"Some of Europe’s Oldest-Known Modern Humans Are Distantly" Topic

…Related to Native Americans

"Forty-five thousand years ago, some of the first modern humans to call Europe home lived in and around Bulgaria's Bacho Kiro Cave. They created adornments, like beads and pendants of cave bear teeth. They fashioned stone and bone tools and colored them with red ochre. They hunted, butchered and feasted on local animals. Artifacts of this lifestyle were left scattered in the cave, but these ancient humans left little evidence of themselves. Just a single tooth and a few tiny bits of bone survived to the present day. Yet those fragments contained enough genetic material that scientists have now recreated some of the humans' stories, revealing surprising information about both their ancestors and their descendants.

Two genetic sequencing studies published in different journals this week have sketched out the family trees of Europe's earliest known modern humans, three 45,000-year-old individuals from Bacho Kiro Cave and one similarly aged skull from a Czechian hill site known as Zlatý kůň (Golden Horse). Only the Bacho Kiro individuals have living descendants and they're found in surprising places—in East Asia and the Americas. The ancient humans from both ancient European sites do share one common ancestral strain—a healthy dose of Neanderthal DNA. Among the Bacho Kiro humans, evidence seems to show that when modern humans moved into Europe they commingled with Neanderthals longer, and later, than is commonly believed…."
Main page
link

Armand

So as I am of European American ancestry from that region, does that mean I can now claim to be Native American?

How far back do I have to go in the family chain to get listed for that status? Could be a boost on the job applications.

In the end, doesn't this all mean that we humans are all related in some way?

In the end, doesn't this all mean that we humans are all related in some way?

Yes, it does! We're all Homo sapiens.

Jim

How far back do I have to go in the family chain to get listed for that status?

The answer is there is no standard. It is up the the individual tribal council whether or not you are a member of the tribe. Some tribes have "blood percentage" standards. Most (if not all) are subject to interpretation by the council. In general, that type of "accounting" to establish identity is contrary to most tribal cultures.

In the end, doesn't this all mean that we humans are all related in some way?[/quote[

I was going to say we're all hominids, but yeah. I'm more interested in looking for a way not to be related to my direct blood relations …

"…subject to interpretation by the council…"

So… if you made a big donation… (smile)

Armand

I have no doubt that monetary persuasion has happened. And it makes for a good cynical joke. The overwhelming, vast majority of the cases are ones where the council expects you to be an active, contributing member of the tribe.

(smile)

Armand

contributing member of the tribe.

So they charge dues to be a member?

Wolfhag