Powell J F, Neves W A
Department of Anthropology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106, USA.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1999;Suppl 29:153-88. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1096-8644(1999)110:29+<153::aid-ajpa6>3.3.co;2-c.
The peopling of the New World has been the focus of anthropological attention since the last century. Proponents of multiple migration models have claimed that patterns of variation among extant New World populations reflect ancient, discrete migrations to the Americas during the terminal Pleistocene. Although multiple migration models appear to explain patterns of both past and present craniometric variation, this interpretation rests on a number of key assumptions that require further investigation. We examined a series of Paleoindian (n = 11) and Archaic (n = 384) crania from North and South America, and compare these early samples to a large world-wide sample of late Holocene (n = 6,742) remains to assess within- and among-group variability in early samples, and to determine how patterns of variation could be viewed as a reflection of both population history and population structure. Analyses included univariate and multivariate analysis of variance, principal component analysis, calculation of biological distances, and multivariate allocation methods. We also performed model-bound analyses of these data, including Relethford-Blangero analysis and calculation of F(ST). Our results indicate that under the assumptions of migration/founder models, the data are consistent with Paleoindians having derived from an undifferentiated Asian population that was not ancestral to modern American Indians. This view can be accommodated into existing models of multiple founders (migrations) in the New World. However, the assumptions required for such an interpretation are not realistic, and the diversity of early populations could as easily reflect population structuring processes such as genetic drift, demographic growth, and other phenomena. When the data were analyzed controlling for the effects of genetic drift (i.e., with smaller long-term effective population sizes for Paleoindians), the Paleoindian samples were no longer distinct from modern Native American populations. Other factors that need to be considered include processes involved in craniofacial change and adaptation during the past 10,000 years. Finally, patterns of variation in the North and South American Paleoindian samples are different, suggesting that the process of New World colonization is more complex than previously assumed.
自上个世纪以来,新世界的人口构成一直是人类学关注的焦点。多种迁移模型的支持者声称,现存新世界人群之间的变异模式反映了末次更新世晚期向美洲的古代、离散的迁移。尽管多种迁移模型似乎可以解释过去和现在颅骨测量变异的模式,但这种解释基于一些需要进一步研究的关键假设。我们研究了来自北美洲和南美洲的一系列古印第安人(n = 11)和古代人(n = 384)的颅骨,并将这些早期样本与大量全球范围内全新世晚期(n = 6,742)的遗骸样本进行比较,以评估早期样本中群体内部和群体之间的变异性,并确定变异模式如何被视为人口历史和人口结构的反映。分析包括单变量和多变量方差分析、主成分分析、生物距离计算以及多变量分配方法。我们还对这些数据进行了基于模型的分析,包括雷勒思福德 - 布兰杰罗分析和F(ST)的计算。我们的结果表明,在迁移/奠基者模型的假设下,数据与古印第安人源自一个未分化的亚洲人群一致,而该人群并非现代美洲印第安人的祖先。这种观点可以纳入新世界多个奠基者(迁移)的现有模型中。然而,这种解释所需的假设并不现实,早期人群的多样性同样容易反映诸如遗传漂变、人口增长和其他现象等人口结构过程。当分析数据时控制了遗传漂变的影响(即古印第安人的长期有效种群规模较小),古印第安人样本与现代美洲原住民群体不再有明显差异。其他需要考虑的因素包括过去一万年中颅面变化和适应所涉及的过程。最后,北美洲和南美洲古印第安人样本的变异模式不同,这表明新世界殖民化的过程比之前假设的更为复杂。