic anthropologists need to reckon with the practice of ancestry estimation as it is currently practiced. We are calling for another reform in the axiom focusing on evolutionary theory, population history, trait selection, and population-level reference samples. The practice needs to abandon the terms ancestry and race completely and recalibrate to an analysis of population affinity. Population affinity is a statistical approach based on the underlying population structure that would allow the understanding of how microevolutionary forces act in concert with historical events (e.g., colonization, the Transatlantic Slave Trade, etc.) to shape modern human variation. This is not to be confused with geographic ancestry that all too often can be perceived as interchangeable with social race and as an affirmation of the biological concept of race. It is time to critically evaluate the social and scientific implications of the current practice of ancestry estimation, and re-frame our approach to studying and analyzing modern human variation through a population structure approach.

Ancestry Studies in Forensic Anthropology: Back on the Frontier of Racism

One of the parameters forensic anthropologists have traditionally estimated is ancestry, which is used in the United States as a proxy for social race. Its use is controversial because the biological race concept was debunked by scientists decades ago. However, many forensic anthropologists contend, in part, that because social race categories used by law enforcement can be predicted by cranial variation, ancestry remains a necessary parameter for estimation. Here, we use content analysis of the Journal of Forensic Sciences for the period 2009-2019 to demonstrate the use of various nomenclature and resultant confusion in ancestry estimation studies, and as a mechanism to discuss how forensic anthropologists have eschewed a human variation approach to studying human morphological differences in favor of a simplistic and debunked typological one. Further, we employ modern geometric morphometric and spatial analysis methods on craniofacial coordinate anatomical landmarks from several Latin American samples to test the validity of applying the antiquated tri-continental approach to ancestry (i.e., African, Asian, European). Our results indicate groups are not patterned by the ancestry trifecta. These findings illustrate the benefit and necessity of embracing studies that employ population structure models to better understand human variation and the historical factors that have influenced it.

An isthmus of isolation: The likely elevated prevalence of genetic disease in ancient Panama and implications for considering rare diseases in paleopathology

OBJECTIVE

This study considers the evidence for elevated frequencies of "rare" diseases in ancient Panama. Indications of population isolation by multidisciplinary sources allow for the possibility that rare inherited conditions may have been maintained at relatively high prevalences in the region due to gene flow restriction.

MATERIALS

A sample of 267 skeletal human remains with diverse demographical characteristics from Pre-Columbian archaeological sites throughout Panama.

METHODS

Remains were analyzed macroscopically and hard tissue developmental anomalies were documented.

RESULTS

Frequencies of developmental anomalies and hard tissue changes consistent with specific rare genetic diseases, such as osteogenesis imperfecta, on the comparatively few human remains recovered from pre-Columbian archaeological sites are elevated as compared with global averages.

CONCLUSIONS

The paleopathological evidence is concordant with a scenario of isolation in Pre-Columbian times and with an increased presence of genetic disorders in the population.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study advocates for the special consideration of rare diseases by paleopathologists in regions where populations may have experienced prolonged geographical or social isolation in the past.

LIMITATIONS

A dearth of local modern epidemiological data and low sample sizes of preserved human remains in certain regions of the country limited the possibilities of spatiotemporal comparisons of rare disease prevalence.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Further scrutiny of developmental anomalies of genetic origin on ancient Panamanian remains and biomolecular testing of remains for specific disorders should be pursued to confirm the findings of this study.

Human arrival and landscape dynamics in the northern Bahamas

The first Caribbean settlers were Amerindians from South America. Great Abaco and Grand Bahama, the final islands colonized in the northernmost Bahamas, were inhabited by the Lucayans when Europeans arrived. The timing of Lucayan arrival in the northern Bahamas has been uncertain because direct archaeological evidence is limited. We document Lucayan arrival on Great Abaco Island through a detailed record of vegetation, fire, and landscape dynamics based on proxy data from Blackwood Sinkhole. From about 3,000 to 1,000 y ago, forests dominated by hardwoods and palms were resilient to the effects of hurricanes and cooling sea surface temperatures. The arrival of Lucayans by about 830 CE (2σ range: 720 to 920 CE) is demarcated by increased burning and followed by landscape disturbance and a time-transgressive shift from hardwoods and palms to the modern pine forest. Considering that Lucayan settlements in the southern Bahamian archipelago are dated to about 750 CE (2σ range: 600 to 900 CE), these results demonstrate that Lucayans spread rapidly through the archipelago in less than 100 y. Although precontact landscapes would have been influenced by storms and climatic trends, the most pronounced changes follow more directly from landscape burning and ecosystem shifts after Lucayan arrival. The pine forests of Abaco declined substantially between 1500 and 1670 CE, a period of increased regional hurricane activity, coupled with fires on an already human-impacted landscape. Any future intensification of hurricane activity in the tropical North Atlantic Ocean threatens the sustainability of modern pine forests in the northern Bahamas.

A genetic history of the pre-contact Caribbean

Humans settled the Caribbean about 6,000 years ago, and ceramic use and intensified agriculture mark a shift from the Archaic to the Ceramic Age at around 2,500 years ago1-3. Here we report genome-wide data from 174 ancient individuals from The Bahamas, Haiti and the Dominican Republic (collectively, Hispaniola), Puerto Rico, Curaçao and Venezuela, which we co-analysed with 89 previously published ancient individuals. Stone-tool-using Caribbean people, who first entered the Caribbean during the Archaic Age, derive from a deeply divergent population that is closest to Central and northern South American individuals; contrary to previous work4, we find no support for ancestry contributed by a population related to North American individuals. Archaic-related lineages were >98% replaced by a genetically homogeneous ceramic-using population related to speakers of languages in the Arawak family from northeast South America; these people moved through the Lesser Antilles and into the Greater Antilles at least 1,700 years ago, introducing ancestry that is still present. Ancient Caribbean people avoided close kin unions despite limited mate pools that reflect small effective population sizes, which we estimate to be a minimum of 500-1,500 and a maximum of 1,530-8,150 individuals on the combined islands of Puerto Rico and Hispaniola in the dozens of generations before the individuals who we analysed lived. Census sizes are unlikely to be more than tenfold larger than effective population sizes, so previous pan-Caribbean estimates of hundreds of thousands of people are too large5,6. Confirming a small and interconnected Ceramic Age population7, we detect 19 pairs of cross-island cousins, close relatives buried around 75 km apart in Hispaniola and low genetic differentiation across islands. Genetic continuity across transitions in pottery styles reveals that cultural changes during the Ceramic Age were not driven by migration of genetically differentiated groups from the mainland, but instead reflected interactions within an interconnected Caribbean world1,8.