While I understand your point about Amerind not being supported in terms of linguistics, I think there is enough data to assume that the Na Dene are part of a second migration to the New World. In terms of genetics, Y Haplogroup C3 is pretty closely correlated with Na Dene languages, although it’s also found in somewhat low values among other groups in the north, like the Cree and Sioux. Second, a nuclear genetic study has found at least the Chipeweyen people are actually more “Siberian” than “Native American,” and that they were the most divergent population out of all the populations sampled.

The second study shows a huge issue with Native American genetic analyses – they didn’t use a single population from the United States, probably due to the hesitancy of any U.S. tribes to be involved in such studies. So there is a huge black hole between Canada and Mexico.

On the linguistic side, Dené–Yeniseian is actually fairly accepted now among mainstream linguists since Edward Vajda’s paper came out. This makes a more recent origin for the language group in the Old World more plausible, unless one hypothesizes the Yeniseian’s are a back-migration from North America (which I believe the genetic data does not support).

As to an Austroasiatic link, it’s possible, but I’m not aware of any genetic markers shared between Southeast Asians and indigenous Americans to the exclusion of North Asians. If you can point me to such evidence, I’d be much obliged.

As for the blind acceptance of Greenberg’s three-wave model of peopling of the Americas, I’d be a bit careful here. Greenberg was notoriously sloppy in his American work, and his language stocks are accepted by practically no professional historical linguists (even his African work is now starting to be questioned). This doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate macro-families, just that G’s aren’t them.

I’ve been working on Yahgan, from Tierra del Fuego, for about 15 years now (reworking the dictionary, grammar, texts and such). Most linguists consider it a genetic isolate, as it has no obvious resemblance except for a handful of borrowings to its neighbors. Greenberg includes it in with his ‘Andean’ macrofamily. I’ve found very, very strong links between Yahgan and SALISHAN, found thousands of miles away in the North American Pacific Northwest, and plan to publish soon. The latter recognized family was placed by Greenberg first with his Mosan macro-family (Salish, Chemakuan, Wakashan- continuing from Sapir and Swadesh) and further into a larger stock containing Algonkian-Ritwan and others stretching across North America.

The connection between Yahgan and Salishan being apparently much stronger than either has with its neighbors means that the linguistic and cultural prehistory of the Americas is likely to be a bit more complicated than usually advertized by people seeking simple pigeonholes. In addition, there seem to be some much older links to Austroasiatic languages, whereas other ‘Amerind’ appears to be associated with more northerly Old World linguistic lineages. So how many ‘waves’ are we talking about?

Fair points. A transition to pastoralism certainly helped the Navajo as well. The examples you point out of non-displaced populations that took hits also suggest that the Navajos benefited from being outside effective Spanish rule for much longer than other groups, and from being distant from places that experienced gold or silver rushes (which were the proximate causes of the late but stark declines of the Utes and many California tribes) or had desirable farmland snapped up by homesteaders and the like.

The Navajo did develop a lot of health issues in the 20th century, like tuberculosis. Oddly, this was because of their success – unlike other tribes, their population grew dramatically, yet they were on low-quality land which couldn’t support them very well, leading to, among other things, highly crowded living and poor sanitation.

ohwilleke -

Displacement obviously causes issues. It may be part of the reason why there are ten times as many Sioux today as there are Comanche or Cheyenne. All three groups took up a nomadic horse-based lifestyle, but the former stayed in (portions) of their original territory, while the latter two were largely moved to Oklahoma.

When you compare groups that haven’t been displaced, however, it’s not so clear. The 2010 ACS reported 308,000 Navajo. In contrast, there were only around 59,000 Puebloans in total – many of whom have lived in the same villages since Spanish contact. Other Southwest farming groups, like the Tohono O’Odham, Pima, and Yaqui, also have very sparse populations (in the 20,000 range for each one. In contrast, the Apache tribes altogether (also Na Dene) now have 65,000 members, despite their own history being predominantly hunter-gatherer.

AJ -

The question of Na Dene ancestry providing some disease resistance was the musing on my part. It’s unlikely to be solved any time soon, because American Indians in general, and Navajo in particular, are very suspicious of genetic testing unless it’s shown to be of immediate benefit (e.g., disease treatment).

That said, if I was hypothesizing anything, it would be the slightly different genetic profile plus agriculture and animal husbandry were the key to the demographic success of the Navajo. Other Na Dene people certainly did suffer from European diseases. These included the Lipan Apache (those in Texas) the Tinglit (around 50% of their population died in the 19th century), and most of the Pacific Coast Athabaskan groups (some of which were entirely wiped out). However, all other Na Dene groups were either entirely hunter-gatherers, or in the case of some of the Apache, only engaged in farming to a minor extent, and thus may not be the best comparison.

So:
1. People were widely scattered, with no urban center
2. No right minded European settler would be in any way interested in such a desolate place

No wonder the Navajo survived and multiplied?!

I listened to the beginning of the presentation, and I have my doubts about the 3,000 figure. I could buy 3,000 if it meant the start of the 19th century, but linking it to the U.S. policy is ridiculous.

First, as I had a link above, the Navajo Reservation recorded 9,000 inhabitants as of 1868, which is immediately after the “genocide” of the tribe. Second, as my last link shows, there were 7,300 Navajo in Bosque Redondo at the time of its closure. There were clearly 2-3 times as many Navajo as he says.

I would believe, given the age spread of a hypothetical population of 8,000-9,000, that after discounting children, those past childbearing ages, and those who either didn’t have offspring or had their lines die out since (either due to erasure of the Y/Mitochondrial lines or simple petering out), that you might get down to a population of only around 3,000. But that’s not the same thing, and as I said above, it doesn’t look like there was a dramatic bottleneck in the Navajo population during the 19th century, given pre-”genocide” figures are estimated at around 10,000.

Issues in Genetic Testing in Navajo Populations:
http://southeastgenetics.org/presentation.php/12/Issues_in_Genetic_Testing_in_Navajo_Populations

http://southeastgenetics.org/pdf/presentations/2010-08-27_438_2010-07-24_0800%20-%20Murray%20H%20Brilliant%20PhD%20-%20marshfield%20-%20navajo%20-%20BrilliantSERGG.pdf

-Paul

It was just musings, but let’s look at the data:

According to this book, the Navajo population was roughly 2,000 in 1700, and grew to 10,000 by 1850. This would mean roughly 2.67% annual population growth – pretty good considering the rampant epidemics running through the area.

In the 1860s, the U.S interned the entire Navajo population for four years. During this period 2,380 died – around a third of those interned, and 20% of the tribe’s total population. However, this wasn’t just due to smallpox, but the dysentery brought on by cramped conditions and other diseases. A terrible toll for disease, sure, but anyone kept under those conditions would have fairly high mortality.

Since gaining their own reservation in 1868, growth has been consistently positive. Look at this link to see the explosive growth in the Navajo population. The Nation grew from 9,000 in 1868 (the foundation of the reservation) to 175,228 in 2000. Average annual population growth was 2.5%.

this book has the most telling paragraph, however.

Research has shown that the Navajos had lower mortality than other Indian tribes in the 19th century, especially compared to their Hopi neighbors, who lived close together in small villages atop mesas. The Navajos, in contrast, lived at great distances from each other. The Navajo dependence on stock raising encouraged a dispersed residence pattern, which may have incidentally prevented the spread of epidemic disease. In the late 19th century the Hopis experienced several devastating smallpox epidemics, while the Navajos did not. The worst recorded epidemic among the Navajos was the 1918-1919 influenza epidemic, but even though nearly two thousand Navajos died from it, the long-term growth of the Navajo population seems to have been little affected.

All the suppositions in the paragraph above may be true. In addition, livestock exposure of course provided some resistance (although how they got over initial problems from being associated with livestock is another issue). But the Navajo have a substantial proportion of their genes from a second migration from Asia, which might mean their immune system is slightly different than most other Amerinds. In addition, they took many Pueblo peoples into their fold, meaning they are also more genetically diverse than the norm for an “unadmixed” Native American tribe. This also may partially explain why they fared so much better in recorded history than neighboring tribes with far longer settled histories.

Liesel -

The Latvians did not have colonies, Courland did. Courland was a Polish vassal, with a German ruling class. They established some trading posts in Africa, as well as a colony in Tobago.

@Razib: What do you think about the above statement??

“Some Experiences of a New Guinea Resident Magistrate” C.A.W. Monckton (1920)

Politically incorrect and fearless, could never be rehabilitated, yet respectful of the natives.

http://www.archive.org/details/tamingnewguinea01moncgoog

First Contact (1983)
Joe Leahy’s Neighbours (1989)
Black Harvest (1992)

From accounts that I’ve read from Australian planters and patrol officers from colonial days, it seems that many of them found the climate in the New Guinea highlands very pleasant and, in the early days of contact, they didn’t need to worry too much about diseases like malaria. Building roads from coastal areas into the highlands has increased the prevalence of malaria there so that it’s now a major problem. Many of the strains of malaria in New Guinea are drug resistant.

EPIDEMIC MALARIA IN THE HIGHLANDS OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA

A few interesting notes.

1. Every population shows a mixture between Austronesian, Papaun, and presumed paleolithic remnant DNA.

2. There is no correlation between speaking an Austronesian language and Asian ancestry – or between speaking a Papuan language and Papuan ancestry.

3. Although it’s not entirely clear which maternal lines are Papuan versus paleolithic, at least a few percent of mitochondrial ancestry dates to recent migration from Papua New Guinea. The majority female ancestry in most groups is Asian (Austronesian), regardless of language

4. On the male side, most ethnic groups are clearly Melanesian. No distinction is made between paleolithic and neolithic lines.

Apparently, the split between “Asian” females and “Melanesian” males is also common in similarly mixed populations in insular Melanesia and Polynesia. One would assume the opposite without genetic data, given Austronesian ended up the dominant language family. Perhaps a hybrid culture developed around PNG, where Papuan males took on Austronesian wives, which ultimately spread from Wallace’s line to Hawaii/New Zealand/Easter Island. However, for whatever reason, the maternal side of the culture, instead of the paternal, tended to prevail in most places.

1. The Papuans were Neolithic farmers who are far better at fending off potential invading populations, had more of an intense need to hold their ground than hunter-gatherers, and holding their own better demographically if invaded than hunter-gatherer societies.

2. New Guinea lacked enough good candidates for animal domestication and O.K. but less than wonderful options for plant domestication, which limited how advanced its agriculture and society good get.

3. New Guinea’s highlands are surrounded by concentric biogeographic zones that require very different adaptations and thereby discourage those attracted to the lowland coastal environment to move inland, while simultaneously offering no ready path of expansion out of the highlands for the highland Papuans with their food production tool kit and lost maritime skills. The nearest place they could have expanded into where their food production tool kit and culture would have been functional was too far away for them to discover.

4. New Guinea’s biogeographic zones may have provided a de facto quarantine. Jungle/swamp diseases from the lowlands wouldn’t thrive in the highlands. Diseases that were naturally suited to the highlands had to get their disease vectors across biologically unfriendly to the disease vector intervening areas. By way of historical comparison, a number of the major diseases of Europe had their origins in biogeographically similar Asia and visa versa.

* Beyond that summary some of my thoughts:

** The possibility of coastal lowland New Guineans spreading diseases to people further inland who in turn spread them to highlanders could have happened with more robust diseases ***even without any direct contact between an Austronesian disease source population and the Papuan highlanders,***, so that may have built up some immunity.

If the amount of interaction between the different populations (lowland to highland and intrahighland) were thin enough (and maybe the pre-state warfare Papuans have is an adaptation to that), an all at once crash could have been avoided and would be much harder to find archaeological traces of. Hunter-gatherer societies have individuals who cover a lot more territory, and early metal age societies (like the Aztecs and Incas) have more organized sustained higher volume trade routes than neolithic farming societies. If the disease progress is slow enough to hit only a few score new linguistic groups in any given year, it doesn’t look like a population crash, even if it eventually hits everyone on the island.

** An inability of the Papuan highlanders to expand by spreading their food production tool kit to large empires may also have screwed up the advantages associated with being first farmers and culturally dominating neighboring peoples or “virgin territory” that you beat to food domestication technology, and that expansion dynamic may be pretty important in making it worthwhile to establish larger scale states. The original expansion across the highlands of the first farmer society within the highlands itself may have been so long ago that we can no longer find any traces of it. Thousands of years in which no one ever gets a decisive edge could pass if there are no huge economies of scale with their farming technologies.

** One important factor in New World state formation was the need for large scale public works (e.g. the Four Corners has the first documented resevoir in North America ca. 900 CE). Aridity also seemed to necessitate public works and state formation to facilitate it in Egypt and Jericho and Mesopotamia (even the Roman empire is known for aquiducts and long distance grain transport made necessary by less than optimal localcereal growing conditions – Italy didn’t produce enough grain to feed Rome by itself). If the Papuan highlands weren’t so arid as any of those places, their terracing and irrigation may have been small enough in scale to make state formation unnecessary to get it done. Similarly, it is worth noting that very long time periods (ca. 5,000 years perhaps) seem to have elapsed between the North Chinese Neolithic and state formation in China, and even though state formation in Japan had its genesis in a reasonable unified wave of migration of Korea by the Yaoyi who had rice farming and horses and bronze they were extremely fragmented for the first half a dozens centuries or so.

** It is also worth making comparisons to the Caucusas Mountains, the Nuba Mountain populations, and the Alps, all of which seem to be able to maintain extraordinary degrees of isolation from the outside and highly balkanized cultures internally. There are as many countries and language families between Russia and Turkey as there are in vast areas of Europe’s continent plains and highlands seem to be particularly good at preserving relict populations. The Swiss are a geographically tiny country that has four official languages, delegates far more authority than a U.S. state to cantons the size of U.S. counties, and manages to secure consent to what little canton and national level authority there is only with extreme levels of electoral consultation. The Nuba Mountains has something like four completely distinct language families and similar levels of genetic diversity and cultural diversity in an area the size of a Wyoming county. Appalacia was also not particular accountable to the central government well in the late 19th and even early 20th centuries, even in the context of a powerful and large nation-state.

the spanish had nominal control over large zones of their dominion. the area the scottish attempted to colonize was exactly one of those areas.

North euro fail? South euro (especially Arab-mixed/-colored) succeed? That’s no surprise.