OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY Center for the First Americans

The university has been researching this issue since 1976. Dr. Rob Bonnichsen, directs Oregon State University’s Center for the Study of the First Americans having a Ph.D., University of Alberta, 1974 and 43 years of archaeological field experience in Alaska, Alberta, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, and the Yukon Territory. His research interests include the peopling of the New World, hunter-gatherer societies, cognitive anthropology, experimental stone and bone technology, and faunal analysis.

Dr. Rob Bonnichsen has focused his research on the Western United States, Northeastern North America, Canada, Northeast Asia, and South America. Projects have included the Chesrow Complex in Wisconsin containing remains of mammoth bones and stone tools that were dated to 12,000 to 13,000 years ago. At Pendejo Cave in New Mexico, researchers have found and dated a set of fingerprints preserved in clay at least 13,000 years old. And stone points at the Cactus Hills site in Virginia date back 15,000 to 16,000 years, he said.

Fabrico Santos Oxford University 1999

The central Siberian origin for native American Y chromosomes

Santos FR, Pandya A, Tyler-Smith C, Pena SD, Schanfield M, Leonard WR, Osipova L, Crawford MH, Mitchell RJ.

Departamento de Biologia Geral, ICB/UFMG, Caixa Postal 486, 31. 270-910 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. fsantos@mono.icb.ufmg.br fsantos@mono.icb.ufmg.br

Summary

Y chromosomal DNA polymorphisms were used to investigate Pleistocene male migrations to the American continent. In a worldwide sample of 306 men, we obtained 32 haplotypes constructed with the variation found in 30 distinct polymorphic sites. The major Y haplotype present in most Native Americans was traced back to recent ancestors common with Siberians, namely, the Kets and Altaians from the Yenissey River Basin and Altai Mountains, respectively. Going further back, the next common ancestor gave rise also to Caucasoid Y chromosomes, probably from the central Eurasian region. This study, therefore, suggests a predominantly central Siberian origin for Native American paternal lineages for those who could have migrated to the Americas during the Upper Pleistocene.

Introduction

The pre-Columbian settlers of the New World, who gave rise to the present-day Native Americans, are commonly believed to have come from Siberia, through the Bering land bridge, in the period 30,000-12,000 years before present (ybp). These conclusions are based on cultural, morphological, and genetic similarities between populations of the New World and Siberia (for a review, see Crawford 1998). Although affinities between Asians and Native Americans have been acknowledged for a long time, no particular population in Siberia, except for some Asian Eskimos and their relatives, has been pointed out as directly descended from ancient groups related to the American founder populations (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). Morphological studies have suggested a place of origin for Native Americans along the Amur River region (Crawford 1998), and, more recently, the investigation of mtDNA lineages (Kolman et al. 1996; Merriwether et al. 1996), as well as of retrovirus infections (Neel et al. 1994), has suggested that Mongolia, instead of Siberia, is the source of populations that share the more recent ancestors with the founding population of the Americas.

Siberia is an inhospitable place for human settlements, but the first hominids may have arrived as early as 260,000 ybp (Waters et al. 1997). The population density has never been high, and it is still vastly uninhabited. These conditions favor a high degree of population isolation and genetic drift, which could have played an important role since the first migrants left for the Americas. Furthermore, the number of indigenous Siberian populations has been decreasing since the beginning of the Russian territorial expansion in the seventeenth century (Forsyth 1996). Many populations have become extinct, and others--such as the Kets, who are inhabitants of the Yenissey River Basin--are now reduced to <1,000 individuals and are speakers of an isolated language unrelated to any other extant languages (Grimes 1996).

The three-migrations theory (Greenberg et al. 1986) postulates that each of the major Native American groups--namely, the Amerindians, Na-Denes, and Eskimo-Aleuts--came to the Americas in three distinct migratory waves from Siberia, during the period 12,000-6,000 ybp. This theory received support a posteriori from the analysis of mtDNA (Torroni et al. 1993) and several autosomal markers (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), but these data extended the entrance time of these groups to the Americas to 34,000-6,000 ybp. This model has been criticized mainly for the claims of the existence of a genetic homogeneity in present-day Amerindians (Schanfield 1992), who are considered to be the descendants of the first migrants. In addition, further mtDNA analyses have been shown to be consistent with a single migration into the Americas (Merriwether et al. 1995) and with a single migration with further population reexpansion (Forster et al. 1996; Bonnato and Salzano 1997). Some anthropometric studies have also revealed the existence of skeletons not typical of Mongoloids among the oldest hominids in the Americas, suggesting an earlier, non-Mongoloid migration (Neves and Pucciarelli 1991; Lahr 1995).

Recent studies of the human Y chromosome have shown a major haplotype present in >90% of nonadmixed southern and central Amerindians (Pena et al. 1995; Santos et al. 1995a), indicating a genetic homogeneity and a pronounced founder effect in the formation of these populations. Later, some northern Amerindians and also Na-Dene and Eskimo speakers were studied, and, despite their higher level of admixture (Crawford 1998), these populations also displayed the same major haplotype, although not in such a high frequency (Santos et al. 1996b; Underhill et al. 1996). This major Native American haplotype initially was identified as the combination of alphoid heteroduplex (h) type II and the microsatellite DYS19 A allele (Pena et al. 1995; Santos et al. 1995a), and it subsequently was shown to also be defined by a CT transition in the DYS199 locus (Underhill et al. 1996). The study of several Siberian populations (Karafet et al. 1997; Lell et al. 1997) has identified the presence of the DYS199 T allele only in Asian Eskimos and related tribes from the Beringia region. The presence of the T allele in far northeastern Siberia was explained to be the result of either a back migration of Native American populations bearing the DYS199 T allele or simply a split of populations inhabiting Beringia, after the glaciation period. This suggests that the DYS199 T allele is a useful marker for the identification of Y haplotypes originating after the first migration to the Americas or Beringia but that more-informative (ancient) markers are needed to trace the origin of these Y chromosomes within Asia.

In this study, the Y chromosomes of five linguistically distinct Siberian populations, as well as of those of Native Americans, Europeans, Indians, Mongolians, central East Asians, and Africans, were analyzed with a set of seven polymorphic systems identifying 30 variable loci in the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome. The worldwide distribution of haplotypes and their evolutionary network shows the recent common ancestry of Caucasoid and Native American Y chromosomes, as well as the identification of intermediate Y haplotypes in Siberian populations from the Altai Mountains and the Yenissey River Basin, namely, the Altaians and Kets, respectively.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

DNA Samples

Most of the 306 male samples were obtained as DNA or were extracted from plugs prepared for pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (Mathias et al. 1994). Samples from Europeans (most were British), Indians (India and Sri Lanka), Africans (Kenyans, Pygmies, and San), central East Asians (Chinese and Japanese), Mongolians (Khalkhs), and Siberians (Buryats, Yakuts, Evenkis, Altaians, and Kets) were subsets of those described elsewhere (Mathias et al. 1994; Zerjal et al. 1997). Ten samples, from south and central Amerindians and a Na-Dene, were purchased from the National Institute of General Medical Science, and an additional 10 Native American samples (not Aleut-Eskimos) came from paternity tests in North America.

DNA Polymorphisms

The variants of 6-kb and 4.1-kb alphoid units were first identified by hybridization with the pYl probe (Mathias et al. 1994) and subsequently were checked by HindIII digestion of h PCR products (Santos et al. 1995b), to avoid confusion because of the comigration of 4.1-kb bands on the gel from both the 6-kb and the 4.1-kb units. For most cases, 92R7 typing was performed by hybridization (Mathias et al. 1994), but PCR was also used to type some individuals (M. Hurles, F. R. Santos, A. Pandya, and C. Tyler-Smith, unpublished data).

Additional systems--namely, DYS199, SRY-1532, Tat, the Y Alu polymorphism (YAP), and h--were scored, after PCR, in a MJR PTC200 thermocycler, with a 12.5-l reaction volume, 1 M of each primer, 200 M dNTPs, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 1 U Taq (Bioline) per tube with 1× KCl buffer (Bioline), and other changes as follows. The locus DYS199 (Underhill et al. 1996) was amplified for 30 cycles at 94°C for 20 s, 61°C for 20 s, and 72°C for 30 s, with a modified reverse primer, 5'-AGG TAC CAG CTC TTC CCA ATT-3', containing a GC base change (underlined) that creates an artificial MfeI restriction site when the DYS199 C allele is present. This PCR/RFLP protocol using the MfeI enzyme (New England Biolabs), resolved in native polyacrylamide gels stained by silver (Santos et al. 1996a), allowed us to determine without doubt the allele state at this site that had been detected previously by an allele-specific-primer protocol (Underhill et al. 1996). The locus SRY-1532, with an AG mutation (Whitfield et al. 1995), was amplified for 30 cycles at 94°C for 20 s, 60°C for 20 s, and 72°C for 30 s, with the primers SRY1 (5'-TCC TTA GCA ACC ATT AAT CTG G-3') and SRY2 (5'-AAA TAG CAA AAA ATG ACA CAA GGC-3') and 0.5 U Taq per tube. The G allele was detected by the presence of the DraIII (Boehringer) restriction site on a 1.5% agarose gel in Tris/acetate/EDTA 0.5×. The YAP system was scored, as described elsewhere (Hammer and Horai 1995), in the PCR conditions described above but with PROMEGA enzyme and buffer. The Tat polymorphism (Zerjal et al. 1997) and the h system (Santos et al. 1995b, 1996a) were detected and classified as described previously. Most individuals were also typed for the tetranucleotide microsatellite DYS19 (Santos et al. 1996a).

Population Genetics of Y Chromosomes

Haplotype frequencies and gene diversities (Nei 1987) were calculated for all populations. A parsimonious network was constructed either manually or by median network analysis (Bandelt et al. 1995), with the knowledge of the molecular mechanisms of the h-system mutations (Santos et al. 1996a) and other loci (Mathias et al. 1994; Hammer and Horai 1995; Jobling and Tyler-Smith 1995; Whitfield et al. 1995; Underhill et al. 1996). On the basis of this network, a haplotype distance matrix was constructed by use of the number of mutation steps between each pair of Y haplotypes. The hierarchic distribution of Y chromosome diversity, measured as the variance components among individuals, populations, and geographic groups, was computed by use of analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) software. Genetic distances between populations were calculated, and their significance was tested by use of a permutation procedure (Excoffier et al. 1992). Population pairwise FST's and other genetic distances (Excoffier et al. 1992) were used to draw neighbor-joining and UPGMA trees, with the PHYLIP package (Felsenstein 1993), that were visualized by use of TreeView software (Page 1996).

Results

Worldwide Distribution of Y Haplotypes

This study comprised a sample of 306 men from populations encompassing distinct linguistic affiliations. They are representatives of different geographic areas expected to be informative for the Americas settlement study. The analysis with seven polymorphic systems revealed the variation at 30 distinct loci in the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome, which allowed the discrimination of 32 haplotypes among 306 men. The major Amerindian haplotype (Pena et al. 1995; Underhill et al. 1996) is described here as haplotype 31, which is associated with several markers, such as h type II, the alphoid 4.1-kb units, the DYS199 T allele, the 92R7 HindIII- allele, and also the DYS19 microsatellite A allele (data not shown), as well as with the ancestral states of the polymorphisms YAP and Tat. Haplotype 10, differing from haplotype 31 only by the mutation at DYS199, was very frequent (30%) in our Native American sample and was found exclusively among the North American Indians; in addition, it was also observed in a Mongolian and four Indians. Haplotype 20, which is similar to haplotypes 10 and 31, was seen in a single North American Indian and in some populations from the central region of Siberia. It was particularly frequent in a sample of the rapidly disappearing Ket population (70%) and also was found in some Altaians (17.4%) and a single Mongolian. Haplotype 23, which is very different from haplotypes 31, 10, and 20, was seen in a single Na-Dene and could be a more recent migrant haplotype from Asia, since it is most frequent in Mongolia (42%) and also is seen in many Siberians. Haplotype 1, also similar to haplotype 10 and the most frequent in Europe (53%), is also present in India (14.5%) and was found in 20% of the Native Americans, exclusively in the samples collected for paternity tests in North America, but it is absent from Siberia or central East Asia. European ancestry was confirmed for at least one of these Native American samples with haplotype 1 in the paternity-test report. Therefore, the presence of haplotype 1 in North American Indians can be explained as a result of recent admixture with Europeans, whereas haplotypes 10, 20, and 23 cannot be explained in the same way, because they are absent from Europe.

The Y Haplotype Network

The 32 different Y haplotypes were connected into a parsimonious network assuming no recombination, because all markers were located in the Y-specific region. Information on the mutation mechanisms that characterize the variability of the h system (Santos et al. 1995a, 1995b, 1996a) was used, as well as some additional information about the known ancestral states for DYS199 (Underhill et al. 1996), YAP (Hammer and Horai 1995), Tat (Zerjal et al. 1997), and SRY-1532 (Whitfield et al. 1995) and also the inferred ancestral state for 92R7 (Mathias et al. 1994; Jobling and Tyler-Smith 1995; Jobling et al. 1997). Variability of the 6-kb and 4.1-kb alphoid units was partially associated with the h system (Santos et al. 1995b), and most of the Y chromosomes seemed to have both the 6-kb and 4.1-kb units (Mathias et al. 1994; Santos et al. 1995b; F. R. Santos, A. Pandya, and C. Tyler-Smith, unpublished data). The deletion of the 6-kb units can generate chromosomes bearing 4.1-kb divergent units only, and further deletion of the 4.1-kb units generates chromosomes containing no divergent units. Since deletion events that cause the loss of many units of alphoid DNA are relatively frequent (Mathias et al. 1994; Santos et al. 1995a, 1995b, 1996a), we allowed these events to be recurrent on the network.

The occurrence of an extra reverse mutation at the SRY-1532 locus is represented as a recurrent step in this parsimony network, leading to haplotype 32. It is supported by the association with 92R7 alleles, by the specific association with h type II, and by analysis with an additional 19 Y markers (F. R. Santos, A. Pandya, and C. Tyler-Smith, unpublished data). In addition, the geographic distribution of haplotype 32 is very similar to that of haplotype 1, its deduced immediate ancestor, and is quite distinct from that of haplotype 19, which shares with haplotype 32 the same allele A at SRY-1532. The same network was obtained with the procedure of median network analysis (Bandelt et al. 1995), which allows the resolution of networks containing such recurrent markers. Our unique network shows the sequential accumulation of mutations used to trace several Y lineages from the ancestral haplotype. The most likely root for this network is haplotype 19, seen only in an African San, because it bears the ancestral states for all the loci for which this information is known or inferred . A recent study with several new biallelic Y markers (Underhill et al. 1997) also supports the conclusion that the San haplotype 19 is the most ancestral Y chromosome. Following from the probable root, haplotypes 3, 13, and 10 are direct ancestors of the Native American haplotype 31, and other related haplotypes, such as haplotypes 20 and 1, share with haplotype 31 the common ancestor haplotype 10. The frequent and widespread haplotype 3 is probably very old, because it gave rise to most, if not all, of the Y chromosomes found outside Africa. Haplotype 13 also is probably old but is very rare, which could indicate that the 92R7 mutation happened quite soon after the origin of haplotype 13, producing haplotype 10. However, a simple deletion of the 6-kb alphoid units in an individual with haplotype 3 can lead to a recurrent haplotype 13. By using other Y markers (F. R. Santos, A. Pandya, and C. Tyler-Smith, unpublished data), we found that the two Chinese individuals with haplotype 13 are recurrent types, because of a de novo deletion of the 6-kb units. Thus, interpretation of the distribution of the few haplotype 13 individuals should be made with care. Fortunately, haplotype 10, the immediate ancestor of haplotype 31, is defined by the point mutation at 92R7 and, together with all chromosomes derived from it, makes up the 92R7 lineage that is important for the tracing of the major migrant Y chromosome to the Americas.

Global Diversity of Y Chromosome Haplotypes

Our study used markers defining many branches of the 92R7 lineage, with a consequent bias toward a better resolution of populations containing this lineage, despite the fact that most variation was found in the h polymorphism, with no such apparent bias (Santos et al. 1995b, 1996a). For this reason, the gene diversity (Nei 1987) for each population usually was increased when different 92R7-lineage derivatives were present, which also could have increased slightly the within-population variance calculated with AMOVA (discussed below). Therefore, this study was oriented toward a detailed investigation of Y lineages that are interesting with regard to the peopling of the Americas and should not be considered a broad and unbiased description of all worldwide Y lineages.

The genetic structure of this Y chromosome data was analyzed in detail by use of AMOVA (Excoffier et al. 1992), which allows an estimation of the relative distribution of genetic diversity in three hierarchic levels: among individuals, among populations, and among geographic groups. The AMOVA resulted in the values 59%, 25%, and 16%, respectively, for worldwide Y chromosome diversity. The value of 59% of the total Y chromosome variability found among individuals is relatively low, compared with the value of 85% obtained for other autosomal DNA polymorphisms (Barbujani et al. 1997). Thus, the higher degree of interpopulation and geographic diversity (41%) of Y chromosomes observed in this study emphasizes the usefulness of Y chromosome haplotype analysis, to discriminate between populations and to elucidate past male migrations within and across continents (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 1995; Santos and Tyler-Smith 1996).

Y Chromosome Population Trees

AMOVA (Excoffier et al. 1992) also generated a matrix of FST analogs between populations of Y chromosomes. This procedure avoids the use of allele frequencies to calculate genetic distances, since the loci in the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome are not independent. Otherwise, if we used only the haplotype frequencies (considering the Y chromosome as a single locus, as expected), we would lose the information of shared ancestry. When running AMOVA, we computed the similarity of populations sharing haplotypes related by descent, by taking into account both haplotype frequencies and molecular differences between haplotypes (see Material and Methods). These pairwise FST's computed by AMOVA were used to draw neighbor-joining and UPGMA gene trees (Felsenstein 1993), to display the relationship of Y chromosome populations. Similar trees were obtained with two other distances (data not shown). By use of a nonparametric permutation test (Excoffier et al. 1992), the calculated FST distances were shown to be significant (P < .05), except between the Buryats and Yakuts, the closest groups on the trees. In all the trees, the Native American Y chromosomes clustered with Kets, Altaians, and Caucasoids (Europeans and Indians). European admixture cannot explain this cluster, because if we exclude in the analysis all haplotypes present in Siberians and Amerindians that are also found in Europe (such as haplotype 1, which appears in four Native Americans), the tree remains very similar (data not shown). This tree structure also did not change when we used the inferred frequency 87% for haplotype 31 among 132 Native Americans, published previously (Pena et al. 1995; Santos et al. 1995a; Underhill et al. 1996).

Although some Siberian and Native American Y chromosomes show remarkably close association with Caucasoid Y chromosomes, other Siberian populations are very distinct, clustering with other Asians. A particular Siberian cluster is formed by Buryat and Yakut Y chromosomes, mainly because of the common origin of most of their Y chromosomes, with the high frequency of the Tat mutation (table 1; Zerjal et al. 1997). Thus, our findings from the haplotype distribution, the haplotype network , and the Y chromosome population trees suggest a high interpopulation differentiation in Siberia, probably because of distinct founder populations and subsequent genetic drift. In addition, these data identify the group of Ket and Altaian Y chromosomes that are related to those among Native Americans and Caucasoids, whereas the Evenki Y chromosomes are related to those of Mongolians. Yakut and Buryat Y chromosomes, which previously were shown to have a common origin with Uralic Y chromosomes (Zerjal et al. 1997), form another distinct cluster.

Discussion

A human Y chromosome phylogeny was used to trace the origins of the major founder haplotype of the Americas, haplotype 31. The worldwide distribution of Y haplotypes associated with the information of sequential mutations, displayed in the network , allowed the construction of a map showing the likely pathway of Y chromosomes migrating to the Americas. The present-day distribution of haplotypes related to haplotype 31 can be explained by a radiation from central Eurasia through a northern migration route to the Americas and a southern route to the Indian subcontinent. This dichotomy is supported by the absence of haplotypes 1, 10, 20, and 32 in China and Japan (table 1), including in the analysis of another 56 Chinese and 138 Japanese samples (F. R. Santos and C. Tyler-Smith, unpublished data). A migration route from central Eurasia to northeastern Siberia during the Upper Pleistocene was suggested recently (Lahr and Foley 1994), and the occurrence of several Caucasoid lineages in the Indian subcontinent can be explained by the immigration of Indo-European speakers from central Eurasia after 5,000 ybp (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).

The major Native American haplotype 31 is present on both sides of Beringia, most likely because of an American or Beringian origin of the mutation in the DYS199 locus (Karafet et al. 1997; Lell et al. 1997). Its immediate ancestor, haplotype 10, is a rare haplotype (11 of 306 individuals) seen only in North America (n = 6), India (n = 4), and Mongolia (n = 1). An old population bearing haplotype 10, a Native American/Siberian/Caucasoid common ancestor, has been placed somewhere in central Eurasia . Haplotypes 1 (Caucasoid), 20 (Siberian and Native American), and 31 (Native American) are derived from this ancestor. The most common European chromosome, haplotype 1, appeared in four Native American samples from paternity tests in North America; thus, they very likely could be due to recent admixture. Haplotype 20, another descendant of haplotype 10 by a simple alphoid locus-deletion step, is very frequent in Kets and was found in some Altaians, all of whom were shown to also have the DYS19 A allele (data not shown), which is also present in most individuals with haplotype 31 (Pena et al. 1995; Santos et al. 1995a; Underhill et al. 1996). Recently, the Ket language was suggested to be closely related to the Na-Dene language (Greenberg 1996), and the resemblance of Kets to Native Americans and Caucasoids, with regard to physical appearance (Forsyth 1996) and Y chromosomes (this study), makes them the most likely central Siberian population to share the same recent ancestors. The Altaians, a common denomination for seven formerly distinct Turkic populations, exhibit very diverse Y haplotypes and could have acquired their Y chromosomes from many neighboring tribes, including the Kets (Forsyth 1996).

Our study can be compared to current research on the peopling of the Americas. Recent archeological and anthropological studies of the first settlement of the Americas are revealing many alternative migration routes and older dates for settlement (Roosevelt et al. 1996), as well as raising doubts about the Mongolian origins of the first migrants (Neves and Pucciarelli 1991; Lahr 1995). The multiple-dispersals model, suggested recently by paleoanthropologists (Lahr and Foley 1994), claims that the first migrants to the Americas were from a Southeast Asian stock, whereas our Y chromosome data suggest a northern Eurasian route of migration. However, they also proposed two distinct dispersals from central Eurasia to northeastern Siberia and Europe, one in the middle Upper Pleistocene (50,000-15,000 ybp) and another in the late Upper Pleistocene (15,000 ybp to present). The former could be the source of the Y chromosomes in those who first migrated to the Americas through Siberia, as well as the source of the Y chromosomes in those colonizing Europe in the Paleolithic.

The very recent find of the 9,400-year-old skeleton of the Kennewick man, which displays some Caucasoid characteristics, and his contemporary, the Spirit Cave mummy, suggests that the earliest migrants could be distinct from present-day populations (Morell 1998b). Possible genetic relationships between Eurasians and Native Americans are suggested by the presence of the rare mtDNA haplogroup X in both population groups, which apparently is absent in Siberia (Morell 1998a). Alternatively, in our study, the Y chromosome data reveal a common ancestor (haplotype 10) between Native Americans and Europeans, who left some rare descendants in Siberia, among the Kets and Altaians. However, the presence of the most common European haplotype 1 in the Americas can be explained as a recent European admixture more likely than as a remnant of a pre-Columbian migrant. Our Y chromosome data, when compared with morphological and mtDNA data, could imply another migration of typically Mongoloid people, who would have left phenotypic traces in their Native American descendants without contributing many of their Y chromosomes. This pattern of unequal paternal and maternal contributions in the gene pools of several populations has been characterized and discussed in detail by Poloni et al. (1997).

The major Native American Y haplotype occurs in high frequencies among Amerindians, Na-Denes, and Aleut-Eskimos (Pena et al. 1995; Santos et al. 1995a, 1996b; Underhill et al. 1996; Karafet et al. 1997; Lell et al. 1997; Rodriguez-Delfin et al. 1997; Underhill et al. 1997). It represented 90% of 90 nonadmixed South American Indians in our previous studies (Pena et al. 1995; Santos et al. 1995a) and 60% of 412 Native American Y chromosomes analyzed by other groups (Underhill et al. 1996; Karafet et al. 1997; Lell et al. 1997; Rodriguez-Delfin et al. 1997; Underhill et al. 1997), including Y chromosomes from tribes with a very high level of admixture, especially in North America (Santos et al. 1996b; Crawford 1998). The presence of this founder Y haplotype in the Americas suggests a single major migration and is compatible with a settlement model incorporating a population differentiation of all Native Americans in Beringia, as suggested by recent mtDNA studies (Forster et al. 1996; Bonatto and Salzano 1997). The first migrants bearing a proto-Caucasoid Y chromosome (haplotype 10) would have come from the region of central Siberia to Beringia 30,000 ybp (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Underhill et al. 1996). The mutation in the DYS199 locus, which produced haplotype 31, could have happened in this Pleistocene Beringian population, which would have experienced an expansion and migrated south to the Americas, through the Alberta ice-free corridor. Subsequently, the collapse of this corridor 20,000-14,000 ybp (reviewed in Bonatto and Salzano 1997) would have isolated the population that was still in Beringia from the recent migrants in the Americas, who, after a major founder effect, would give rise to the Amerindians. During this time of isolation, new minor Siberian migrants could have come to Beringia, and, at the end of the glaciation (12,000-10,000 ybp), these Beringians finally could have migrated to the Americas, originating the Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut speakers, with both still retaining the major haplotype 31 (Underhill et al. 1996; Karafet et al. 1997; Lell et al. 1997) and other Y chromosome lineages in frequencies higher than those in Amerindians, exemplified by haplotypes 10, 20, and 23 in North American Indians (table 1). These chromosomes could represent later migrations from central Siberia or Mongolia, despite the possibility that present-day individuals with haplotype 10 could be descendants of the first migrants prior to the acquisition of the DYS199 mutation. Other scenarios, involving earlier dates (<15,000 ypb), for the first settlement of the Americas are likely, but it is difficult to explain a single major migration with further differentiation for at least three major Native American groups.

This study traces the major Native American Y chromosome haplotype to the immediate ancestor shared with present-day Siberians and to an older common ancestor shared with Caucasoids (Europeans and Indians). This common ancestry of Native Americans and Caucasoids could explain the existence of non-Mongoloid skeletons, such as the Kennewick man. Despite the fact that the Y chromosome represents only 1 of 46 in the human male genome, in numeric terms, its exclusive father-to-son inheritance allows us to study patrilineages that reflect the past male migrations but that may not reflect the global history of populations. However, the Y lineage is the largest of many genomic lineages that compose the population history of modern Homo sapiens, and it is the counterpart to mtDNA lineage studies. Furthermore, the human Y chromosome seems to display an association with linguistics and geography that is higher than that for mtDNA (Poloni et al. 1997), and our data concur with some current views on the settlement of the Americas. Further analysis of all Y lineages present in the Americas that uses microsatellites (Santos and Tyler-Smith 1996; Zerjal et al. 1997) will be very useful in the detailed study of all trans-Bering Strait migrating lineages, as well as to the more precise determination of their entry time into the Americas.

Acknowledgments

We thank D. R. Carvalho-Silva and E. Tarazona-Santos for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by grants from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais, Brazil, and from the Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom.

References

· Bandelt HJ, Forster P, Sykes BC, Richards MB (1995) Mitochondrial portraits of human populations using median networks. Genetics 141:743-753 First citation in article
· Barbujani G, Magagni A, Minch E, Cavalli-Sforza LL (1997) An apportionment of human DNA diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:4516-4519 First citation in article
· Bonatto SL, Salzano FM (1997) A single and early migration for the peopling of the Americas supported by mitochondrial DNA sequence data. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:1866-1871 First citation in article
· Cavalli-Sforza LL, Menozzi P, Piazza A (1994) The history and geography of human genes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ First citation in article
· Crawford MH (1998) The origins of Native Americans: evidence from anthropological genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge First citation in article
· Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM (1992) Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA data. Genetics 131:479-491 First citation in article
· Felsenstein J (1993) Phylogeny inference package (PHYLIP), version 3.5. University of Washington, Seattle First citation in article
· Forster P, Harding R, Torroni A, Bandelt H-J (1996) Origin and evolution of Native American mtDNA variation: a reappraisal. Am J Hum Genet 59:935-945 First citation in article
· Forsyth J (1996) A history of the peoples of Siberia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge First citation in article
· Greenberg JH (1996) The "Greenberg hypothesis." Science 274:1447 First citation in article
· Greenberg JH, Turner CG, Zegura SL (1986) The settlement of the Americas: a comparison of the linguistic, dental and genetic evidence. Curr Anthropol 27:477-498 First citation in article
· Grimes BF [ed] (1996) Ethnologue: languages of the world, 13th ed. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas First citation in article
· Hammer MF, Horai S (1995) Y chromosomal DNA variation and the peopling of Japan. Am J Hum Genet 56:951-962 First citation in article
· Jobling MA, Pandya A, Tyler-Smith C (1997) The Y chromosome in forensic analysis and paternity testing. Int J Legal Med 110:118-124 First citation in article
· Jobling MA, Tyler-Smith C (1995) Fathers and sons: the Y chromosome and human evolution. Trends Genet 11:449-456 First citation in article
· Karafet T, Zegura SL, Vuturo-Brady J, Posukh O, Osipova L, Wiebe V, Romero F, et al (1997) Y chromosome markers and trans-Bering Strait dispersals. Am J Phys Anthropol 102:301-314 First citation in article
· Kolman CJ, Sambuughin N, Bermingham E (1996) Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Mongolian populations and implications for the origin of New World founders. Genetics 142:1321-1334 First citation in article
· Lahr MM (1995) Patterns of modern human diversification: implications for Amerindian origins. Yearbook Phys Anthropol 38:163-198 First citation in article
· Lahr MM, Foley R (1994) Multiple dispersals and modern human origins. Evol Anthropol 3:48-60 First citation in article
· Lell JT, Brown MD, Schurr TG, Sukernik RI, Starikovskaya YB, Torroni A, Moore LG, et al (1997) Y chromosome polymorphisms in Native American and Siberian populations: identification of Native American Y chromosome haplotypes. Hum Genet 100:536-543 First citation in article
· Mathias N, Bayés M, Tyler-Smith C (1994) Highly informative compound haplotypes for the human Y chromosome. Hum Mol Genet 3:115-124 First citation in article
· Merriwether DA, Hall WW, Vahlne A, Ferrell RE (1996) mtDNA variation indicates Mongolia may have been the source for the founding population for the New World. Am J Hum Genet 59:204-212 First citation in article
· Merriwether DA, Rothhammer F, Ferrell RE (1995) Distribution of the four founding lineage haplotypes in Native Americans suggests a single wave of migration for the New World. Am J Phys Anthropol 98:411-430 First citation in article
· Morell V (1998a) Genes may link ancient Eurasians, Native Americans. Science 280:520 First citation in article
· ------ (1998b) Kennewick man's trials continue. Science 280:190-192 First citation in article
· Neel JV, Biggar RJ, Sukernik RI (1994) Virologic and genetic studies relate Amerind origins to the indigenous people of the nMongolia/Manchuria/southeastern Siberia region. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:10737-10741 First citation in article
· Nei M (1987) Molecular evolutionary genetics. Columbia University Press, New York First citation in article
· Neves WA, Pucciarelli HM (1991) Morphological affinities of the first Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South-American human remains. J Hum Evol 21:261-273 First citation in article
· Page RDM (1996) TreeView: an application to display phylogenetic trees on personal computers. Comput Appl Biosci 12:357-358 First citation in article
· Pena SDJ, Santos FR, Bianchi N, Bravi CM, Carnese FR, Rothhammer F, Gerelsaikhan T, et al (1995) Identification of a major founder Y-chromosome haplotype in Amerindians. Nat Genet 11:15-16 First citation in article
· Poloni ES, Semino O, Passarino G, Santachiara-Benerecetti AS, Dupanloup I, Langaney A, Excoffier L (1997) Human genetic affinities for Y-chromosome P49a,f/TaqI haplotypes show strong correspondence with linguistics. Am J Hum Genet 61:1015-1035 First citation in article
· Rodriguez-Delfin L, Santos SE, Zago MA (1997) Diversity of the human Y chromosome of South American Amerindians: a comparison with blacks, whites, and Japanese from Brazil. Ann Hum Genet 61:439-448 First citation in article
· Roosevelt AC, Lima-da-Costa M, Machado CL, Michab M, Mercier N, Valladas H, Feathers J, et al (1996) Paleoindian cave dwellers in the Amazon: the peopling of the Americas. Science 272:373-384 First citation in article
· Santos FR, Bianchi NO, Pena SDJ (1996a) Worldwide distribution of human Y chromosome haplotypes. Genome Res 6:601-611 First citation in article
· Santos FR, Hutz M, Coimbra CEA, Santos RV, Salzano FM, Pena SDJ (1995a) Further evidence for the existence of a major founder Y chromosome haplotype in Amerindians. Braz J Genet 18:669-672 First citation in article
· Santos FR, Pena SDJ, Tyler-Smith C (1995b) PCR haplotypes for the human Y chromosome based on alphoid satellite variants and heteroduplex analysis. Gene 165:191-198 First citation in article
· Santos FR, Rodriguez-Delfin L, Pena SDJ, Moore J, Weiss KM (1996b) North and south Amerindians may have the same major founder Y chromosome haplotype. Am J Hum Genet 58:1369-1370 First citation in article
· Santos FR, Tyler-Smith C (1996) Reading the human Y chromosome: the emerging DNA markers and human genetic history. Braz J Genet 19:665-670 First citation in article
· Schanfield MS (1992) Immunoglobulin allotypes (GM and KM) indicate multiple founding populations of Native Americans: at least four migrations to the New World. Hum Biol 64:381-402 First citation in article
· Torroni A, Schurr TG, Cabell MF, Brown MD, Neel JV, Larsen M, Smith DG, et al (1993) Asian affinities and continental radiation of the four founding Native American mtDNAs. Am J Hum Genet 53:563-590 First citation in article
· Underhill PA, Jin L, Lin AA, Mehdi Q, Jenkins T, Vollrath D, Davis RW, et al (1997) Detection of numerous Y chromosome biallelic polymorphisms by denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography. Genome Res 7:996-1005 First citation in article
· Underhill PA, Jin L, Zemans R, Oefner PJ, Cavalli-Sforza LL (1996) A pre-Columbian Y chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionary history. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:196-200 First citation in article
· Waters MR, Forman SL, Pierson JM (1997) Diring Yuriakh: a Lower Paleolithic site in central Siberia. Science 275:1281-1284 First citation in article
· Whitfield LS, Sulston JE, Goodfellow PN (1995) Sequence variation of the human Y chromosome. Nature 378:379-380 First citation in article
· Zerjal T, Dashnyam B, Pandya A, Kayser M, Roewer L, Santos FR, Schiefenhovel W, et al (1997) Genetic relationships of Asians and northern Europeans revealed by Y-chromosomal DNA analysis. Am J Hum Genet 60:1174-1183 First citation in article

THEODORE G. SCHURR - EMORY UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR MOLECULAR MEDICINE

DNA STUDIES & THE BOOK OF MORMON

There has been a tremendous flurry of media attention over the scientific study of human genetic inheritance and the Book of Mormon. That attention has swirled around declarations made by Thomas W. Murphy, a doctoral candidate in anthropology, and current chair of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College in Washington. The storm clouds can be seen in a news article in the Los Angeles Times that says of Mr. Murphy:

His conclusion is that "the Book of Mormon is a piece of 19th century fiction," said Murphy, a lifelong Mormon who calls himself a Latter-day skeptic. "And that means that we have to acknowledge sometimes Joseph Smith lied."1

It is no wonder that with such conclusions it would appear that dark clouds are forming on the horizon of the Book of Mormon. The clouds appear especially dark when Murphy asserts that his conclusions are supported by modern science. Could it really be that science is proving the Book of Mormon wrong? This is Murphy's conclusion, but it is a conclusion that does not flow from the evidence examined. Critics of the Book of Mormon have come to the same conclusion as Murphy since the book was first published. The difference is that Murphy is claiming a new basis for his conclusion.

It is important to remember that Mr. Murphy is not citing his own original research in genetics, but rather library research into the work of others. He is synthesizing conclusions from his reading. This is a critical difference, for it helps us understand why the researchers can be right, but Mr. Murphy can be mistaken in his reading of those researchers. It will help us explain why Dr. Michael Whiting, an Evolutionary Biologist at Brigham Young University and "an authority on DNA"2 does not believe that Mr. Murphy has his science right.3 This is not a statement of fault in scientific method, because Murphy is not engaged in this type of work. It is rather a statement that his conclusions are not consonant with the science. When we examine the nature of the data available, we find that Murphy's particular conclusion does not flow from those data. He has asked the wrong questions of his data, and by asking the wrong questions, returns the wrong answers.

It should be understood by the reader that this article is not intended to be a review of Murphy's media-attention-grabbing essay, but an assessment of the available genetic data and it's implications relative to the Book of Mormon, in light of claims made by Murphy and other critics of the Book of Mormon.

To understand why Murphy's conclusions do not derive from the data, it is important that we understand what the DNA research can and cannot do. After we understand the science, we must correctly understand the Book of Mormon. Only with this foundation established, will we be able to make correct conclusions based on the data.

WHAT CAN HISTORICAL GENETICS DO?

There are large numbers of different types of studies concerning DNA. To keep them straight, we will confine ourselves to discussing those aspects of DNA research that look at the historical ties of biology, or "historical genetics" as a shorthand description. The short response to the question of what historical genetics and DNA research can do is that it can do wonderful things. The uniqueness of various aspects of human DNA has led to the ability of DNA tests to positively identify the physical remains of unknown victims of accidents. Since we inherit our DNA from our parents (and they from theirs), DNA can be used to trace biological family ties.4

One of the more fascinating family connections came from the examination of a nine-thousand-year-old skeleton in England (known as Cheddar Man), whose direct genetic descendant was found living in that very vicinity.5 It is important to remember with this study, however, that it took a specific skeleton and matched it to a specific person through the use of multiple genetic "markers." It did not find the relationship by beginning with the modern man and tracing him back to the skeleton.

Scientists have used the biological chemistry of genetic inheritance to trace certain sets of genetic materials that are shared widely through related populations. By examining particular pieces of DNA (markers) that are common, scientists may reconstruct the line of descent, or "umbilical line" that shows how that inherited marker traveled through time back to an early common ancestor.6 One study has traced mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited only from females, all the way back to a "genetic Eve." It is this type of research that Murphy is citing in his survey of the current research. These are remarkable new tools in our historical kit, and they do wondrous work. The real issue is to understand what they cannot do.

What can historical genetics not do?

Perhaps the most important caution about historical genetics is that it cannot yet say that all of the data have been collected and examined. For instance, in a recent radio interview, Dr. Scott Woodward, a professor of microbiology and head of the Molecular Genealogy Research Group at BYU,7 was asked about a study that indicated that the Ojibwa Indians possessed a genetic marker that was of unusual origin and appeared to indicate a possible European connection that was pre-Columbian. The study was published in 2001. That should be current science, shouldn't it? Dr. Woodward noted that more recent work has found that marker in Asia,8 highlighting the rapidly advancing and changing state of this particular science, and highlighting the difficulty of stating any conclusion as dramatically final as Murphy has. This is important not only because we should understand that our information is not complete, but because it also illustrates an important difference between researchers in a field and those who simply report on the research of others. Those who actually do the work typically show much more restraint in the types of conclusions they draw from the data. As witness to this caution, Dr. Woodward notes (speaking specifically of tracing back tot he Book of Mormon's Old World immigrants):

Have we made an adequate survey of the ancient population from which these individuals derived? No, we haven't. We've been very limited in our observation of the population structure based on mitochondrial DNA because there have been a number that have gone extinct. Perhaps the sampling isn't large enough; it doesn't contain all of the mitochondrial DNA types in a population. So, there are some real challenges in trying to reconstruct the past genetic patterns based on modern, present day DNAs that are collected.9

Equally important, however, is that we must understand correctly what science is telling us. In the case of the "genetic Eve," the popular understanding of the science was that mankind had been traced back to a single woman, hence the "Eve." Similar to Murphy's work, that conclusion was not made by those doing original research, but by people reading that research and making spectacular (and unwarranted) conclusions. The reality of the science is slightly different. Rather than the image of this single progenitor of humanity, we have a single progenitor of a surviving line of mitochondrial DNA. It is a difference that is easy for the non-professional to miss. Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer discussed this misperception of what this line of genetic research could do in the context of the "genetic Eve:"

The confusion is to see genetic lines too literally as representing individual humans. The so-called "genetic Eve" was the ancestral mitochondrial genetic line for all modern living humans. Obviously it was carried ultimately by one real woman over 150,000 years ago. But she was only the common ancestor for mitochondrial DNA. She did not carry all the rest of our ancestral genes. We have 30,000 functioning genes and they could each have had a different individual ancestor living at different times in different places.

The mitochondrial Eve was therefore one woman among thousands living over 150,000 years ago. Our other genes derive from our members of that ancestral population. The real importance of the mitochondrial genetic tree is that it gives a clear line of descent that can be used as a trail marker of our spread round the world. But it is only one particular tiny part of our huge human genome.10

The scientific use of historical genetics is tracing the spread of humanity throughout the world. It can be used to discuss the flow of populations, but not the complete definition of populations. The "genetic Eve" can be used to discuss the direction of human migrations, but cannot be used to posit a single female ancestor. As Dr. Oppenheimer notes, there were thousands of other women living at the same time as this "Eve," whose mitochondrial line is the only one that survived to the present. The inherent problem with tracing historical lines is that they can only trace the information that survives. Dr. Woodward highlighted this very point in his discussion at the FAIR Conference in August of 2001:

If you see a traditional genealogy chart as you would construct it, often we have the males on top and the females going down the bottom. You can see the Y chromosome line going across the top. We can identify the males in that line based on your Y chromosome because it will all be the same. Likewise, we can identify all of the females on the mitochondrial line that comes down across the bottom because they will all be the same. But at this level of, 16 individuals, we've only identified two of the 16 and we've only analyzed the contribution of 1/8 of the ancestors of that individual by looking at the Y chromosome and the mitochondrial DNA. You need to keep that in mind when you read and see a lot of the DNA studies that have been done, out there on mitochondrial DNA or on Y chromosomal DNA. Understand that the picture that you are getting with that alone, is a very small part of the picture. Because at the next generation ... it's 1/16. At the next generation it's 1/32 of the information that you have.11

The nature of the genetic research is necessarily reductive. To trace something back into the past one can match only the information that survives, and the information that reconstructs into the past becomes smaller and smaller. There is a parallel in the world of historical linguistics, which similarly works with present data to reconstruct historical information. Linguists can reconstruct some of the vocabulary of ancient populations based upon the survival of various words into the modern languages descended from that earlier language and population. However, the reconstructed vocabulary is in the hundreds of words if they are lucky. The actual vocabulary of that people would have been in the tens of thousands of words. Those other words existed, just as did all of the other women at the time of the "genetic Eve." The problem is that the traces of the other words and the other women have died out.

Another aspect of the analogy to historical linguistics is that data are reconstructed to particular time levels. While reconstructions exist for many different times, it is inappropriate to make comparisons from widely different time depths without carefully correlating the data. Collapsing time periods leads to inaccurate conclusions. This type of interpretive error in reading the data is not unusual in the readers and second-hand interpreters of the data, not the original researchers. This same problem of "time depth" exists in the science of historical genetics. Dr. Woodward specifically cautions:

I noticed in the conference last week that was referenced that there were some papers and some discussion on DNA. I think there were some very good things that were said there but I also have some concerns in that there was some mixing of the data across time scales that may not be appropriate. There is a lot of mitochondrial evidence that has to do with population structure very deep in the past; ten-, fifteen-, twenty-, thirty-, one hundred thousand years ago. The experiments that were set up to look at those were set up correctly to be able to answer those questions in those time frames. If we then extrapolate those to the very recent past, the last two- or three- or four thousand years, I think we have to be very careful in extrapolating some of those results.12

The science on which Mr. Murphy is basing his conclusions is valid in the same way that Dr. Woodward discussed the underlying data of the papers in the referenced conference. The problem is not the science that produced the data. The problem is in the way one uses the disparate data to come to conclusions. With this background we can now turn to the application of historical genetics to the Book of Mormon.

What does historical genetics say about the Book of Mormon?
At this point we should carefully examine Mr. Murphy's conclusions in the published article that provides the support for those conclusions. He says:

Now that quantitative scientific methods can indeed test for an Israelite genetic presence in ancient America, we learn ...that virtually all Native Americans can trace their lineages to the Asian mi-grations between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago. While molecular an-thropologists have the technological capability to identify descen-dants of ancient Hebrews, no traces of such DNA markers have appeared in Central America or elsewhere among Native Americans...

From a scientific perspective, the Book of Mormon's origin is best situated in early nineteenth-century America, and Lamanite gen-esis can only be traced historically to ca. 1828. The term Lamanite is a modern social and political designation that lacks a verifiable bio-logical or historical underpinning linking it to ancient American In-dians. The Book of Mormon emerged from an antebellum perspec-tive, out of a frontier American people's struggle with their god, and not from an authentic American Indian perspective.13

The problems begin with the very first phrase. He says, "Now that quantitative scientific methods can indeed test for an Israelite genetic presence in ancient America..." Murphy poses this as a given, a fact. It is a "fact" that Dr. Woodward, a researcher in the field, does not accept:

What did the genes of Lehi look like? How do we find out today what the genes of Lehi look like? I think that's a valid question to ask. Second is, who would you compare them with in living populations today? Where would you go to make the comparison? Would you go to modern day Israel today? What is the genetic composition of Israeli Jews today? Is it the same as it was two thousand years ago? Three thousand years ago? I would argue that it's not. Do we understand the population dynamics? What kinds of selection factors have been involved?14

For his part, Murphy bases part of his "fact" on the kind of popular thinking that created a single "Eve" instead of the more accurate population of which that ancestor was one representative. In discussing one of the genetic markers used to identify "Israelites," he notes: "Researchers have uncovered distinctive genetic markers on the Y-chromosome that are useful in establishing linkages between ancient and contemporary Hebrew populations."15 The science was done correctly, but Murphy gives a dramatic reading of that science that suggests that we may now identify any possible remnant of an ancient Israelite population. That conclusion overreaches the data. What Murphy fails to make clear is that these are reconstructed markers. They go from the present to the past. They are not like the example of the Cheddar Man where the historical is compared to the present. Reconstructions are reductive. Finding one does not indicate that we have an ability to discern any Israelite heritage, hence the difference in the statements made by Murphy and Dr. Woodward. In this case, it should be clear that given the choice we should accept the caution of someone who does professional original research in the field over one who is simply extracting conclusions from written studies.

DISPROVING THE BOOK OF MORMON OR MYTHOLOGY?

Murphy's next statement in his conclusion is "that virtually all Native Americans can trace their lineages to the Asian mi-grations between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago." The implication is that since we are able to trace Asian migrations, and we haven't found distinctive Hebrew DNA, that therefore the Book of Mormon cannot be true. In this, Murphy comes close to a correct conclusion, but not quite. It is very common among long-time Latter-day Saints who were born into the Church to assume that the Book of Mormon describes the origin of all of the American Indians. That it is common, however, does not mean that it squares with what the Book of Mormon actually says. In fact, it does not.

Additionally, this understanding among long-time Latter-day Saints does not indicate that this is a doctrine of the Church. Nevertheless, it provides an easy target for Murphy and anyone else who would attempt to apply "science" to the Book of Mormon. As opposed to Murphy disproving the foundation of the Book of Mormon claims, he has simply identified a mistaken assumption of some lay-members about the Book of Mormon, which is not a new discovery. LDS Book of Mormon scholars have held such a view for years, long before Murphy was even born.

Is it true that, as Murphy writes, "...virtually all Native Americans can trace their lineages to the Asian mi-grations between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago." It is true enough. What does this tell us? We may correctly conclude from the evidence that the popular opinion long held among Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon explains the origins of all Native American populations is mistaken. We may not conclude from that same evidence, however, that the Book of Mormon is incorrect. What is the difference?

Again, Mr. Murphy seems to present the results of his research as though this information about the hemispheric interpretation of the Book of Mormon is somehow new. The information about the Asian migrations into the New World is hardly new, and the faithful LDS scholars of the Book of Mormon have had that very understanding for a minimum of fifty years.16 The use of DNA evidence is new, but it doesn't tell us anything that was not already known about the Book of Mormon. In fact, a good result of this public attention will be that the general population of LDS will more rapidly come to understand the actual historical foundations of their sacred text rather than the mythology that has grown up around it.

It is not surprising that the popular understanding of the Book of Mormon should come more from what people thought about it than what it said about itself. As Terryl L. Givens notes concerning the early use of the Book of Mormon in the Church:

Looking at the Book of Mormon in terms of its early uses and reception, it becomes clear that this American scripture has exerted influence within the church and reaction outside the church not primarily by virtue of its substance, but rather its manner of appearing, not on the merits of what it says, but what it enacts. Put slightly differently, the history of the Book of Mormon's place in Mormonism and American religion generally has always been more connected to its status as signifier than signified, or its role as a sacred sign rather than its function as persuasive theology. The Book of Mormon is preeminently a concrete manifestation of sacred utterance, and thus an evidence of divine presence, before it is a repository of theological claims.17

This tendency of Church members, in general, to use the fact of the book rather than the text of the book has finally given way to an intense study of the text as a text. One of the earliest results of that research into what the book says about itself led to a reassessment of the relationship of the Book of Mormon to the geography, and therefore history, of the New World. That we should learn more through a concerted study of the Book of Mormon should be no surprise. The Church has never proclaimed that it possessed all truth, all at once. In the case of the Book of Mormon, recent research is anchored in the text itself.

Dr. John E. Clark, an anthropologist at BYU, noted:

From textual evidence, one can approximate some spatial relationships of various natural features and cities. Distances in the Book of Mormon are recorded in terms of the time required to travel from place to place.18

The results of careful study of what the Book of Mormon actually says about itself tells us that it covers an area dramatically smaller than the western hemisphere. John L. Sorenson notes:

We can now be certain that the Book of Mormon story took place in a limited portion of the western hemisphere shaped roughly like an hourglass. The size of that territory was measured in hundreds, not thousands, of miles. The movements of peoples, the individual journeys, and the times involved in travels recorded in the scripture fit reasonably in a land southward around 350 miles long and not much more than half that wide at one point north of Zarahemla. The land northward is less well specified but seems not so long.19

That this more accurate understanding of the Book of Mormon may be seen as the more "official" understanding of the Church may be seen from both the publication of this information about the Book of Mormon in the Ensign in 198420 as well as in the article on "Book of Mormon Geography" in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

This deeper understanding of the internal geography of the Book of Mormon tells us that when we learn that the traditional hemispheric interpretation of the text is incorrect, it has no relevance to the Book of Mormon itself, because the text never says that. Part of Murphy's conclusion is incorrect simply due to his mistaken assumption that the data contradict the Book of Mormon, when they really speak only to the mythology we have created around the Book of Mormon. Science does not prove the Book of Mormon wrong, because the science is not addressing the particular history of the Book of Mormon.

IS THE LACK OF EVIDENCE...EVIDENCE?

There is, of course, more to the story. Murphy's next error in his conclusion is to assume that the absence of evidence equates to the impossibility of existence of peoples described in the Book of Mormon. There are two important points to understand concerning this erroneous assumption. The first is the probable nature of the mixing of early populations in the Book of Mormon, and the second is that the reductive nature of the evidence cannot dismiss the possible presence of valid genetic lines that have been lost.

It has been understood from the beginning of this serious study of the Book of Mormon that there were people here when the Lehites arrived; lots of people. When we remember the small numbers of people mentioned in any of the Book of Mormon immigrations into the New World,21 we have a picture of a much smaller population entering an existing population that is significantly larger.22 This more accurate picture of what the Book of Mormon says must now be compared to the correct understanding of the scientific data so that we can understand just what historical genetics does and does not say about the Book of Mormon.

The first complication comes from the simple facts of inheritance. Steve Olson, a science journalist, reports the following:

In a 1999 paper titled "Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang showed how to reconcile the potentially huge number of our ancestors with the quantities of people who actually lived in the past. His model is a mathematical proof that relies on such abstractions as Poisson distributions and Markov chains, but it can readily be applied to the real world. Under the conditions laid out in his paper, the most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past--only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang's model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.23

The mathematics of descent and mixing populations tell us two things. The first is that we seem to be related to virtually everyone else if we go back only 600 to 800 years. The second is that even though we are related, we can only trace a portion of that line of descent. The reductive nature of the research lops off huge branches of our ancestral tree and creates a simple ancestry out of what was, in reality, a tangled one. This should indicate the need for great caution in the way we understand historical genetics, particularly making conclusions on the absence of an "umbilical line."

This caution becomes more relevant to the types of studies upon which Murphy is basing his conclusions because they also represent this streamlined view of genetic ancestry. When Murphy adamantly proposes the lack of non-Asian immigration before European contact, he is drawing a conclusion not supported by the data. The data actually say that the traceable origin is Asia. This flow of migration is the proper conclusion from the data, as Dr. Oppenheimer noted above. The data do not, and cannot, say anything about any peoples who did not come from Asia, but whose genetic lines cannot be traced because of the vicissitudes of genetic survival.

The most important indication that there is important genetic material that has been lost comes from the recent analysis of skeletal remains from Mexico. Tests indicate that the remains are nearly 13,000 years old. What is most important is what they tell us about migration pattern: The two oldest skulls were "dolichocephalic" - that is, long and narrow-headed. Other, more recent skulls were a different shape - short and broad, like those from native American remains.

This suggests that humans dispersed within Mexico in two distinct waves, and that a race of long and narrow-headed humans may have lived in North America prior to the American Indians. Traditionally, American Indians were thought to have been the first to arrive on the continent, crossing from Asia on a land bridge.

Dr Gonzalez told BBC News Online: "We believe that the older race may have come from what is now Japan, via the Pacific islands and perhaps the California coast.24

The skull shapes tell us that there is a different genetic type making its migration into the New World. One of these types is more Caucasoid than Asian, as witnessed by the Kennewick Man.25 Similarly, a very Caucasian population existed in part of Asia where their well-preserved mummies clearly declare them distinct from the Asian populations that later inhabited that area.26 These findings complicate the genetic inheritance, as they either demonstrate how much genetic information may be lost, or that our definitions of Asian may have to be re-written to include populations that are not typically thought of as Asian. They also highlight that there is a difference in describing an Asian location and declaring "Asian" as a genetic type. The archaeological evidence tells us that these peoples existed in these places, but we appear to have lost their genetic inheritance.

Conclusion
The applicability to the Book of Mormon should be evident. The current state of historical genetics tells us what we already knew: the Book of Mormon does not explain the origins of all of the natives of the western hemisphere. However, it is no contradiction to the Book of Mormon, because that isn't what the Book of Mormon says. It is no contradiction of official Church doctrine, because the Church never had an official doctrine on Book of Mormon geography (or genetics), in spite of the rather obvious popular beliefs.27 Historical genetics cannot say anything about the current understanding of the text because the limited contributions of Book of Mormon Old World genetic material was both small and long enough ago that there are any number of reasons why it could have disappeared from the traceable genetic lines that have currently been discovered.

There certainly are media storm clouds on the horizon, but they are more threat than real tempest. This media attention is really no more than a tempest in a teapot, and what rain comes from it may have the beneficial effect of washing away some traditional assumptions Mormons have held about their sacred volume that really do need to be replaced with a more solid understanding of what that text really says.

Notes

1 William Lobdell and Larry B. Stammer, "Mormon Scientist, Church Clash Over DNA Test," Los Angeles Times (December 8, 2002), A21.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid. Dr. Whiting responded to a statement by Maxine Hanks that Murphy was like Galileo. Dr. Whiting stated: "It's an inappropriate comparison. The difference is Galileo got the science right. I don't think Murphy has." It should also be noted that Whiting's DNA research has been featured in the weekly science journal, Nature (cover story, January 16, 2003).
4 The most powerful uses of DNA are to show biological relationships between an unknown and a known person. The issue of tracing biological families is the issue that will be discussed as we understand what DNA studies cannot do.
5 http://www.chattanooga.net/cita/mtdna.html
6 Thomas H. Roderick, PhD, uses the term "umbilical line," click here.
7 Dr. Woodward is a professor of microbiology and faculty member of the Molecular Biology Program at Brigham Young University. He is also head of the Molecular Genealogy Research Group at BYU. While completing his postdoctoral work in molecular genetics at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the University of Utah, he discovered a genetic marker used for the identification of carriers and the eventual discovery of the gene for cystic fibrosis. He was also involved with the identification of other gene markers for colon cancer and neurofibromatosis. He joined the faculty at BYU in 1989 and has been involved with several excavation teams in Seila, Egypt. While in Egypt, he directed the genetic and molecular analysis of Egyptian mummies, both from a commoners' cemetery and from Egyptian Royal tombs. Dr. Woodward has been the Scholar in Residence at the BYU Center for Near Eastern Studies in Jerusalem and a visiting professor at Hebrew University. His work has been featured both nationally and internationally on numerous programs including Good Morning America and both the Discovery and Learning Channels.
8 KUER: Radio West. "Science & Foundations of the Book of Mormon." Interview: Terryl L. Givens, Thomas Murphy and Scott Woodward. Host: Doug Fabrizio. Salt Lake City, December 19, 2002.
9 Scott Woodward. "DNA and the Book of Mormon." Presented at the FAIR Conference, August 2001. Dr. Woodward continues: "There are some ways that we may be able to approach that. And this is one of the approaches that we have taken in our laboratory at BYU. I wish that I could say that this was the magic bullet, and that it was going to be able to answer all our questions concerning ancient populations, but it turns out that the ability to recover ancient DNA and get useful information out of it is extremely difficult. It can be done. We have been able to do that in a number of limited situations. But for the most part, its going to be very difficult to go back in the past a thousand years, two thousand, four, five, ten, twelve, and recover DNA from individuals and say something about their ancient population structures."
10 "The Real Eve." Answers to questions by Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer. DiscoveryChannel.com. - click here
11 Woodward, "DNA and the Book of Mormon."
12 Ibid.
13 Thomas W. Murphy, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics," American Apocrypha, edited by Brent Metcalfe and Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 68.
14 Scott Woodward, "DNA and the Book of Mormon." It is worth noting that when Woodward asks about Lehi's genetics, he is clearly referring to Lehi and his group (i.e. his wife, sons, daughters, their spouses and children) and not Lehi, the individual, only. Certainly, identifying Lehi's mitochondrial DNA would be useless, as it would not be passed down to his posterity. The mitochondrial DNA of his wife, daughters, and his son's wives would indeed be important. Dr. Woodward makes that distinction in his presentation. Dr. Woodward continues: "How much of Lehi's mitochondrial DNA would you expect to see in Native Americans? That's a trick question but you should know the answer because we just talked about it. Zero-right? It would be Sariah. Is that true? Why? Why is that true? Who were Sariah's children? Sariah's children were Laman, Lemuel, Nephi, Sam, Jacob, and Joseph. Do you see any mitochondrial carriers there? No, although in 2 Nephi, Chapter 5, Nephi mentions his sisters, so perhaps there were a couple of Sariah's daughters that survived and that then would produce a possibility but who would that be? Who would then be mitochondrial donors for these people who came from the Middle East? The wife of Ishmael, right? Who was the wife of Ishmael…So in reality, one of the questions we have to ask is, "What would we expect to see?" So how can we know whether or not we have Lehite DNA in Native Americans if we're not exactly sure what exactly it is that we're supposed to be looking for or if we could recognize it when we saw it?"
15 Murphy, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics," 60.
16 An introduction to some of this history from the perspective of John L. Sorenson's involvement in it may be read in a biographical review. Davis Bitton, "Introduction," Mormon, Scripture, and the Ancient World. Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson (Provo, Utah: FARMS, Provo, 1998), xxxiii-xxxviii.
17 Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 63-64. 18 John E. Clark, "Book of Mormon Geography," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992), 1:177.
19 John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1985), 22.
20 John L. Sorenson, "Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture," Parts 1 and 2. Ensign (September 1984): 26-37; (October 1984): 12-23.
21 Even being generous, it is difficult to identify more than thirty people in Lehi's party. Soon after their arrival they split into two groups, both of which would have been integrated into the larger populations in different regions of the country. Thus Murphy is suggesting that testing modern populations from all over the western hemisphere proves that these thirty people did not exist. There is no logic in such an assumption.
22 Dr. Woodward specifically notes that the smaller population would have an impact in the study of Lehite genetics, assuming that we knew what that meant. Continuing his list of important factors: "…The reduction of size…and the dynamics of the demographics of the population of America and what's happened to it; The huge bottlenecks that have happened; The selection factors that have been involved."
23 Steve Olson. "The Royal We," The Atlantic Monthly (May 2002), http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/olson.htm.
24 "Human skulls are 'oldest Americans" Tuesday, 3 December 2002, 15:22 GMT. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2538323.stm
25 Article at Archealogy.com
26 http://sln.fi.edu/inquirer/mummy.html
27 See the discussion in Clark, "Book of Mormon Geography," 1:178.

http://www.ldsmag.com/articles/030124fair.html