Discussion:
Article] Marking the First Americans' Arrival
(too old to reply)
Robert Karl Stonjek
2003-10-18 23:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Marking the First Americans' Arrival

Y-chromosome genetic markers show that people first arrived on the North
American continent about 14,000 years ago, according to two papers in
the American Journal of Human Genetics.1,2 This is more recent than
previously thought; mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies had suggested an
entry date of 30,000 years ago.

Researchers led by Mark Seielstad, Harvard School of Public Health,
identified a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) called M242 on the Y
chromosome that appeared before, but close to, human entry into the New
World. Chronologically, M242 falls between two previously identified
Y-chromosome mutations: The M45/M75 changes developed in Asia before
M242, while the M3 mutation arose later in Native American populations.1
The team used two different methods to date the first appearance of M242
in the Asian population.

Andres Ruiz-Linares, University College London, and his team used M242
to demonstrate that two migratory waves came from Siberia into the
Americas.2 They also showed that the polymorphism is present in all
indigenous American populations. Ruiz-Linares agrees with Seielstad's
proposed entry date. "[It] fits very well with the standard
archaeological data," says Ruiz-Linares. "We used an entirely
independent approach [from the archaeologists], and the dates we came up
with were the same."

--Maria W. Anderson

References
1. M. Seielstad et al., "A novel Y-chromosome variant puts an upper
limit on the timing of first entry into the Americas," Am J Human Genet,
73:700-05, September 2003.

2. M. Bortolini et al., "Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient
demographic histories in the Americas," Am J Human Genet, 73:524-39,
September 2003.

From The Scientist.com
http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2003/oct/upfront_031020.html
--
Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek.
pete
2003-10-19 23:47:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Karl Stonjek
Marking the First Americans' Arrival
Y-chromosome genetic markers show that
people first arrived on the North
American continent about 14,000 years ago, according to two papers in
the American Journal of Human Genetics.1,2 This is more recent than
previously thought; mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies had suggested an
entry date of 30,000 years ago.
If a population which was here 30,000 years ago,
was displaced by a population that appeared 14,000 years ago,
how could you tell the difference ?
--
pete
Philip Deitiker
2003-10-20 00:17:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:47:51 GMT, pete
Post by pete
If a population which was here 30,000 years ago,
was displaced by a population that appeared 14,000 years ago,
how could you tell the difference ?
More importantly if you tracking Y chromosome who would you
detect a patrilinear displacement, which appear to be common
in humans. At least more common than matrilinear
displacements.
2. How good is Y chromosome at clocking (not good, the
worst)
3. How well is the Y chromosomal clock calibration (not
good, appears to be the worst).

I support a entry date close to 14 kya, however I would not
do so based on Y chromosomal information.
MIB529
2003-10-20 06:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:47:51 GMT, pete
Post by pete
If a population which was here 30,000 years ago,
was displaced by a population that appeared 14,000 years ago,
how could you tell the difference ?
More importantly if you tracking Y chromosome who would you
detect a patrilinear displacement, which appear to be common
in humans. At least more common than matrilinear
displacements.
2. How good is Y chromosome at clocking (not good, the
worst)
3. How well is the Y chromosomal clock calibration (not
good, appears to be the worst).
I support a entry date close to 14 kya, however I would not
do so based on Y chromosomal information.
Especially when you consider traditional US race relations (i.e.,
white men raping every dark woman they could pin down, while dark men
can't even so much as look at a white woman). In addition, ANY
molecular clock assumes a constant mutation rate and lack of
selection, as well as an exact time to mark "one generation". But
human males reach sexual maturity at, what? Ten to fifteen? And die
around 80-100? That's a lot of time for pregnancy. Even worse, the
general rarity of polyandry compared to polygyny (For simplicity, I
consider serial monogamy balanced promiscuity; levirate and sororate
marriage, monogamy.), as well as the nature of sperm competition
assures a fairly conservative mutation rate, quite literally one in a
hundred million.

Still remembers the last "date limit" from geneticists: The article
admitted they ignored a Y chromosome that went against their theory,
as well as the mitochondrial DNA. What Stonjek and others don't
realize is that if an organization says "est. 1928" on their logo,
then you can't date the organization by the last program installed on
their computer network.
John Brock
2003-10-20 21:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by pete
Post by Robert Karl Stonjek
Marking the First Americans' Arrival
Y-chromosome genetic markers show that
people first arrived on the North
American continent about 14,000 years ago, according to two papers in
the American Journal of Human Genetics.1,2 This is more recent than
previously thought; mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies had suggested an
entry date of 30,000 years ago.
If a population which was here 30,000 years ago,
was displaced by a population that appeared 14,000 years ago,
how could you tell the difference ?
What I find hard to understand is how it would even be possible
for newcomers to a continent to displace a population which had
been established for thousands of years, unless the newcomers had
a major technological advantage of some sort (such as agriculture
or metal tools). Can anyone give me a specific scenario showing
how such a thing could happen?
--
John Brock
***@panix.com
Ken Shaw
2003-10-21 00:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Post by Robert Karl Stonjek
Marking the First Americans' Arrival
Y-chromosome genetic markers show that
people first arrived on the North
American continent about 14,000 years ago, according to two papers in
the American Journal of Human Genetics.1,2 This is more recent than
previously thought; mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies had suggested an
entry date of 30,000 years ago.
If a population which was here 30,000 years ago,
was displaced by a population that appeared 14,000 years ago,
how could you tell the difference ?
What I find hard to understand is how it would even be possible
for newcomers to a continent to displace a population which had
been established for thousands of years, unless the newcomers had
a major technological advantage of some sort (such as agriculture
or metal tools). Can anyone give me a specific scenario showing
how such a thing could happen?
Disease is the first thing that comes to mind. The various native tribes of
the Caribbean were effectively wiped out by disease introduced by Europeans
without the use of any superior technology.

Ken
John Brock
2003-10-21 16:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Shaw
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Post by Robert Karl Stonjek
Marking the First Americans' Arrival
Y-chromosome genetic markers show that
people first arrived on the North
American continent about 14,000 years ago, according to two papers in
the American Journal of Human Genetics.1,2 This is more recent than
previously thought; mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies had suggested an
entry date of 30,000 years ago.
If a population which was here 30,000 years ago,
was displaced by a population that appeared 14,000 years ago,
how could you tell the difference ?
What I find hard to understand is how it would even be possible
for newcomers to a continent to displace a population which had
been established for thousands of years, unless the newcomers had
a major technological advantage of some sort (such as agriculture
or metal tools). Can anyone give me a specific scenario showing
how such a thing could happen?
Disease is the first thing that comes to mind. The various native tribes of
the Caribbean were effectively wiped out by disease introduced by Europeans
without the use of any superior technology.
Disease was the first (or maybe second) thing that came to my mind
too, and I suppose it is not a crazy idea. But the newcomers would
have had no domestic animals (considered to be a source of many of
the diseases of high density agriculturial societies), and they
would have come in small numbers through an Arctic deep freeze
which would have allowed them to shed any tropical diseases, so
there is no clear reason why the diseases they brought with them
would have been any more dangerous than the diseases they themselves
encountered in the New World. Any advantage to the newcomers as
a result of diseases would have to be simply a matter of chance.

Also, it wouldn't have taken the original inhabitants very long to
adapt to any new diseases brought in by the newcomers. As far as
I know North American Indians are no longer being wiped out by
European diseases, and they've only had a few hundred years to
adapt.

If replacement did occur I suppose disease is one of the better
explanations for how it could happen. But I still find the
replacement scenario kind of implausible. Disease was certainly
a big factor in the European colonization of the Western Hemisphere,
but so was technology, and so was the underappreciated fact that
the Europeans (and the Africans they brought with them) came in
large numbers. But despite all this there are still many countries
in the Western Hemisphere where Indians are a significant part of
the population, or even a majority. It's hard to see how any
prehistoric replacement could possibly have been *more* complete
than the one initiated in 1492, and that one wasn't complete at all!
--
John Brock
***@panix.com
MIB529
2003-10-21 22:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Brock
Post by Ken Shaw
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Post by Robert Karl Stonjek
Marking the First Americans' Arrival
Y-chromosome genetic markers show that
people first arrived on the North
American continent about 14,000 years ago, according to two papers in
the American Journal of Human Genetics.1,2 This is more recent than
previously thought; mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies had suggested an
entry date of 30,000 years ago.
If a population which was here 30,000 years ago,
was displaced by a population that appeared 14,000 years ago,
how could you tell the difference ?
What I find hard to understand is how it would even be possible
for newcomers to a continent to displace a population which had
been established for thousands of years, unless the newcomers had
a major technological advantage of some sort (such as agriculture
or metal tools). Can anyone give me a specific scenario showing
how such a thing could happen?
Disease is the first thing that comes to mind. The various native tribes of
the Caribbean were effectively wiped out by disease introduced by Europeans
without the use of any superior technology.
Disease was the first (or maybe second) thing that came to my mind
too, and I suppose it is not a crazy idea. But the newcomers would
have had no domestic animals (considered to be a source of many of
the diseases of high density agriculturial societies), and they
would have come in small numbers through an Arctic deep freeze
which would have allowed them to shed any tropical diseases, so
there is no clear reason why the diseases they brought with them
would have been any more dangerous than the diseases they themselves
encountered in the New World. Any advantage to the newcomers as
a result of diseases would have to be simply a matter of chance.
Also, it wouldn't have taken the original inhabitants very long to
adapt to any new diseases brought in by the newcomers. As far as
I know North American Indians are no longer being wiped out by
European diseases, and they've only had a few hundred years to
adapt.
If replacement did occur I suppose disease is one of the better
explanations for how it could happen. But I still find the
replacement scenario kind of implausible. Disease was certainly
a big factor in the European colonization of the Western Hemisphere,
but so was technology, and so was the underappreciated fact that
the Europeans (and the Africans they brought with them) came in
large numbers. But despite all this there are still many countries
in the Western Hemisphere where Indians are a significant part of
the population, or even a majority. It's hard to see how any
prehistoric replacement could possibly have been *more* complete
than the one initiated in 1492, and that one wasn't complete at all!
I'd like to add, anyone with half a brain can see the "replacement"
theory for what it is. It's of the same variety of racial determinism
that affected even 20th-century anthropology.

Y-typing isn't very good, actually. The Y chromosome is by the nature
of its gametes conservative. Polygyny is also more common,
cross-culturally, than polyandry. In addition to that, even in a
monogamous or polygynous situation, the mutation A' has to compete
with the original gene A. (In polyandry, it becomes A, A', B, and B',
adding whatever letters you want for other males.) And unless she's
ovulating, there's no prize for all that competition.

In short, there's a lot of selective forces going against a mutant Y
chromosome.
Tedd
2003-10-22 03:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by John Brock
Post by Ken Shaw
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Post by Robert Karl Stonjek
Marking the First Americans' Arrival
Y-chromosome genetic markers show that
people first arrived on the North
American continent about 14,000 years ago, according to two papers in
the American Journal of Human Genetics.1,2 This is more recent than
previously thought; mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies had suggested an
entry date of 30,000 years ago.
If a population which was here 30,000 years ago,
was displaced by a population that appeared 14,000 years ago,
how could you tell the difference ?
What I find hard to understand is how it would even be possible
for newcomers to a continent to displace a population which had
been established for thousands of years, unless the newcomers had
a major technological advantage of some sort (such as agriculture
or metal tools). Can anyone give me a specific scenario showing
how such a thing could happen?
Disease is the first thing that comes to mind. The various native tribes of
the Caribbean were effectively wiped out by disease introduced by Europeans
without the use of any superior technology.
Disease was the first (or maybe second) thing that came to my mind
too, and I suppose it is not a crazy idea. But the newcomers would
have had no domestic animals (considered to be a source of many of
the diseases of high density agriculturial societies), and they
would have come in small numbers through an Arctic deep freeze
which would have allowed them to shed any tropical diseases, so
there is no clear reason why the diseases they brought with them
would have been any more dangerous than the diseases they themselves
encountered in the New World. Any advantage to the newcomers as
a result of diseases would have to be simply a matter of chance.
Also, it wouldn't have taken the original inhabitants very long to
adapt to any new diseases brought in by the newcomers. As far as
I know North American Indians are no longer being wiped out by
European diseases, and they've only had a few hundred years to
adapt.
If replacement did occur I suppose disease is one of the better
explanations for how it could happen. But I still find the
replacement scenario kind of implausible. Disease was certainly
a big factor in the European colonization of the Western Hemisphere,
but so was technology, and so was the underappreciated fact that
the Europeans (and the Africans they brought with them) came in
large numbers. But despite all this there are still many countries
in the Western Hemisphere where Indians are a significant part of
the population, or even a majority. It's hard to see how any
prehistoric replacement could possibly have been *more* complete
than the one initiated in 1492, and that one wasn't complete at all!
I'd like to add, anyone with half a brain can see the "replacement"
theory for what it is. It's of the same variety of racial determinism
that affected even 20th-century anthropology.
Y-typing isn't very good, actually. The Y chromosome is by the nature
of its gametes conservative. Polygyny is also more common,
cross-culturally, than polyandry. In addition to that, even in a
monogamous or polygynous situation, the mutation A' has to compete
with the original gene A. (In polyandry, it becomes A, A', B, and B',
adding whatever letters you want for other males.) And unless she's
ovulating, there's no prize for all that competition.
In short, there's a lot of selective forces going against a mutant Y
chromosome.
in contrast, is it possible for a population to be "absorbed" rather than
"displaced"?
(well,... of course it's possible, but not knowing alot about genetics, is the
possibility applicable in this case?)
MIB529
2003-10-22 22:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tedd
Post by MIB529
Post by John Brock
Post by Ken Shaw
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Post by Robert Karl Stonjek
Marking the First Americans' Arrival
Y-chromosome genetic markers show that
people first arrived on the North
American continent about 14,000 years ago, according to two papers in
the American Journal of Human Genetics.1,2 This is more recent than
previously thought; mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies had suggested an
entry date of 30,000 years ago.
If a population which was here 30,000 years ago,
was displaced by a population that appeared 14,000 years ago,
how could you tell the difference ?
What I find hard to understand is how it would even be possible
for newcomers to a continent to displace a population which had
been established for thousands of years, unless the newcomers had
a major technological advantage of some sort (such as agriculture
or metal tools). Can anyone give me a specific scenario showing
how such a thing could happen?
Disease is the first thing that comes to mind. The various native tribes of
the Caribbean were effectively wiped out by disease introduced by Europeans
without the use of any superior technology.
Disease was the first (or maybe second) thing that came to my mind
too, and I suppose it is not a crazy idea. But the newcomers would
have had no domestic animals (considered to be a source of many of
the diseases of high density agriculturial societies), and they
would have come in small numbers through an Arctic deep freeze
which would have allowed them to shed any tropical diseases, so
there is no clear reason why the diseases they brought with them
would have been any more dangerous than the diseases they themselves
encountered in the New World. Any advantage to the newcomers as
a result of diseases would have to be simply a matter of chance.
Also, it wouldn't have taken the original inhabitants very long to
adapt to any new diseases brought in by the newcomers. As far as
I know North American Indians are no longer being wiped out by
European diseases, and they've only had a few hundred years to
adapt.
If replacement did occur I suppose disease is one of the better
explanations for how it could happen. But I still find the
replacement scenario kind of implausible. Disease was certainly
a big factor in the European colonization of the Western Hemisphere,
but so was technology, and so was the underappreciated fact that
the Europeans (and the Africans they brought with them) came in
large numbers. But despite all this there are still many countries
in the Western Hemisphere where Indians are a significant part of
the population, or even a majority. It's hard to see how any
prehistoric replacement could possibly have been *more* complete
than the one initiated in 1492, and that one wasn't complete at all!
I'd like to add, anyone with half a brain can see the "replacement"
theory for what it is. It's of the same variety of racial determinism
that affected even 20th-century anthropology.
Y-typing isn't very good, actually. The Y chromosome is by the nature
of its gametes conservative. Polygyny is also more common,
cross-culturally, than polyandry. In addition to that, even in a
monogamous or polygynous situation, the mutation A' has to compete
with the original gene A. (In polyandry, it becomes A, A', B, and B',
adding whatever letters you want for other males.) And unless she's
ovulating, there's no prize for all that competition.
In short, there's a lot of selective forces going against a mutant Y
chromosome.
in contrast, is it possible for a population to be "absorbed" rather than
"displaced"?
(well,... of course it's possible, but not knowing alot about genetics, is the
possibility applicable in this case?)
Entirely possible. All that has to happen is, in the case of Y
chromosomes, an entire patrilineage disappears - easy enough,
especially when a society is matrilineal, polygamous (either
polygynous or polyandrous), or any rule other than patrilocal
residence.

I myself don't like the idea of translating mutation frequencies into
chronological time for just these reasons. One doesn't need to look to
the saga of the patriarchs to imagine someone marrying later; nor does
one need to look to medusae to imagine someone marrying earlier.
Larry Caldwell
2003-10-23 18:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Brock
Disease was the first (or maybe second) thing that came to my mind
too, and I suppose it is not a crazy idea. But the newcomers would
have had no domestic animals (considered to be a source of many of
the diseases of high density agriculturial societies), and they
Human immigrants to the New World brought dogs with them. Dogs and
humans do share a few diseases, but not many.

[...]
Post by John Brock
If replacement did occur I suppose disease is one of the better
explanations for how it could happen. But I still find the
replacement scenario kind of implausible. Disease was certainly
a big factor in the European colonization of the Western Hemisphere,
but so was technology, and so was the underappreciated fact that
the Europeans (and the Africans they brought with them) came in
large numbers. But despite all this there are still many countries
in the Western Hemisphere where Indians are a significant part of
the population, or even a majority. It's hard to see how any
prehistoric replacement could possibly have been *more* complete
than the one initiated in 1492, and that one wasn't complete at all!
You need to note the timeline. Y chromosome strains take time to go
extinct. Since 1492 has only been about 20 generations, and the real
immigration fever didn't get rolling until 10 generations ago. The coin
has only flipped 10 times, during a period of rapidly increasing
population, so most of the players are still in the game. A period of
14,000 years is 700 generations, and would have included several periods
of population collapse, when genes become extinct at a highly accelerated
rate. In another 14,000 years, the Y chromosome distribution in North
America will look nothing like it does today, and many common strains
today will be extinct.

There are two sex-linked bundles of chromosomes in human beings. The Y
chromosome has to be transmitted by sons, and Mitochondrial DNA has to be
transmitted through daughters. A woman can have a dozen sons, and her
genes will be transmitted just fine, but her MtDNA will become extinct.
Similarly, a man can have a dozen daughters and eventually millions of
descendents, but his Y chromosome would vanish. In neither case does
this mean that a population has been "displaced."

The researchers are trying to draw conclusions not supported by the data.
You are having trouble imagining how their conclusion could be true.
Well, possibly it isn't. If there were humans already here 14,000 years
ago, they could be well represented in the native population. It could
take a lot more than Y chromosome research to sort that out.
--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
MIB529
2003-10-23 22:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Caldwell
Post by John Brock
Disease was the first (or maybe second) thing that came to my mind
too, and I suppose it is not a crazy idea. But the newcomers would
have had no domestic animals (considered to be a source of many of
the diseases of high density agriculturial societies), and they
Human immigrants to the New World brought dogs with them. Dogs and
humans do share a few diseases, but not many.
[...]
Post by John Brock
If replacement did occur I suppose disease is one of the better
explanations for how it could happen. But I still find the
replacement scenario kind of implausible. Disease was certainly
a big factor in the European colonization of the Western Hemisphere,
but so was technology, and so was the underappreciated fact that
the Europeans (and the Africans they brought with them) came in
large numbers. But despite all this there are still many countries
in the Western Hemisphere where Indians are a significant part of
the population, or even a majority. It's hard to see how any
prehistoric replacement could possibly have been *more* complete
than the one initiated in 1492, and that one wasn't complete at all!
You need to note the timeline. Y chromosome strains take time to go
extinct. Since 1492 has only been about 20 generations, and the real
immigration fever didn't get rolling until 10 generations ago. The coin
has only flipped 10 times, during a period of rapidly increasing
population, so most of the players are still in the game.
You're assuming even balance, Larry. In places where white women were
present, it was illegal for an Indian man to so much as look at a
white woman. By contrast, it was common practice for white men to rape
Indian women.
Larry Caldwell
2003-10-24 14:53:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
You're assuming even balance, Larry. In places where white women were
present, it was illegal for an Indian man to so much as look at a
white woman. By contrast, it was common practice for white men to rape
Indian women.
I'm not assuming any such thing, and you are being even more short
sighted than the other guy. The anti-miscegeny laws were only in effect
in some geographic areas, for a few decades. Today, the effect is
entirely reversed, with white men having less children than Indian men.
There is no way to look at the current Y chromosome crop and predict what
the distribution will look like 10,000 years in the future. Not only
that, but the laws of chance work both forward and backward in time.
There is no way to determine the Y chromosome distribution 14,000 years
ago by examining the current population.

The research is interesting, but the conclusion is not justified by the
data.
--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
MIB529
2003-10-27 07:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Caldwell
Post by MIB529
You're assuming even balance, Larry. In places where white women were
present, it was illegal for an Indian man to so much as look at a
white woman. By contrast, it was common practice for white men to rape
Indian women.
I'm not assuming any such thing, and you are being even more short
sighted than the other guy. The anti-miscegeny laws were only in effect
in some geographic areas, for a few decades.
Oh, look! Larry's never heard of vigilantes! ROTFL!
Post by Larry Caldwell
Today, the effect is
entirely reversed, with white men having less children than Indian men.
There is no way to look at the current Y chromosome crop and predict what
the distribution will look like 10,000 years in the future. Not only
that, but the laws of chance work both forward and backward in time.
There is no way to determine the Y chromosome distribution 14,000 years
ago by examining the current population.
The research is interesting, but the conclusion is not justified by the
data.
I've always found the whole molecular "clock" kinda stupid, for a
variety of reasons, most of which involve the very nature of sexual
reproduction, the fact of natural selection, and so on.
Larry Caldwell
2003-10-22 11:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Brock
What I find hard to understand is how it would even be possible
for newcomers to a continent to displace a population which had
been established for thousands of years, unless the newcomers had
a major technological advantage of some sort (such as agriculture
or metal tools). Can anyone give me a specific scenario showing
how such a thing could happen?
They didn't have to displace the population, just Y chromosomes. That is
a phenomenon that happens every generation. Any time a man dies without
sons, his Y chromosome goes extinct. Just like MtDNA, Y chromosome
strains are going extinct all the time, just on the flip of a coin. The
process accelerates when the population is small, and if you add in
social constructs like warfare and polygamy.

The research marks an immigrant arrival about 14,000 years ago. It says
nothing about the first immigrants. If the researchers said it did, they
need to go back to a basic biology class, or read _Micro Evolution of
Human Populations_, which I think was published over 30 years ago.
--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
pete
2003-10-27 22:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Post by Robert Karl Stonjek
Marking the First Americans' Arrival
Y-chromosome genetic markers show that
people first arrived on the North
American continent about 14,000 years ago,
according to two papers in
the American Journal of Human Genetics.1,2 This is more recent than
previously thought; mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)
studies had suggested an
entry date of 30,000 years ago.
If a population which was here 30,000 years ago,
was displaced by a population that appeared 14,000 years ago,
how could you tell the difference ?
What I find hard to understand is how it would even be possible
for newcomers to a continent to displace a population which had
been established for thousands of years, unless the newcomers had
a major technological advantage of some sort (such as agriculture
or metal tools). Can anyone give me a specific scenario showing
how such a thing could happen?
Who ever developed Clovis technology first,
had a major technological advantage of some sort.
If they were genetically distinct,
then they would become the displacers.
--
pete
John Brock
2003-10-28 16:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by pete
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Post by Robert Karl Stonjek
Marking the First Americans' Arrival
Y-chromosome genetic markers show that
people first arrived on the North
American continent about 14,000 years ago,
according to two papers in
the American Journal of Human Genetics.1,2 This is more recent than
previously thought; mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)
studies had suggested an
entry date of 30,000 years ago.
If a population which was here 30,000 years ago,
was displaced by a population that appeared 14,000 years ago,
how could you tell the difference ?
What I find hard to understand is how it would even be possible
for newcomers to a continent to displace a population which had
been established for thousands of years, unless the newcomers had
a major technological advantage of some sort (such as agriculture
or metal tools). Can anyone give me a specific scenario showing
how such a thing could happen?
Who ever developed Clovis technology first,
had a major technological advantage of some sort.
If they were genetically distinct,
then they would become the displacers.
I'm sorry, but better stone spear points just doesn't seem like a
big enough technological advantage to permit a small group of
newcomers to completely displace a long established population.

As I pointed out in another post, even the Europeans -- who came
in large numbers with greatly superior technology and social
organization and suite of dangerous diseases to which the Indians
had no natural immunity -- were not able to completely displace
the Indians everywhere in the Western Hemisphere. (Think of Mexico
and Bolivia for example).
--
John Brock
***@panix.com
pete
2003-10-29 12:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Post by Robert Karl Stonjek
Marking the First Americans' Arrival
Y-chromosome genetic markers show that
people first arrived on the North
American continent about 14,000 years ago,
according to two papers in
the American Journal of Human Genetics.1,2 This is more recent than
previously thought; mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)
studies had suggested an
entry date of 30,000 years ago.
If a population which was here 30,000 years ago,
was displaced by a population that appeared 14,000 years ago,
how could you tell the difference ?
What I find hard to understand is how it would even be possible
for newcomers to a continent to displace a population which had
been established for thousands of years, unless the newcomers had
a major technological advantage of some sort (such as agriculture
or metal tools). Can anyone give me a specific scenario showing
how such a thing could happen?
Who ever developed Clovis technology first,
had a major technological advantage of some sort.
If they were genetically distinct,
then they would become the displacers.
I'm sorry, but better stone spear points just doesn't seem like a
big enough technological advantage to permit a small group of
newcomers to completely displace a long established population.
People were here for a long time before Clovis.
When Clovis culture first appeared,
Clovis culture spread nearly instantly
to everywhere that it is now known to have been.
Clovis technology was a big deal.
Post by John Brock
As I pointed out in another post, even the Europeans -- who came
in large numbers with greatly superior technology and social
organization and suite of dangerous diseases to which the Indians
had no natural immunity -- were not able to completely displace
the Indians everywhere in the Western Hemisphere. (Think of Mexico
and Bolivia for example).
There's a major difference in the way that
the Spanish and the English dealt with the natives.
The Spanish conquered the Indians and enslaved them.
The colonists, and then the Americans, just extirpated them.
--
pete
John Brock
2003-10-29 22:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by pete
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Who ever developed Clovis technology first,
had a major technological advantage of some sort.
If they were genetically distinct,
then they would become the displacers.
I'm sorry, but better stone spear points just doesn't seem like a
big enough technological advantage to permit a small group of
newcomers to completely displace a long established population.
People were here for a long time before Clovis.
When Clovis culture first appeared,
Clovis culture spread nearly instantly
to everywhere that it is now known to have been.
Clovis technology was a big deal.
As far as I am aware the current majority opinion is that people
were *not* here a long time before Clovis, and that the reason
Clovis culture spread fast is precisely because the Clovis people
were the first (or almost the first) colonists.

You seem to be arguing that Clovis technology must have been a big
deal because it allowed the Clovis people to displace everybody
else. But that displacement is exactly what is in question, so
you are arguing in circles. Better spear points are nice, but
compared to, say, domestic animals and steel tools, they seem kind
of trivial. Hardly enough to allow a small group of newcomers to
totally overrun a hemisphere which already had an entrenched
population.
Post by pete
Post by John Brock
As I pointed out in another post, even the Europeans -- who came
in large numbers with greatly superior technology and social
organization and suite of dangerous diseases to which the Indians
had no natural immunity -- were not able to completely displace
the Indians everywhere in the Western Hemisphere. (Think of Mexico
and Bolivia for example).
There's a major difference in the way that
the Spanish and the English dealt with the natives.
The Spanish conquered the Indians and enslaved them.
The colonists, and then the Americans, just extirpated them.
The places where the Indians survived in large numbers were those
places where they lived in large numbers to begin with (Mexico),
or environments that were difficult for Europeans to penetrate (the
Andes or the Amazon forest). I don't think the Spanish/English
thing had much to do with it. (Look at Argentina for example --
the Indians there were very thoroughly wiped out). One would expect
that the Clovis invaders, with their much smaller numerical and
technological advantages, would have been much less effective at
displacing entrenched natives than were the Europeans.
--
John Brock
***@panix.com
pete
2003-10-30 12:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Who ever developed Clovis technology first,
had a major technological advantage of some sort.
If they were genetically distinct,
then they would become the displacers.
I'm sorry, but better stone spear points just doesn't seem like a
big enough technological advantage to permit a small group of
newcomers to completely displace a long established population.
People were here for a long time before Clovis.
When Clovis culture first appeared,
Clovis culture spread nearly instantly
to everywhere that it is now known to have been.
Clovis technology was a big deal.
As far as I am aware the current majority opinion is that people
were *not* here a long time before Clovis, and that the reason
Clovis culture spread fast is precisely because the Clovis people
were the first (or almost the first) colonists.
Spread fast from where?
Which geographic region has the oldest Clovis points ?
--
pete
John Brock
2003-10-30 15:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by pete
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Who ever developed Clovis technology first,
had a major technological advantage of some sort.
If they were genetically distinct,
then they would become the displacers.
I'm sorry, but better stone spear points just doesn't seem like a
big enough technological advantage to permit a small group of
newcomers to completely displace a long established population.
People were here for a long time before Clovis.
When Clovis culture first appeared,
Clovis culture spread nearly instantly
to everywhere that it is now known to have been.
Clovis technology was a big deal.
As far as I am aware the current majority opinion is that people
were *not* here a long time before Clovis, and that the reason
Clovis culture spread fast is precisely because the Clovis people
were the first (or almost the first) colonists.
Spread fast from where?
Which geographic region has the oldest Clovis points ?
I have no idea.

Am I incorrect in stating that the current majority opinion among
people who study these things is that human beings do *not* have
a long history in the New World prior to Clovis? If so then you
are not allowed to treat it as a given that "People were here for
a long time before Clovis."
--
John Brock
***@panix.com
MIB529
2003-10-30 18:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Post by John Brock
Post by pete
Who ever developed Clovis technology first,
had a major technological advantage of some sort.
If they were genetically distinct,
then they would become the displacers.
I'm sorry, but better stone spear points just doesn't seem like a
big enough technological advantage to permit a small group of
newcomers to completely displace a long established population.
People were here for a long time before Clovis.
When Clovis culture first appeared,
Clovis culture spread nearly instantly
to everywhere that it is now known to have been.
Clovis technology was a big deal.
As far as I am aware the current majority opinion is that people
were *not* here a long time before Clovis, and that the reason
Clovis culture spread fast is precisely because the Clovis people
were the first (or almost the first) colonists.
Spread fast from where?
Which geographic region has the oldest Clovis points ?
I have no idea.
Am I incorrect in stating that the current majority opinion among
people who study these things is that human beings do *not* have
a long history in the New World prior to Clovis?
Yes, you are incorrect, in a post-Monte Verde world. IIRC, the oldest
Clovis points are in the Southwest. I could be mistaken, though.
Post by John Brock
If so then you
are not allowed to treat it as a given that "People were here for
a long time before Clovis."
Unfortunately, human remains speak volumes.
Bob Keeter
2003-10-30 20:20:20 UTC
Permalink
"John Brock" <***@panix.com> wrote in message news:bnr9c7$h4q$***@panix2.panix.com...
Snippage. . . . .
Post by John Brock
Am I incorrect in stating that the current majority opinion among
people who study these things is that human beings do *not* have
a long history in the New World prior to Clovis? If so then you
are not allowed to treat it as a given that "People were here for
a long time before Clovis."
--
Actually, unless you were trying for some kind of joke, you might want to
look a bit harder at your logic above.

The nominal item for debate is if the Clovis culture was the first humans in
the New World. If you find equally old, non-Clovis remains, at least it
gives you reason to wonder about the "first" label and you have a Clovis
and - - - - were the first proposition. If you find remains or artifacts
that predate the oldest Clovis, well you have to drop that first label
entirely.

To say how much prior to the oldest find that humans may have been in the
New World, for example your undefined "long time", is pushing scientific
reasoning a bit into the world of fantasy. Its not that it could not be
true, its just that there is no proof. No proof and you have fantasy!

All that said, the finds from Central and South America are very suggestive.
For example the Mexican skulls that date to about 13kya, and there are
actually quite a few others in S. America that are at least a thousand years
older than the nominal 11.5kya Clovis age.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0903_030903_bajaskull.html#main
http://isis.csuhayward.edu/dbsw/anthropology/miller/3250/02paleo/sandweiss.html
http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/~crsmith/mverde.html
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/monte_verde/MonteVerde.htm

Again, does 1000 years equate to a "long time"? I dont know. And even more
worrisome is the fact that even down into Chile, there are sites that seem
to predate Clovis. If human migration was a wave from the north. . . . N.
American sites should predate S. American sites.

Regards
bk
John Brock
2003-10-30 22:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Keeter
Snippage. . . . .
Post by John Brock
Am I incorrect in stating that the current majority opinion among
people who study these things is that human beings do *not* have
a long history in the New World prior to Clovis? If so then you
are not allowed to treat it as a given that "People were here for
a long time before Clovis."
Actually, unless you were trying for some kind of joke, you might want to
look a bit harder at your logic above.
The nominal item for debate is if the Clovis culture was the first humans in
the New World. If you find equally old, non-Clovis remains, at least it
gives you reason to wonder about the "first" label and you have a Clovis
and - - - - were the first proposition. If you find remains or artifacts
that predate the oldest Clovis, well you have to drop that first label
entirely.
To say how much prior to the oldest find that humans may have been in the
New World, for example your undefined "long time", is pushing scientific
reasoning a bit into the world of fantasy. Its not that it could not be
true, its just that there is no proof. No proof and you have fantasy!
All that said, the finds from Central and South America are very suggestive.
For example the Mexican skulls that date to about 13kya, and there are
actually quite a few others in S. America that are at least a thousand years
older than the nominal 11.5kya Clovis age.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0903_030903_bajaskull.html#main
http://isis.csuhayward.edu/dbsw/anthropology/miller/3250/02paleo/sandweiss.html
http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/~crsmith/mverde.html
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/monte_verde/MonteVerde.htm
Again, does 1000 years equate to a "long time"? I dont know. And even more
worrisome is the fact that even down into Chile, there are sites that seem
to predate Clovis. If human migration was a wave from the north. . . . N.
American sites should predate S. American sites.
I don't think there is anything wrong with my logic. First of all,
by "a long time" I mean a significant amount of time compared to
the 12 thousand years or so that everyone agrees on. Thus I would
not consider 14kya or 16kya to be "a long time" prior to Clovis,
but I would consider 25kya or 30kya to be. Isn't this the sort of
timeline that the "early entry" people are arguing for? Second,
I was not saying that Clovis was first. I was asserting that as
far as I knew most archeologists currently believe that Clovis was
close to the beginning (in the sense above). Finally, while I may
be right or wrong in my understanding of what most archeologists
currently believe, if I am in fact right about this then it follows
that one cannot begin an argument by stating that "People were here
for a long time before Clovis" as thought this were an uncontested
fact.

Personally I have no trouble with the idea that the first entry
predated Clovis by a few thousand years. It's when you start
talking about 10 or 20 thousand years that have a problem. Just
on general principles I would expect human populations to increase
quite sharply shortly (i.e., no more than two or three thousand
years) after first entry, and so I am very puzzled by the question
of why very old sites should be so rare, and why they suddenly
became so common after 12kya (or so -- I only have a general sense
of the numbers, so don't get on my case if I should be saying 11kya
or 13kya). I will admit that some of the things I have read about
older sites do indeed sound very suggestive. But my basic question
still remains: why are really old sites so rare?
--
John Brock
***@panix.com
Bob Keeter
2003-11-01 00:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Snippage. . . . . . . . .
Post by Bob Keeter
Post by Bob Keeter
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0903_030903_bajaskull.html#
main
Post by Bob Keeter
http://isis.csuhayward.edu/dbsw/anthropology/miller/3250/02paleo/sandweiss.
html
Post by Bob Keeter
Post by Bob Keeter
http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/~crsmith/mverde.html
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/monte_verde/MonteVerde.htm
Again, does 1000 years equate to a "long time"? I dont know. And even more
worrisome is the fact that even down into Chile, there are sites that seem
to predate Clovis. If human migration was a wave from the north. . . . N.
American sites should predate S. American sites.
I don't think there is anything wrong with my logic. First of all,
by "a long time" I mean a significant amount of time compared to
the 12 thousand years or so that everyone agrees on. Thus I would
not consider 14kya or 16kya to be "a long time" prior to Clovis,
but I would consider 25kya or 30kya to be. Isn't this the sort of
timeline that the "early entry" people are arguing for?
Well, dont remember the dates off-hand, but there were several different
glacial "high points", tied to the apperance of "open" pathways
across Berengia thanks to the resultant low water points in mean sea level.

I want to say that the next most recent (beyond the "clovis connection") was
maybe 35k or 40k years ago, but please dont hold me to that.
Post by Bob Keeter
Second, I was not saying that Clovis was first. I was asserting that as
far as I knew most archeologists currently believe that Clovis was
close to the beginning (in the sense above).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finally, while I may
be right or wrong in my understanding of what most archeologists
currently believe, if I am in fact right about this then it follows
that one cannot begin an argument by stating that "People were here
for a long time before Clovis" as thought this were an uncontested
fact.
Oh, again it depends on what you call a long time. But I think that the
real problem isnt so much the difference between a 11.5kya and a 15kya
date as the explaination for the delta. If you were to go with the Clovis
date there is a nice logical point in time where they could have come
across.
Berengia was open for hikers just a few hundred years previous!

If you go to 13kya or 14kya, you either have to hypothesize a maritime
culture (boating across) or you have to go all the way back to the next
most recent appearance of Berengia! Not sure if there are any real
supporting data for either!
Post by Bob Keeter
Personally I have no trouble with the idea that the first entry
predated Clovis by a few thousand years. It's when you start
talking about 10 or 20 thousand years that have a problem.
Yeppers, that is the problem in a nutshell. Unless Im mistaken, I think
that
the oldest confirmed human bones, artifacts, or whatever in the new world
are starting to get really close to the begining of the "open door" in
Berengia! I dont think that even the most optimistic "Clovis firsters"
are willing to suggest that it would have taken "no time at all" for humans
to hike across Berengia at the first sign of shallow water, and make it
to Chile and Peru, in some numbers and with decidedly different
sub-tropical instead of arctic cultures and tool kits in just a couple
of hundred years.
Post by Bob Keeter
Just
on general principles I would expect human populations to increase
quite sharply shortly (i.e., no more than two or three thousand
years) after first entry, and so I am very puzzled by the question
of why very old sites should be so rare, and why they suddenly
became so common after 12kya (or so -- I only have a general sense
of the numbers, so don't get on my case if I should be saying 11kya
or 13kya). I will admit that some of the things I have read about
older sites do indeed sound very suggestive. But my basic question
still remains: why are really old sites so rare?
--
Well, one possible reason is that until very recently it simply was not
"kosher" to even suggest that a New World archaeological site was more
than 11.5kya! (And quite possibly knowing that 11.5ka was the oldest
POSSIBLE date, there was just no need to dig much deeper!)

Really old sites may be rare for the simple reason that there were no
humans in the New World that far back! They also might be rare because
the ancient humans at those times were rare themselves! Given the
challenges of living between 15kya-30kya in the New World, even a
species as prolific as we have proven to be might have had a hard time
growing in numbers. It might also be that the maritime colonizers was the
trick and all of their "continental shelf" sites are under 200 ft of salt
water.

Lots of possibilities, but until some incontrovertable stuff shows up for
that
"seriously pre-Clovis" data set, we can only hypothesize. . . . .

Regards
bk
Ken Shaw
2003-11-01 14:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Keeter
Snippage. . . . . . . . .
Post by John Brock
Post by Bob Keeter
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0903_030903_bajaskull.html#
main
http://isis.csuhayward.edu/dbsw/anthropology/miller/3250/02paleo/sandweiss.
html
Post by John Brock
Post by Bob Keeter
http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/~crsmith/mverde.html
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/monte_verde/MonteVerde.htm
Again, does 1000 years equate to a "long time"? I dont know. And even
more
Post by John Brock
Post by Bob Keeter
worrisome is the fact that even down into Chile, there are sites that
seem
Post by John Brock
Post by Bob Keeter
to predate Clovis. If human migration was a wave from the north. . . .
N.
Post by John Brock
Post by Bob Keeter
American sites should predate S. American sites.
I don't think there is anything wrong with my logic. First of all,
by "a long time" I mean a significant amount of time compared to
the 12 thousand years or so that everyone agrees on. Thus I would
not consider 14kya or 16kya to be "a long time" prior to Clovis,
but I would consider 25kya or 30kya to be. Isn't this the sort of
timeline that the "early entry" people are arguing for?
Well, dont remember the dates off-hand, but there were several different
glacial "high points", tied to the apperance of "open" pathways
across Berengia thanks to the resultant low water points in mean sea level.
I want to say that the next most recent (beyond the "clovis connection") was
maybe 35k or 40k years ago, but please dont hold me to that.
Post by John Brock
Second, I was not saying that Clovis was first. I was asserting that as
far as I knew most archeologists currently believe that Clovis was
close to the beginning (in the sense above).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finally, while I may
be right or wrong in my understanding of what most archeologists
currently believe, if I am in fact right about this then it follows
that one cannot begin an argument by stating that "People were here
for a long time before Clovis" as thought this were an uncontested
fact.
Oh, again it depends on what you call a long time. But I think that the
real problem isnt so much the difference between a 11.5kya and a 15kya
date as the explaination for the delta. If you were to go with the Clovis
date there is a nice logical point in time where they could have come
across.
Berengia was open for hikers just a few hundred years previous!
If you go to 13kya or 14kya, you either have to hypothesize a maritime
culture (boating across) or you have to go all the way back to the next
most recent appearance of Berengia! Not sure if there are any real
supporting data for either!
Post by John Brock
Personally I have no trouble with the idea that the first entry
predated Clovis by a few thousand years. It's when you start
talking about 10 or 20 thousand years that have a problem.
Yeppers, that is the problem in a nutshell. Unless Im mistaken, I think
that
the oldest confirmed human bones, artifacts, or whatever in the new world
are starting to get really close to the begining of the "open door" in
Berengia! I dont think that even the most optimistic "Clovis firsters"
are willing to suggest that it would have taken "no time at all" for humans
to hike across Berengia at the first sign of shallow water, and make it
to Chile and Peru, in some numbers and with decidedly different
sub-tropical instead of arctic cultures and tool kits in just a couple
of hundred years.
Post by John Brock
Just
on general principles I would expect human populations to increase
quite sharply shortly (i.e., no more than two or three thousand
years) after first entry, and so I am very puzzled by the question
of why very old sites should be so rare, and why they suddenly
became so common after 12kya (or so -- I only have a general sense
of the numbers, so don't get on my case if I should be saying 11kya
or 13kya). I will admit that some of the things I have read about
older sites do indeed sound very suggestive. But my basic question
still remains: why are really old sites so rare?
--
Well, one possible reason is that until very recently it simply was not
"kosher" to even suggest that a New World archaeological site was more
than 11.5kya! (And quite possibly knowing that 11.5ka was the oldest
POSSIBLE date, there was just no need to dig much deeper!)
Really old sites may be rare for the simple reason that there were no
humans in the New World that far back! They also might be rare because
the ancient humans at those times were rare themselves! Given the
challenges of living between 15kya-30kya in the New World, even a
species as prolific as we have proven to be might have had a hard time
growing in numbers. It might also be that the maritime colonizers was the
trick and all of their "continental shelf" sites are under 200 ft of salt
water.
Lots of possibilities, but until some incontrovertable stuff shows up for
that
"seriously pre-Clovis" data set, we can only hypothesize. . . . .
This has always puzzled me. When did the polynesians reach Easter Island
which I think is the furthest east site known to be polynesian? If the
timeline is supportive what kept these fairly amazing mariners from reaching
South America? Do the polynesians and native americans share any unique
genetic markers?

Ken
MIB529
2003-11-03 00:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Pretty good, but I have a few things to disagree with on. Mostly the
"replacement theory". Replacement theory works fine - with extinct
SPECIES. But, most likely, even if we assume a second migration, *the*
*two* *can* *interbreed*. End of story. Furthermore, the skulls
weren't that different from modern-day Indians; in fact, they were
closer to modern-day Indians than modern-day Indians are to Orientals.
What can we imply from that?
Post by Bob Keeter
Snippage. . . . .
Post by John Brock
Am I incorrect in stating that the current majority opinion among
people who study these things is that human beings do *not* have
a long history in the New World prior to Clovis? If so then you
are not allowed to treat it as a given that "People were here for
a long time before Clovis."
--
Actually, unless you were trying for some kind of joke, you might want to
look a bit harder at your logic above.
The nominal item for debate is if the Clovis culture was the first humans in
the New World. If you find equally old, non-Clovis remains, at least it
gives you reason to wonder about the "first" label and you have a Clovis
and - - - - were the first proposition. If you find remains or artifacts
that predate the oldest Clovis, well you have to drop that first label
entirely.
To say how much prior to the oldest find that humans may have been in the
New World, for example your undefined "long time", is pushing scientific
reasoning a bit into the world of fantasy. Its not that it could not be
true, its just that there is no proof. No proof and you have fantasy!
All that said, the finds from Central and South America are very suggestive.
For example the Mexican skulls that date to about 13kya, and there are
actually quite a few others in S. America that are at least a thousand years
older than the nominal 11.5kya Clovis age.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm
"The two oldest skulls were "dolichocephalic" - that is, long and
narrow-headed."

So are Indians on the East Coast, as well as Eskimos and South
American Indians - in modern times. Furthermore, skull shape is a
largely environmental trait. I fail to see the point of bringing this
up.

"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."

It suggests that someone's been basing their image of modern Indians
on the (brachycephalic) Italian "Indians" in the old Westerns.

"Traditionally, American Indians were thought to have been the first
to arrive on the continent, crossing from Asia on a land bridge."

"Traditionally" is a good description. It was the theory of a Jesuit
missionary based solely on the fact that no one had been to the
northwest yet. About as useful as Lemuria.

"However, this evidence that another race may have pre-dated native
Americans could strengthen legal challenges from researchers to force
access to such remains."

Ah, so the argument is politically motivated.
Post by Bob Keeter
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0903_030903_bajaskull.html#main
"American Indians resemble the people of Mongolia, China and Siberia."

Only in that we have brown skin and not much in the way of facial or
body hair, nothing about morphology. In addition, THAT cline's
disrupted by the Northwest Coast, where the Indians have quite a bit
of facial hair. Try harder.

"Skeletal studies demonstrate that skeletal remains do not fit the
Mongoloid set of traits that is determinant of the modern Amerindian
morphology,"

It doesn't fit the mongoloid set of traits becaue no one calculated
Indians in the mongoloid set of traits! The only traits Indians share
with Orientals - straight hair, brown skin, relatively little facial
and body hair - last I checked, those aren't part of the skeleton.

"Controversy erupted after skeletal remains were found in Kennewick,
Washington, in 1996. This skeleton, estimated to be 9,000 years old,
had a long cranium and narrow face—features typical of people from
Europe, the Near East or India—rather than the wide cheekbones and
rounder skull of an American Indian."

And it also didn't have the cradleboard markings (The loon forgot that
culture's Lamarckian.), dental problems (I didn't know commodities
existed 9000 years ago.), or arthritis (See dental problems.)

And there is no European sundadont population. There are several in
the Americas, even in historical times. (In fact, I know an Apache
with at least one fairly-rare-but-most-often-sundadont trait: Three,
rather than the more common two, sets of teeth.) Turner just decided
Indians are all sinodonts by fiat, using the land bridge as evidence
for it. (But if the land bridge proves our dental patterns, and our
dental patterns prove the land bridge...See where racial
determinism'll get you?)

BTW, Mexicans hate Indians even more than Americans do. Well, they
don't hate all Indians; they love the ones who take other Indians to
the top of the pyramid.

http://isis.csuhayward.edu/dbsw/anthropology/miller/3250/02paleo/sandweiss.html

Actually, this one avoided politically-motivated pseudoscience.
Post by Bob Keeter
http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/~crsmith/mverde.html
Once again, few problems.
Post by Bob Keeter
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/monte_verde/MonteVerde.htm
Nice, balanced. And no bull about "replacement".
Post by Bob Keeter
Again, does 1000 years equate to a "long time"? I dont know. And even more
worrisome is the fact that even down into Chile, there are sites that seem
to predate Clovis. If human migration was a wave from the north. . . . N.
American sites should predate S. American sites.
North American sites predate Kamchatka sites, too.

There are other, more controversial sites too. They're generally
accepted by archaeologists outside of the US, rejected by
archaeologists in the US. Some go as far back as almost 60,000 years.
Doug Weller
2003-11-03 20:14:50 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Nov 2003 16:00:26 -0800, in sci.anthropology.paleo, MIB529 wrote:
[SNIP]
Post by MIB529
Only in that we have brown skin and not much in the way of facial or
body hair, nothing about morphology. In addition, THAT cline's
disrupted by the Northwest Coast, where the Indians have quite a bit
of facial hair. Try harder.
I presume you include California in this.

Bearded Indians in the Caribbean:
http://www.caribbeanconsulting.com/Sabaxyz/Will/EarlyHistory.htm

Captain John Smith wrote:

"[The Powhatans are] generally tall and straight, of a comely proportion,
and of a colour browne...Their haire is generally black, but few have any
beards"

http://state.vipnet.org/dhr/arch_NET/timeline/contact_indian.htm

In other words, a few did have beards.

Beards in southern Mexico, the Mixe:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10408a.htm


The Siriono of Bolivia have heavy beards.
See Nomads of the long bow: The Siriono of eastern Bolivia, by
Allan R. Holmberg. IV+104 pp., 7 pls., 4 charts, 1 map. 1950

Amazonian Indians have beards. I
Go to http://www.der.org/photography and click on the section on Latin
American
photographs - see the top photo.

I dug this up because someone was claiming that the Olmec, Mayan, etc.
representations of people with beards prove that there were Egyptians,
etc. influencing those cultures. Beards are unusual, but not impossible,
even outside of the northwest of North America.

[SNIP]

Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
MIB529
2003-11-05 00:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Weller
[SNIP]
Post by MIB529
Only in that we have brown skin and not much in the way of facial or
body hair, nothing about morphology. In addition, THAT cline's
disrupted by the Northwest Coast, where the Indians have quite a bit
of facial hair. Try harder.
I presume you include California in this.
Of course. I also include southern Alaska.
Post by Doug Weller
http://www.caribbeanconsulting.com/Sabaxyz/Will/EarlyHistory.htm
"[The Powhatans are] generally tall and straight, of a comely proportion,
and of a colour browne...Their haire is generally black, but few have any
beards"
http://state.vipnet.org/dhr/arch_NET/timeline/contact_indian.htm
In other words, a few did have beards.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10408a.htm
The Siriono of Bolivia have heavy beards.
See Nomads of the long bow: The Siriono of eastern Bolivia, by
Allan R. Holmberg. IV+104 pp., 7 pls., 4 charts, 1 map. 1950
Amazonian Indians have beards. I
Go to http://www.der.org/photography and click on the section on Latin
American
photographs - see the top photo.
I dug this up because someone was claiming that the Olmec, Mayan, etc.
representations of people with beards prove that there were Egyptians,
etc. influencing those cultures. Beards are unusual, but not impossible,
even outside of the northwest of North America.
In other words, the sparse facial hair isn't a similarity either. So I
still win! ::forms "V" sign::

Bob Keeter
2003-11-04 01:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Pretty good, but I have a few things to disagree with on. Mostly the
"replacement theory". Replacement theory works fine - with extinct
SPECIES. But, most likely, even if we assume a second migration, *the*
*two* *can* *interbreed*. End of story. Furthermore, the skulls
weren't that different from modern-day Indians; in fact, they were
closer to modern-day Indians than modern-day Indians are to Orientals.
What can we imply from that?
A "pretty good" hopefully isnt all that bad, so thankee sir!

Not sure where I got into "replacement theory" here, I thought that I was
just mumbling around about Clovis-first and pre-Clovis stuff. . . . but. . .
. we'll run with it! 8-)
Snippage. . . .
Post by MIB529
Post by Bob Keeter
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm
"The two oldest skulls were "dolichocephalic" - that is, long and
narrow-headed."
Er. . yup. Sounds about right. Made them a bit "atypical" of the standard
local sort. . . . but as you noted, not ENTIRELY atypical of pre-Columbian
New World Indians.
Post by MIB529
So are Indians on the East Coast, as well as Eskimos and South
American Indians - in modern times. Furthermore, skull shape is a
largely environmental trait. I fail to see the point of bringing this
up.
OK, on the first part, but not so certain that skull shape is an
environmental trait. Could you expand a bit on this?
Post by MIB529
"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."
It suggests that someone's been basing their image of modern Indians
on the (brachycephalic) Italian "Indians" in the old Westerns.
"Traditionally, American Indians were thought to have been the first
to arrive on the continent, crossing from Asia on a land bridge."
"Traditionally" is a good description. It was the theory of a Jesuit
missionary based solely on the fact that no one had been to the
northwest yet. About as useful as Lemuria.
"However, this evidence that another race may have pre-dated native
Americans could strengthen legal challenges from researchers to force
access to such remains."
Ah, so the argument is politically motivated.
Me? I dont understand this line at all??
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0903_030903_bajaskull.html#main
Post by MIB529
"American Indians resemble the people of Mongolia, China and Siberia."
Only in that we have brown skin and not much in the way of facial or
body hair, nothing about morphology. In addition, THAT cline's
disrupted by the Northwest Coast, where the Indians have quite a bit
of facial hair. Try harder.
"Skeletal studies demonstrate that skeletal remains do not fit the
Mongoloid set of traits that is determinant of the modern Amerindian
morphology,"
It doesn't fit the mongoloid set of traits becaue no one calculated
Indians in the mongoloid set of traits! The only traits Indians share
with Orientals - straight hair, brown skin, relatively little facial
and body hair - last I checked, those aren't part of the skeleton.
"Controversy erupted after skeletal remains were found in Kennewick,
Washington, in 1996. This skeleton, estimated to be 9,000 years old,
had a long cranium and narrow face-features typical of people from
Europe, the Near East or India-rather than the wide cheekbones and
rounder skull of an American Indian."
And it also didn't have the cradleboard markings (The loon forgot that
culture's Lamarckian.), dental problems (I didn't know commodities
existed 9000 years ago.), or arthritis (See dental problems.)
And there is no European sundadont population. There are several in
the Americas, even in historical times. (In fact, I know an Apache
with at least one fairly-rare-but-most-often-sundadont trait: Three,
rather than the more common two, sets of teeth.) Turner just decided
Indians are all sinodonts by fiat, using the land bridge as evidence
for it. (But if the land bridge proves our dental patterns, and our
dental patterns prove the land bridge...See where racial
determinism'll get you?)
BTW, Mexicans hate Indians even more than Americans do. Well, they
don't hate all Indians; they love the ones who take other Indians to
the top of the pyramid.
http://isis.csuhayward.edu/dbsw/anthropology/miller/3250/02paleo/sandweiss.html
Post by MIB529
Actually, this one avoided politically-motivated pseudoscience.
Post by Bob Keeter
http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/~crsmith/mverde.html
Once again, few problems.
Post by Bob Keeter
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/monte_verde/MonteVerde.htm
Ah, you were critiqing the references! OK. Now I understand. yes there
were a lot of different "angles" there. Most were intentional, you found a
couple that I had not noticed. The real "point" of it all is that a lot of
different stuff is starting to point at pre-Clovis humans in the New World.
Post by MIB529
Nice, balanced. And no bull about "replacement".
Post by Bob Keeter
Again, does 1000 years equate to a "long time"? I dont know. And even more
worrisome is the fact that even down into Chile, there are sites that seem
to predate Clovis. If human migration was a wave from the north. . . . N.
American sites should predate S. American sites.
North American sites predate Kamchatka sites, too.
True, but then Kamchatka tends to be far less ameanable to archeological
expeditions that New Mexico, and until fairly recently was essentially
"verboten" because of the military bases there. Wanna bet that in the next
couple of decades some very interesting stuff comes out of Northeast Asia?
Post by MIB529
There are other, more controversial sites too. They're generally
accepted by archaeologists outside of the US, rejected by
archaeologists in the US. Some go as far back as almost 60,000 years.
There are quite a few. . . I would not personally be all that shocked if one
or two turned out to be authentic (not because I have any "insider" info,
just because I know that there were several instances of "land bridges"
where species made the trip one way or the other. Given that HE was one of
the very first hominids with serious "traveling urges", I would almost be
shocked if there WEREN'T some New World examples out there somewhere. But
that is wild conjecture, until someone kicks over the right hand ax! ;-)

Regards
bk
MIB529
2003-11-05 00:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Keeter
Post by MIB529
Pretty good, but I have a few things to disagree with on. Mostly the
"replacement theory". Replacement theory works fine - with extinct
SPECIES. But, most likely, even if we assume a second migration, *the*
*two* *can* *interbreed*. End of story. Furthermore, the skulls
weren't that different from modern-day Indians; in fact, they were
closer to modern-day Indians than modern-day Indians are to Orientals.
What can we imply from that?
A "pretty good" hopefully isnt all that bad, so thankee sir!
Not sure where I got into "replacement theory" here, I thought that I was
just mumbling around about Clovis-first and pre-Clovis stuff. . . . but. . .
. we'll run with it! 8-)
Snippage. . . .
Talking about references.
Post by Bob Keeter
Post by MIB529
Post by Bob Keeter
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm
"The two oldest skulls were "dolichocephalic" - that is, long and
narrow-headed."
Er. . yup. Sounds about right. Made them a bit "atypical" of the standard
local sort. . . . but as you noted, not ENTIRELY atypical of pre-Columbian
New World Indians.
For Mexico, atypical. But of course, North or South America is a more
likely relation than Europeans.
Post by Bob Keeter
Post by MIB529
So are Indians on the East Coast, as well as Eskimos and South
American Indians - in modern times. Furthermore, skull shape is a
largely environmental trait. I fail to see the point of bringing this
up.
OK, on the first part, but not so certain that skull shape is an
environmental trait. Could you expand a bit on this?
I meant it's very largely environmentally influenced. A study done by
Franz Boas, 1896, disproved the constancy of the cephalic index.

Also, the skull gets more dolichocephalic as one gets older.
Post by Bob Keeter
Post by MIB529
"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."
It suggests that someone's been basing their image of modern Indians
on the (brachycephalic) Italian "Indians" in the old Westerns.
"Traditionally, American Indians were thought to have been the first
to arrive on the continent, crossing from Asia on a land bridge."
"Traditionally" is a good description. It was the theory of a Jesuit
missionary based solely on the fact that no one had been to the
northwest yet. About as useful as Lemuria.
"However, this evidence that another race may have pre-dated native
Americans could strengthen legal challenges from researchers to force
access to such remains."
Ah, so the argument is politically motivated.
Me? I dont understand this line at all??
When he says "...strengthen legal challenges..." and his case itself
is weak, we can assume that the argument's politically motivated.
Maybe even subconsciously: Tape measures don't make a theory, after
all. The theory is conceived in a mind.
Post by Bob Keeter
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0903_030903_bajaskull.html#main
Post by MIB529
"American Indians resemble the people of Mongolia, China and Siberia."
Only in that we have brown skin and not much in the way of facial or
body hair, nothing about morphology. In addition, THAT cline's
disrupted by the Northwest Coast, where the Indians have quite a bit
of facial hair. Try harder.
"Skeletal studies demonstrate that skeletal remains do not fit the
Mongoloid set of traits that is determinant of the modern Amerindian
morphology,"
It doesn't fit the mongoloid set of traits becaue no one calculated
Indians in the mongoloid set of traits! The only traits Indians share
with Orientals - straight hair, brown skin, relatively little facial
and body hair - last I checked, those aren't part of the skeleton.
"Controversy erupted after skeletal remains were found in Kennewick,
Washington, in 1996. This skeleton, estimated to be 9,000 years old,
had a long cranium and narrow face-features typical of people from
Europe, the Near East or India-rather than the wide cheekbones and
rounder skull of an American Indian."
And it also didn't have the cradleboard markings (The loon forgot that
culture's Lamarckian.), dental problems (I didn't know commodities
existed 9000 years ago.), or arthritis (See dental problems.)
And there is no European sundadont population. There are several in
the Americas, even in historical times. (In fact, I know an Apache
with at least one fairly-rare-but-most-often-sundadont trait: Three,
rather than the more common two, sets of teeth.) Turner just decided
Indians are all sinodonts by fiat, using the land bridge as evidence
for it. (But if the land bridge proves our dental patterns, and our
dental patterns prove the land bridge...See where racial
determinism'll get you?)
BTW, Mexicans hate Indians even more than Americans do. Well, they
don't hate all Indians; they love the ones who take other Indians to
the top of the pyramid.
http://isis.csuhayward.edu/dbsw/anthropology/miller/3250/02paleo/sandweiss.html
Post by MIB529
Actually, this one avoided politically-motivated pseudoscience.
Post by Bob Keeter
http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/~crsmith/mverde.html
Once again, few problems.
Post by Bob Keeter
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/monte_verde/MonteVerde.htm
Ah, you were critiqing the references! OK. Now I understand. yes there
were a lot of different "angles" there. Most were intentional, you found a
couple that I had not noticed. The real "point" of it all is that a lot of
different stuff is starting to point at pre-Clovis humans in the New World.
You're right, of course. But the non-scientific media will only cover
it if it proves whites were here before Indians: The lesson of think
tanks (You've seen these groups: Politically funded, they skirt peer
review. This is how Rushton can get away with penis size and
intelligence. This is how the Cato Institute can get away with a
eugenics study without any control group.) is that only sound bytes
matter, and it takes longer to disprove X than it does to say X.
Post by Bob Keeter
Post by MIB529
Nice, balanced. And no bull about "replacement".
Post by Bob Keeter
Again, does 1000 years equate to a "long time"? I dont know. And even
more
Post by MIB529
Post by Bob Keeter
worrisome is the fact that even down into Chile, there are sites that
seem
Post by MIB529
Post by Bob Keeter
to predate Clovis. If human migration was a wave from the north. . . .
N.
Post by MIB529
Post by Bob Keeter
American sites should predate S. American sites.
North American sites predate Kamchatka sites, too.
True, but then Kamchatka tends to be far less ameanable to archeological
expeditions that New Mexico, and until fairly recently was essentially
"verboten" because of the military bases there. Wanna bet that in the next
couple of decades some very interesting stuff comes out of Northeast Asia?
If something comes in the next couple of decades in Kamchatka, and if
North American sites start predating South American sites, then I'll
believe it. Otherwise, we're talking about faster-than-light travel.
And the burden of proof's on the affirmative for these kinds of
things, for obvious reasons (i.e., it's easier to find evidence than
to dig everywhere and find nothing).
Post by Bob Keeter
Post by MIB529
There are other, more controversial sites too. They're generally
accepted by archaeologists outside of the US, rejected by
archaeologists in the US. Some go as far back as almost 60,000 years.
There are quite a few. . . I would not personally be all that shocked if one
or two turned out to be authentic (not because I have any "insider" info,
just because I know that there were several instances of "land bridges"
where species made the trip one way or the other. Given that HE was one of
the very first hominids with serious "traveling urges", I would almost be
shocked if there WEREN'T some New World examples out there somewhere. But
that is wild conjecture, until someone kicks over the right hand ax! ;-)
One in the 20s was a full skeleton on the bank of the Minnesota in the
Upton Warden Interstadial. But there was only one journal at the time,
owned by Hrdlicka, who said it was just a Sioux burial. So, even
though such a thing didn't exist, Hrdlicka's explanation was the Word
of God.
Explorer8939
2003-10-22 03:04:24 UTC
Permalink
... and we know that the peoples who came to inhabit the Americas
didn't just sit at the eastern tip of Siberia for 5,000 years
......... how?

How do we know that these people crossed into Alaska 14,000 years ago,
as opposed to sitting in Siberia and then crossing. Or, perhaps they
entered Alaska, and sat THERE for 5,000 years. How does the genetic
information determine the exact crossing date?
Post by Robert Karl Stonjek
Marking the First Americans' Arrival
Y-chromosome genetic markers show that people first arrived on the North
American continent about 14,000 years ago, according to two papers in
the American Journal of Human Genetics.1,2 This is more recent than
previously thought; mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies had suggested an
entry date of 30,000 years ago.
Tedd
2003-10-22 03:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Explorer8939
... and we know that the peoples who came to inhabit the Americas
didn't just sit at the eastern tip of Siberia for 5,000 years
......... how?
How do we know that these people crossed into Alaska 14,000 years ago,
as opposed to sitting in Siberia and then crossing. Or, perhaps they
entered Alaska, and sat THERE for 5,000 years. How does the genetic
information determine the exact crossing date?
perhaps if you read the article and checked the references listed on the article
it might help to lead you in a direction that would answer some of those
questions for you.

(from original post)

--Maria W. Anderson

References
1. M. Seielstad et al., "A novel Y-chromosome variant puts an upper
limit on the timing of first entry into the Americas," Am J Human Genet,
73:700-05, September 2003.

2. M. Bortolini et al., "Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient
demographic histories in the Americas," Am J Human Genet, 73:524-39,
September 2003.

From The Scientist.com
http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2003/oct/upfront_031020.html
Lee Olsen
2003-10-22 14:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Explorer8939
How do we know that these people crossed into Alaska 14,000 years ago,
as opposed to sitting in Siberia and then crossing. Or, perhaps they
entered Alaska, and sat THERE for 5,000 years. How does the genetic
information determine the exact crossing date?
http://www.bauuinstitute.com/Articles/JonesmtDNA.pdf

American Indian Demographic History and Cultural
Affiliation: A Discussion of Certain Limitations on the Use
of mtDNA and Y Chromosome Testing
By
Peter N. Jones

However, it is unknown if this bottleneck took place in Asia, the
generally accepted origin of American Indians, or in the Americas
after their arrival, nor is it known what effects migrations and
subsequent bottlenecks
from disease and other factors have on this time estimation.
Therefore, the date of 35,000 years ago could be the time one group of
American Indians entered the "New World" or when a group experienced a
bottleneck in Asia and subsequently entered the Americas, or any
number of other possible scenarios.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...