Problematic Use of Greenberg's Linguistic Classification of the Americas in Studies of Native American Genetic Variation
2004; Elsevier BV; Volume: 75; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1086/423452
ISSN1537-6605
AutoresDeborah A. Bolnick, Beth Shook, Lyle Campbell, Ives Goddard,
Tópico(s)Forensic and Genetic Research
ResumoTo the Editor: In recent years, there has been a burgeoning interest in comparisons of genetic and linguistic variation across human populations. This synthetic approach can be a powerful tool for reconstructing human prehistory, but only when the patterns of genetic and linguistic variation are accurately represented (Szathmary Szathmary, 1993Szathmary EJE mtDNA and the peopling of the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 1993; 53: 793-799PubMed Google Scholar). If one or both patterns are inaccurate, the resulting conclusions about human prehistory or gene-language correlations may be incorrect. Here, we present evidence that comparisons of genetic and linguistic variation in the Americas are problematic when they are based on Greenberg's (Greenberg, 1987Greenberg JH Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press, Stanford1987Google Scholar) classification of Native American languages, for these very reasons. Greenberg (Greenberg, 1987Greenberg JH Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press, Stanford1987Google Scholar) argued that all Native American languages, except those of the “Na-Dene” and Eskimo-Aleut groups, are similar and can be classified into a single linguistic unit, which he called “Amerind.” His tripartite classification (Amerind, Na-Dene, and Eskimo-Aleut) was based on the method of multilateral comparison, which examines many languages simultaneously to detect similarities in a small number of basic words and grammatical elements (Greenberg Greenberg, 1987Greenberg JH Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press, Stanford1987Google Scholar). Greenberg (Greenberg, 1987Greenberg JH Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press, Stanford1987Google Scholar) also suggested that his three language groupings represent three separate migrations to the Americas, and Greenberg et al. (Greenberg et al., 1986Greenberg JH Turner II, CG Zegura SL The settlement of the Americas: a comparison of the linguistic, dental and genetic evidence.Curr Anthropol. 1986; 27: 477-497Crossref Google Scholar) interpreted their synthesis of the linguistic, dental, and genetic evidence as supportive of this three-migration hypothesis. Over the past 18 years, this three-migration model has become entrenched in the genetics literature as the hypothesis against which new genetic data are tested (e.g., Torroni et al. Torroni et al., 1993Torroni A Schurr TG Cabell MF Brown MD Neel JV Larsen M Smith DG Vullo CM Wallace DC Asian affinities and continental radiation of the four founding Native American mtDNAs.Am J Hum Genet. 1993; 53: 563-590PubMed Google Scholar; Merriwether et al. Merriwether et al., 1995Merriwether DA Rothhammer F Ferrell RE Distribution of the four founding lineage haplotypes in Native Americans suggests a single wave of migration for the New World.Am J Phys Anthropol. 1995; 98: 411-430Crossref PubMed Scopus (213) Google Scholar; Zegura et al. Zegura et al., 2004Zegura SL Karafet TM Zhivotosky LA Hammer MF High-resolution SNPs and microsatellite haplotypes point to a single, recent entry of Native American Y chromosomes into the Americas.Mol Biol Evol. 2004; 21: 164-175Crossref PubMed Scopus (206) Google Scholar), and Greenberg's linguistic classification has been the primary scheme used in studies comparing genetic and linguistic variation in the Americas. Of 100 studies of Native American genetic variation published between 1987 and 2004, 61 cite Greenberg (Greenberg, 1987Greenberg JH Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press, Stanford1987Google Scholar) or Greenberg et al. (Greenberg et al., 1986Greenberg JH Turner II, CG Zegura SL The settlement of the Americas: a comparison of the linguistic, dental and genetic evidence.Curr Anthropol. 1986; 27: 477-497Crossref Google Scholar), and at least 19 others were influenced by his tripartite classification (15 studies use the Amerind, Na-Dene, and Eskimo-Aleut groupings, and 4 others use the similar language groupings of Greenberg's student M. Ruhlen.) Whereas Greenberg's classification has been widely and uncritically used by human geneticists, it has been rejected by virtually all historical linguists who study Native American languages. There are many errors in the data on which his classification is based (Goddard Goddard, 1987Goddard I Review of Language in the Americas by Joseph H. Greenberg.Curr Anthropol. 1987; 28: 656-657Google Scholar; Adelaar Adelaar, 1989Adelaar WFH Review of Language in the Americas, by Joseph H. Greenberg.Lingua. 1989; 78: 249-255Crossref Google Scholar; Berman Berman, 1992Berman H A comment on the Yurok and Kalapuya data in Greenberg's Language in the Americas.Int J Am Ling. 1992; 58: 230-233Google Scholar; Kimball Kimball, 1992Kimball G A critique of Muskogean, “Gulf,” and Yukian material in Language in the Americas.Int J Am Ling. 1992; 58: 447-501Google Scholar; Poser Poser, 1992Poser WJ The Salinan and Yurumanguí data in Language in the Americas.Int J Am Ling. 1992; 24: 174-188Google Scholar), and Greenberg's criteria for determining linguistic relationships are widely regarded as invalid. His method of multilateral comparison assembled only superficial similarities between languages, and Greenberg did not distinguish similarities due to common ancestry (i.e., homology) from those due to other factors (which other linguists do). Linguistic similarities can also be due to factors such as chance, borrowing from neighboring languages, and onomatopoeia, so proposals of remote linguistic relationships are only plausible when these other possible explanations have been eliminated (Matisoff Matisoff, 1990Matisoff JA On megalo-comparison: a discussion note.Language. 1990; 66: 106-120Google Scholar; Mithun Mithun, 1990Mithun M Studies of North American Indian languages.Ann Rev Anthropol. 1990; 9: 309-330Crossref Google Scholar; Goddard and Campbell Goddard and Campbell, 1994Goddard I Campbell L The history and classification of American Indian languages: what are the implications for the peopling of the Americas?.in: Bonnichsen R Steele DG Method and theory for investigating the peopling of the Americas. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis1994: 189-207Google Scholar; Campbell Campbell, 1997Campbell L American Indian languages: the historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford University Press, New York1997Google Scholar; Ringe Ringe, 2000Ringe D Some relevant facts about historical linguistics.in: Renfrew C America past, America present: genes and languages in the Americas and beyond. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge2000: 139-162Google Scholar). Greenberg made no attempt to eliminate such explanations, and the putative long-range similarities he amassed appear to be mostly chance resemblances and the result of misanalysis—he compared many languages simultaneously (which increases the probability of finding chance resemblances), examined arbitrary segments of words, equated words with very different meanings (e.g., excrement, night, and grass), failed to analyze the structure of some words and falsely analyzed that of others, neglected regular sound correspondences between languages, and misinterpreted well-established findings (Chafe Chafe, 1987Chafe WL Review of Language in the Americas by Joseph H. Greenberg.Curr Anthropol. 1987; 28: 652-653Google Scholar; Bright Bright, 1988Bright W Review of Language in the Americas by Joseph H. Greenberg.in: American reference books annual 19. Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, CO1988: 440Google Scholar; Campbell Campbell, 1988Campbell L Review of Language in the Americas by Joseph H. Greenberg.Language. 1988; 64: 591-615Crossref Google Scholar, Campbell, 1997Campbell L American Indian languages: the historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford University Press, New York1997Google Scholar; Golla Golla, 1988Golla V Review of Language in the Americas by Joseph H. Greenberg.Am Anthropol. 1988; 90: 434-435Crossref Google Scholar; Goddard Goddard, 1990Goddard I Review of Language in the Americas by Joseph H. Greenberg.Linguistics. 1990; 28: 556-558Google Scholar; Rankin Rankin, 1992Rankin RL Review of Language in the Americas by Joseph H. Greenberg.Int J Am Ling. 1992; 58: 324-351Google Scholar; McMahon and McMahon McMahon and McMahon, 1995McMahon A McMahon R Linguistics, genetics and archaeology: internal and external evidence in the Amerind controversy.Trans Philol Soc. 1995; 93: 125-225Crossref Scopus (26) Google Scholar; Nichols and Peterson Nichols and Peterson, 1996Nichols J Peterson DA The Amerind personal pronouns.Language. 1996; 72: 336-371Crossref Scopus (38) Google Scholar). Consequently, empirical studies have shown that “the method of multilateral comparison fails every test; its results are utterly unreliable. Multilateral comparison is worse than useless: it is positively misleading, since the patterns of ‘evidence’ that it adduces in support of proposed linguistic relationships are in many cases mathematically indistinguishable from random patterns of chance resemblances” (Ringe Ringe, 1994Ringe D (1994) Multilateral comparison: an empirical test. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, February 18–23Google Scholar, p. 28; cf. Ringe Ringe, 2002Ringe D Review of Joseph L. Greenberg, Indo-European and its closest relatives: the Eurasiatic language family. Vol. 1: grammar.J Ling. 2002; 38: 415-420Crossref Google Scholar). Because of these problems, Greenberg's methodology has proven incapable of distinguishing plausible proposals of linguistic relationships from implausible ones, such as Finnish-Amerind (Campbell Campbell, 1988Campbell L Review of Language in the Americas by Joseph H. Greenberg.Language. 1988; 64: 591-615Crossref Google Scholar). Thus, specialists in Native American linguistics insist that Greenberg's methodology was so flawed that it completely invalidates his conclusions about the unity of Amerind, and Greenberg himself estimated that 80%–90% of linguists agreed with this assessment (Lewin Lewin, 1988Lewin R American Indian language dispute.Science. 1988; 242: 1632-1633Crossref PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar). Given this, the use of Greenberg's (Greenberg, 1987Greenberg JH Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press, Stanford1987Google Scholar) classification can confound attempts to understand the relationship between genetic and linguistic variation in the Americas. Many studies of Native American genetic variation continue to use this classification (e.g., Bortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2002Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Bau CHD Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Bedoya G Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms and Native American population structure.Ann Hum Genet. 2002; 66: 255-259Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google Scholar; Fernandez-Cobo et al. Fernandez-Cobo et al., 2002Fernandez-Cobo M Agostini HT Britez G Ryschkewitsch CF Stoner GL Strains of JC virus in Amerind-speakers of North America (Salish) and South America (Guarani), Na-Dene-speakers of New Mexico (Navajo), and modern Japanese suggest links through an ancestral Asian population.Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002; 118: 154-168Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar; Lell et al. Lell et al., 2002Lell JT Sukernik RI Starikovskaya YB Su B Jin L Schurr TG Underhill PA Wallace DC The dual origin and Siberian affinities of Native American Y chromosomes.Am J Hum Genet. 2002; 70: 192-206Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (139) Google Scholar; Gomez-Casado et al. Gomez-Casado et al., 2003Gomez-Casado E Martinez-Laso J Moscoso J Zamora J Martin-Villa M Perez-Blas M Lopez-Santalla M Lucas Gramajo P Silvera C Lowy E Arnaiz-Villena A Origin of Mayans according to HLA genes and the uniqueness of Amerindians.Tissue Antigens. 2003; 61: 425-436Crossref PubMed Scopus (54) Google Scholar; Zegura et al. Zegura et al., 2004Zegura SL Karafet TM Zhivotosky LA Hammer MF High-resolution SNPs and microsatellite haplotypes point to a single, recent entry of Native American Y chromosomes into the Americas.Mol Biol Evol. 2004; 21: 164-175Crossref PubMed Scopus (206) Google Scholar). However, Hunley and Long (Hunley and Long, 2004Hunley K, Long JC (2004) Does Greenberg's linguistic classification predict patterns of New World genetic diversity? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Tampa, April 14–17Google Scholar) recently showed that there is a poor fit between Greenberg's classification and the patterns of Native American mtDNA variation. On the basis of their findings, we believe that Greenberg's groupings should no longer be used in analyses of mtDNA variation. To further evaluate how the use of this classification influences our understanding of the relationship between genetic and linguistic variation in the Americas, we examined how well different linguistic classifications “explain” the patterns of Native American Y-chromosome variation. Data were compiled on the Y-chromosome haplogroups of 523 Native Americans, representing 36 populations (table 1). We compared hierarchical analyses of molecular variance (AMOVAs), using Greenberg's (Greenberg, 1987Greenberg JH Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press, Stanford1987Google Scholar) classification and a more conservative one (Campbell Campbell, 1997Campbell L American Indian languages: the historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford University Press, New York1997Google Scholar) that is widely accepted by specialists in historical linguistics of Native American languages (Golla Golla, 2000Golla V Review of American Indian languages: the historical linguistics of Native America.Lang Soc. 2000; 29: 150-153Crossref Google Scholar; Hill and Hill Hill and Hill, 2000Hill JH Hill KC American Indian languages.Am Anthropol. 2000; 102: 161-163Crossref Google Scholar). The AMOVAs were based on population frequencies of the haplogroups known to be pre–European contact Native American lineages (Q-M19, Q-M3*, Q-M242*, and C-M130). All calculations were performed by Arlequin 2.000 (Schneider et al. Schneider et al., 2000Schneider S Roessli D Excoffier L Arlequin version 2.000: a software for population genetics data analysis. Genetics and Biometry Laboratory, University of Geneva, Geneva2000Google Scholar).Table 1Populations and Language Classifications Used in AMOVAsLanguage ClassificationPopulationGreenberg (Greenberg, 1987Greenberg JH Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press, Stanford1987Google Scholar)Campbell (Campbell, 1997Campbell L American Indian languages: the historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford University Press, New York1997Google Scholar)ReferenceCheyenne/ArapahoAmerindAlgicZegura et al. Zegura et al., 2004Zegura SL Karafet TM Zhivotosky LA Hammer MF High-resolution SNPs and microsatellite haplotypes point to a single, recent entry of Native American Y chromosomes into the Americas.Mol Biol Evol. 2004; 21: 164-175Crossref PubMed Scopus (206) Google Scholar; D. A. Bolnick and D. G. Smith, unpublished dataChippewaAmerindAlgicD. A. Bolnick and D. G. Smith, unpublished dataFoxAmerindAlgicD. A. Bolnick and D. G. Smith, unpublished dataKickapooAmerindAlgicD. A. Bolnick and D. G. Smith, unpublished dataShawneeAmerindAlgicD. A. Bolnick and D. G. Smith, unpublished dataORC CherokeeAmerindIroquoianD. A. Bolnick and D. G. Smith, unpublished dataStillwell CherokeeAmerindIroquoianD. A. Bolnick and D. G. Smith, unpublished dataOmahaAmerindSiouanD. A. Bolnick and D. G. Smith, unpublished dataSiouxAmerindSiouanD. A. Bolnick and D. G. Smith, unpublished dataInganoAmerindQuechuanBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarPaacas NovosAmerindChapacuranBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarWayuu (Guajiro)AmerindMaipureanBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarWaiapi (Wayampi)AmerindTupianBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarAcheAmerindTupianBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarAsuriniAmerindTupianBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarCinta-LargaAmerindTupianBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarGuaraniAmerindTupianBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarParakanaAmerindTupianBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarUrubu-KaaporAmerindTupianBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarTiriyoAmerindCaribanBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarYukpaAmerindCaribanBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarHuitotoAmerindWitotoanBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarYaguaAmerindYaguanBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarBarira (Barí)AmerindChibchanBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarWaraoAmerindWaraoBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarGorotire (Kayapó)AmerindJêanBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarKaingangAmerindJêanBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarKrahoAmerindJêanBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarMekranoti (Kayapó)AmerindJêanBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarXikrin (Kayapó)AmerindJêanBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarTicunaAmerindTicunaBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarChickasawAmerindMuskogeanD. A. Bolnick and D. G. Smith, unpublished dataChoctawAmerindMuskogeanD. A. Bolnick and D. G. Smith, unpublished dataCreekAmerindMuskogeanD. A. Bolnick and D. G. Smith, unpublished dataSeminoleAmerindMuskogeanD. A. Bolnick and D. G. Smith, unpublished dataChipewyanNa-DeneEyak-AthabaskanBortolini et al. Bortolini et al., 2003Bortolini M-C Salzano FM Thomas MG Stuart S Nasanen SPK Bau CHD Hutz MH Layrisse Z Petzl-Erler ML Tsuneto LT Hill K Hurtado AM Castro-de-Guerra D Torres MM Groot H Michalski R Nymadawa P Bedoya G Bradman N Labuda D Ruiz-Linares A Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic histories in the Americas.Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 73: 524-539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (163) Google ScholarGreenland InuitEskimo-AleutEskimo-AleutBosch et al. Bosch et al., 2003Bosch E Calafell F Rosser ZH Norby S Lynnerup N Hurles ME Jobling MA High levels of male-biased Scandinavian admixture in Greenlandic Inuit shown by Y-chromosomal analysis.Hum Genet. 2003; 112: 353-363PubMed Google Scholar Open table in a new tab The AMOVAs show that differences among Greenberg's three groups could account for some genetic variance (ΦCT=0.319; P=.027), but the more generally accepted linguistic classification (as given in Campbell [Campbell, 1997Campbell L American Indian languages: the historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford University Press, New York1997Google Scholar]) of the same populations (17 groups) explainsa greater proportion of the total genetic variance (ΦCT=0.448; P<.001). The magnitude of ΦCT increases 40.4% when the accepted language classification is used, which indicates that it is important to consider language classifications other than that of Greenberg (Greenberg, 1987Greenberg JH Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press, Stanford1987Google Scholar) when evaluating the relationship between genes and language in the Americas. Other factors, such as geography, have likely influenced patterns of genetic variation more than language, but accepted language groupings should, nonetheless, be used when exploring these relationships. Thus, in future studies comparing genetic and linguistic variation in the Americas, we recommend use of the consensus linguistic classification, as given in Campbell (Campbell, 1997Campbell L American Indian languages: the historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford University Press, New York1997Google Scholar), Goddard (Goddard, 1996Goddard I Introduction.in: Goddard I Languages: handbook of North American Indians. Vol 17. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC1996: 1-16Google Scholar), and Mithun (Mithun, 1999Mithun M The languages of native North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge1999Google Scholar), rather than Greenberg's tripartite classification (Greenberg et al. Greenberg et al., 1986Greenberg JH Turner II, CG Zegura SL The settlement of the Americas: a comparison of the linguistic, dental and genetic evidence.Curr Anthropol. 1986; 27: 477-497Crossref Google Scholar; Greenberg Greenberg, 1987Greenberg JH Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press, Stanford1987Google Scholar). In addition, since there is no legitimate reason to believe that “Amerind” is a unified group (linguistic or otherwise), it has been essentially abandoned in linguistics and should not be used in genetic analyses. Finally, because synthetic studies provide such important insights into human prehistory, we advocate continued collaboration between geneticists and linguists (and other anthropologists) to ensure accurate comparisons of genetic, linguistic, and cultural variation. We thank David Glenn Smith, Stephen Ousley, Keith Hunley, Mark Grote, and two anonymous reviewers for valuable discussions and/or helpful comments on the manuscript.
Referência(s)