Discussion:
Date limit set on first Americans
(too old to reply)
Diarmid Logan
2003-07-22 14:09:15 UTC
Permalink
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3086777.stm


Date limit set on first Americans

By Paul Rincon

BBC Science

A new genetic study deals a blow to claims that humans reached America
at least 30,000 years ago - around the same time that people were
colonising Europe.

The subject of when humans first arrived in America is hotly contested
by academics.

On one side of the argument are researchers who claim America was
first populated around 13,000 years ago, toward the end of the last
Ice Age. On the other are those who propose a much earlier date for
colonisation of the continent - possibly around 30,000-40,000 years
ago.

The authors of the latest study reject the latter theory, proposing
that humans entered America no earlier than 18,000 years ago.

They looked at mutations on the form of the human Y chromosome known
as haplotype 10.

This is one of only two haplotypes carried by Native American men and
is thought to have reached the continent first. Haplotype 10 is also
found in Asia, confirming that the earliest Americans came from there.

The scientists knew that determining when mutations occurred on
haplotype 10 might reveal a date for the first entry of people into
America.

Native Americans carry a mutation called M3 on haplotype 10 which is
not found in Asia. This suggests it appeared after people settled in
America, making it useless for assigning a date to the first
migrations.

But a mutation known as M242 looked more promising. M242 is found in
Asia and America, suggesting that it appeared before the first
Americans split from their Asian kin.

Knowing the rate at which DNA on the Y chromosome mutates - errors
occur - and the time taken for a single male generation, the
scientists were able to calculate when M242 originated. They arrived
at a maximum date of 18,000 years ago for its appearance.

This means the first Americans were still living in Asia when M242
appeared and could only have begun their migration eastwards after
this date.

"I would say that they entered [America] within the last 15,000
years," said Dr Spencer Wells, a geneticist and author who contributed
to the latest study.

In 1997, a US-Chilean team uncovered apparent evidence of human
occupation in 33,000-year-old sediment layers at Monte Verde in Chile.

They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.

The debate over the biological origins of the first Americans has
wide-ranging political and racial implications.

In the US, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(Nagpra) has resulted in the handover of many scientific collections
to claimants.

Some archaeologists argue that the remains of early Americans are
sufficiently different from their descendents to be exempt from
Nagpra.

For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State known as
Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its
long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American
populations tend to have short, broad skulls.

Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this way
because Europeans and early Americans had a common origin around
35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.

"[Dolichocephaly] is a general feature of very early skulls," Dr Wells
told BBC News Online.

He said a later migration into America from East Asia 6,000-10,000
years ago associated with the spread of Y chromosome haplotype 5 could
have been responsible for the Asiatic appearance of many present-day
Native Americans.

But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more ancient
American populations carrying unidentified Y chromosome haplotypes
could have been swamped by later migrations, resulting in their
genetic legacy being erased.

"We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have to deal
with what's extant."


http://diarmidlogan.blogspot.com/
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-22 14:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.
There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it disappeared
in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new world 15 kya.
Sounds like a displacement. What happens in Japan 15 kya,
protoJomon arrives. What does that look like, clovis
culture.
Post by Diarmid Logan
For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State known as
Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its
long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American
populations tend to have short, broad skulls.
Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this way
because Europeans and early Americans had a common origin around
35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.
Native americans did not have a common origins in south
central asia. They have many points of origin from
melanesians that came up through Japan in the south to
diplaced WEA/ME that came up from the south west to siberia.
To mongols that came from siberia proper . . . . .
Post by Diarmid Logan
But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more ancient
American populations carrying unidentified Y chromosome haplotypes
could have been swamped by later migrations, resulting in their
genetic legacy being erased.
"We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have to deal
with what's extant."
Then he should make a trip to Japan.
Gisele Horvat
2003-07-22 19:19:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:56:36 -0500, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Diarmid Logan
They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.
There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it disappeared
in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new world 15 kya.
Sounds like a displacement. What happens in Japan 15 kya,
protoJomon arrives. What does that look like, clovis
culture.
Post by Diarmid Logan
For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State known as
Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its
long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American
populations tend to have short, broad skulls.
Here we go again. What is not made clear in this article is that the
majority of the Native American Y chromsomes are phylogenetically
closer to those of Europeans than to Asians. Quoting Lell et al.
(2002):

"The major Native American founding lineage, haplogroup M3, accounted
for 66% of male Y chromosomes and was defined by the biallelic markers
M89, M9, M45, and M3. ...The second major group of Native American Y
chromosomes, haplogroup M45, accounted for about one-quarter of male
lineages."

We're already up to about 91%...

"Among the remaining 5% of Native American Y chromosomes is haplogroup
RPS4Y-T, found in North America."

RPS4Y-T is the 'Asian' haplotype.

By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested? That the
same haplotypes, which currently appear to be quite rare in Eastern
Asia, were introduced twice - once along with traits similar to those
of Europeans to account for the appearance of the Kennewick Man and
once with traits similar to those of Asians? This is not what Wells
suggested, though:

"He said a later migration into America from East Asia 6,000-10,000
years ago associated with the spread of Y chromosome haplotype 5 could
have been responsible for the Asiatic appearance of many present-day
Native Americans."

RPS4Y is haplotype 5.

If mtDNAs are maternally inherited and Y chromosomes - paternally
inherited, it should be possible to superimpose one phylogenetic chart
upon the other. Using the well-sampled Europeans as a reference
point:

Y chromosome M89 M9 M45 - precedes the majority of the European
haplotypes as do mtDNA sequences which have 12705T and 16223T. The
predominant Native American haplogroup (A) fits in this category. In
the New World, Y chromosome mutation M3 is thought to have occurred on
this M45 haplotype and been carried back to Asia. This agrees well
with the mtDNA haplogroup A sequences which could have been carried at
the same time.

The Asian/Native American mtDNA haplogroup which is roughly parallel,
phylogenetically, to the majority of the haplogroups of Europe is 'B'.
This could correspond with the Y chromsome haplotypes which have
variants M89 M9 M45 M173 since this haplotype was considered to be a
Native American founding haplotype by Lell and it is found at
relatively high frequency in Polynesia. In Europe, Polynesia and the
New World, at least, Y chromosome M89 M9 M45 M173 could correspond
with mtDNA haplogroups which have 12705C & 16223C and which are called
haplogroup cluster R.

Y chromsome RPS4Y-T could correspond with the mtDNA macro-haplogroup M
sequences in the Americas (haplogroups C & D).

In summary, Native American mtDNA sequences can be separated into 3
groups: 1) the ones which preceded the majority of the European,
phylogenetically, 2) the ones which are considered to be roughly
parallel and 3) the ones closer to those of Asians. If you divide the
relevant Y chromosome haplotypes into the same three groups,
correlations similar to the ones I have described above could be
found. But, *I* shouldn't have to be doing this, researchers in the
field should be and I should be quoting them.

I really just wanted to point out, though, how the low frequency of
the 'Asian' y haplotype is inconsistent with Wells explanation for the
physical description of Native Americans he provided.

Gisele
MIB529
2003-07-23 20:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
Orientals. So I give them the following Clue cards:

Clue #1: Most Indians ARE dolichocephalic. Only a few in Central
America are brachycephalic.
Clue #2: The cephalic index was discredited a century ago. It's as
useful as phrenology.
Duncan Craig
2003-07-24 02:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.

Duncan
Post by MIB529
Clue #1: Most Indians ARE dolichocephalic. Only a few in Central
America are brachycephalic.
Clue #2: The cephalic index was discredited a century ago. It's as
useful as phrenology.
MIB529
2003-07-24 06:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.

In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Tedd
2003-07-24 06:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
anthropology's reputation for racism was spurred because of Racial Scientism debates of the 19th
century, the monogenesis/polygenesis arguments of the 18th century, and then carried through by
british socio-anthropology. all pre 20th and 21st century, long before threads like this. lets keep
it realistic in accusations, misrepresentations are what lead to the impressions of derogatory
comments (and flaming).

dig deeper,

tedd.
MIB529
2003-07-25 03:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tedd
Post by MIB529
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
anthropology's reputation for racism was spurred because of Racial Scientism debates of the 19th
century, the monogenesis/polygenesis arguments of the 18th century,
Are you sure that's restricted to the 18th and 19th centuries? Why,
just three years ago, one of the Kennewick man plaintiffs (C Loring
Brace) was claiming Indians were Neanderthals, while another (David
Meltzer) was just happy with saying inbreeding lead to what he viewed
as inferiority.
Post by Tedd
and then carried through by
british socio-anthropology. all pre 20th and 21st century, long before threads like this.
I said "things like this thread", not "threads like this". The idea of
pre-Indian Caucasians is clearly one of those things. Notice how the
theory was posted on sites like Stormfront long before Kennewick man
was uncovered. And notice how, on the flip side of the coin,
Afrocentrics like John Henrik Clarke were claiming pre-Indian Negroids
in the 30s.
Post by Tedd
lets keep
it realistic in accusations, misrepresentations are what lead to the impressions of derogatory
comments (and flaming).
MIB529
2003-07-25 13:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Dig deeper, says the man digging with a plastic spoon.
I've followed MIB's posts on the subject of anthropology (as well as a
number of other topics) over the years. I do not always agree with
him. In some cases I strongly agree with him, and in others I
strongly disagree with him. MIB is more knowledgable on the subject
of Anthropology than I am, but that is not the point.
The point is, MIB is a Native American who is well aware of the
reputation anthropologists have in the Native community. If he says
Anthropology has a reputation for racism, it would be foolish to
ignore him out of hand.
Besides the obvious reasons, relics from the 19th century, the problem
is that 20th-century anthropologists would date Indians' arrival like
this: A Chukchi crossed the Bering Strait in a kayak yesterday. He
brought us all with him. (That's essentially what this genetic clock
is, unless they want to argue that Indians are a separate species.
After all, if that Chukchi were to have sons by Indians here, and they
in turn were to marry other Indians, and so on, then the genetic
clock's a cuckoo clock.)

And besides which, as long as I assume the Bering Strait theory's
true, I honestly can see racial differences in intelligence. It's too
bad that, under the Bering Strait model, my own's at the bottom,
somewhere among the invertebrates, due to the genetic drift model that
nothing with a brain goes into a colder environment to escape the
cold. And not the higher invertebrates either; I'm talking the ones
that don't even have a basal ganglia. THAT'S how I see the Bering
Strait theory.
You could dismiss MIB as just a crazy injun, or YOU could dig a little
deeper. You could find out whether or not anthropology has such a
reputation, and you could find out why. You could try reading books
written by actual Native Americans (yes, some of us can write!). For
example, Vine DeLoria has a hilarious description of anthropologists
in one of his books. It's been over a decade since I read it, so I
forget which one. I think it was _Custer Died for Your Sins_ or
something like that. Or, you could try talking to some real live
injuns yourself. I know there are plenty around you neck of the
woods. I've talked to some not far from where you live who could tell
you what the general reputation of anthropologists is, and could also
tell you the names of anthropologists who respect, and are respected
by, the local Native community.
Speaking of Vine, I should point out to posters here that he doesn't
believe everything he says in Red Earth, White Lies. In fact, most of
the pseudoscience, he views as equally valid as the Bering Strait
theory. (If you know the theme of REWL, you know the validity he
assigns to the Bering Strait theory.)
Just putting my two cents in, I've known some very highly educated
Indians who cannot stand anthropologists.
I could also give you examples past the year 1900 of racism by
anthropologists. One of my favorites is the antrhopologist who
decided one of my ancestors was a mythical figure, even though she was
a quite well known historical person. Little things like that tend to
piss one off after a while.
My favorite was Hooten's claim of "pseudo-Australoids",
"pseudo-Negroids", "pseudo-Alpines", and "long-faced Europeans" in
Pecos Pueblo, from pre-Columbian times to even after Spanish contact,
which

Another one: Just three years ago, C Loring Brace claimed Indians were
descended from Neanderthals. I have him on record saying race has no
biological meaning, so how are we to take being considered a separate
species: That everyone's equal, except Indians, who are a separate
species altogether?

Trust me: You're not doing antiracism any favor by minimizing the
date, either. North Koreans and Mongolians deal a blow to The Bell
Curve just as effective as any Indian ever could, and you're more
implying Indian inferiority by using us as ammo against it.
Okay, let's try a little thought experiment. Anthropology is, or at
least aspires to be, a science. (Sorry, but a physical scientist like
myself can't help but find a few flaws in the rigor of Anthropology.)
All fields of science are the sum of human *interpretations* of
empirical data. Humans are flawed, therefore interpretations are
flawed. Spmetimes the data are flawed. Anthropology is a science (so
to speak) which is very sensitive to any ethnic biases. (Being that
the study of humans is especially sensitive to any biases --positive
or negative-- by the humans interpreting the data.)
(1) There are no racist anthropologists
or
(2) The field of Anthropology is necessarily tainted by the racism,
conscious or otherwise, of anthropologists.
The first possibility requires perfection in a large group of humans,
so it can safely be ruled out.
That leaves one, and ONLY one, logical possiblity. The field of
Anthropology is tainted by racism.
I'm not talking about the 18th or 19th century, I'm talking about the
21st century. The bad reputation of Anthropology in the 21st century
Native American community is due to recent and current
anthropologists.
As I've said, I don't agree with MIB all the time. In this case he's
right on target. It would take a little bit of digging to find out
why he hit the bullseye here, but I'll give you a two word clue to
help start your search: Kenniwick Man.
I described the basic failure of Kennewick man. In fact, all these
"caucasoid" skeletons seem to invariably look like so many of my
relatives.
Tedd
2003-07-25 15:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tedd
Post by MIB529
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
anthropology's reputation for racism was spurred because of Racial Scientism
debates of the 19th
Post by Tedd
century, the monogenesis/polygenesis arguments of the 18th century, and then
carried through by
Post by Tedd
british socio-anthropology. all pre 20th and 21st century, long before
threads like this. lets keep
Post by Tedd
it realistic in accusations, misrepresentations are what lead to the
impressions of derogatory
Post by Tedd
comments (and flaming).
dig deeper,
tedd.
Dig deeper, says the man digging with a plastic spoon.
yup, dig deeper. personal biases or points of view dont equal reality, only an
interpretation of reality. there are no absolutes, there is no uniformity, to
claim so is to lock yourself to your own biased interpretations.

i'm not insulting MIB, (that would make me a fool), read the statement again,
his comment "...things like this thread..." was a shallow, surface statement
when the roots go back far beyond "this thread" (as i'm sure he'd agree). do i
agree with him, of course i do, anthropology was based on "racism" in time and
place and to a degree still is in some circles (otherwise we wouldnt be having
this conversation).

yes i have read DeLoria, and Vizenor, Silko, Welch, Erdrich, and found them to
be just as guilty of what you are claiming anthropologists to be. and if i
assumed that their points of view spoke for the entirety of the population i'd
be just as guilty as those who claim all anthropologists are racist. there are
anthropologists that are just as controversial within the discipline as Erdrich
is within the native american population.

and for what it's worth; there is more than one theological orientation in
anthropology (not to mention approaches), dont lump us all into the same mold.
that'd be like me insulting you by saying Cherokee and Inuit are one and the
same because they're both indians. (that was said in jest.) ;)

tedd.
Diarmid Logan
2003-07-24 14:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-24 16:14:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:14:39 +0000 (UTC), "Diarmid Logan"
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
"White" has many contexts, it could be the color of
traditional makeup of a tribe or the fact that skin color
pales when people die, any one who insists that it must come
from some unseen contact from europe fits that catagory of a
racist, I think.

You know columbus did not sail directly to mexico, he ran
into islands, as any people would and then after further
sailing reached Mexico. Saying that gods are white and come
from this place or that place in the mexico central valley,
its a little bit far fetched for the lack of information
from other places. In terms of mexico the carribe indians
traveled between the outer islands and mexico, They may have
seen columbus and traveled to mexico informing the aztec
leaders that powerful white men are coming.


The basic problem is that these cypto-WE-racist see a hint
of something and they are on their high alters proclaiming
it as evidence. There is far more than a hint of evidence of
contact over a long period of time from Asia, and no-one is
on their high alter proclaiming it here, they are ignoring
it. If for instance Inger and Erik were talking about recent
off-continent contribution from both directions, I would
certainly think more highly of them than trying to turn
every bit of 'parallels' as evidence of pre-columbian
migration from WEA. Also note the groups they exclude, they
don't talk about the potency of the basque, legendary sea
peoples, nor do they talk about contribution from africa or
canary islands. They are simply focused on Egypt, Italy,
Spain, Ireland and _Sweden_. This is why you can say they
are racist.
MIB529
2003-07-25 01:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Very well-written, Philip. Might I add ANY contact from Asia also
makes the DNA useless, since the entire assumption of DNA is phyletic
isolation.

I have the following criteria before I believe in hyperdiffusion: 1)
An idea can't be a near-universal, 2) it has to be in both locations,
3) its evolution has to be tracked in location X, and not in location
Y, and 4) it must appear in location X before it appears in location
Y. Obviously, this hypothetical diffusion is X>Y. For technology, I
look for environmental reasons as well; if there's an environmental
reason for a technology in location Y, we can assume it was invented
independently.
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:14:39 +0000 (UTC), "Diarmid Logan"
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
"White" has many contexts, it could be the color of
traditional makeup of a tribe or the fact that skin color
pales when people die, any one who insists that it must come
from some unseen contact from europe fits that catagory of a
racist, I think.
You know columbus did not sail directly to mexico, he ran
into islands, as any people would and then after further
sailing reached Mexico. Saying that gods are white and come
from this place or that place in the mexico central valley,
its a little bit far fetched for the lack of information
from other places. In terms of mexico the carribe indians
traveled between the outer islands and mexico, They may have
seen columbus and traveled to mexico informing the aztec
leaders that powerful white men are coming.
The basic problem is that these cypto-WE-racist see a hint
of something and they are on their high alters proclaiming
it as evidence. There is far more than a hint of evidence of
contact over a long period of time from Asia, and no-one is
on their high alter proclaiming it here, they are ignoring
it. If for instance Inger and Erik were talking about recent
off-continent contribution from both directions, I would
certainly think more highly of them than trying to turn
every bit of 'parallels' as evidence of pre-columbian
migration from WEA. Also note the groups they exclude, they
don't talk about the potency of the basque, legendary sea
peoples, nor do they talk about contribution from africa or
canary islands. They are simply focused on Egypt, Italy,
Spain, Ireland and _Sweden_. This is why you can say they
are racist.
MIB529
2003-07-25 04:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
And when they do a snow job it does. Look at Kennewick man; the
"caucasoid" traits included:

Prognathous jaw (Um, no. It most likely occurs in negroids, and rarely
occurs in caucasoids)
Narrow face (Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
Cephalic index 73.8 (You'll ignore the laughter coming out of my own
skull, with its cephalic index of 72.9)
Receding cheekbones (What? Races can't have a little variation?)
Long, broad nose (I maintain Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
V-shaped mandible (I maintain AGAIN that Chatters hasn't seen many
Indians.)
Dental characteristics fit Turner's sundadont pattern. (Turner never
looked at Indian teeth when he announced we were sinodonts. It turns
out we lack many of the sundadont traits, such as three roots on the
lower first molar.)

His problem was that he used a system of three races. As such, he
ASSUMED Indians would look just like Orientals. Assuming all
brown-skinned people look alike is even more stereotypical than
assuming all Indians look alike.

He also assumes traits which are essentially environmental, and
stereotypical at that (cradleboard deformation, early teeth rotting,
and arthritis), are the essence of Indianness. Of course, he ignores
that modern Indians have the highest rate of diabetes in the world,
which could probably be explained by the high-carb commodities; it
doesn't take a genius to figure out what a diet high in carbohydrates
does to teeth. Similarly, a traditional lifestyle would contribute
less to arthritis, hence the higher rate of arthritis now. And the
cradleboard assumes it was an early-Holocene invention, rather than a
more recent invention, the fallacy of course being the assumption that
technology is a constant.
Eric Stevens
2003-07-25 04:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
And when they do a snow job it does. Look at Kennewick man; the
Prognathous jaw (Um, no. It most likely occurs in negroids, and rarely
occurs in caucasoids)
Narrow face (Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
Cephalic index 73.8 (You'll ignore the laughter coming out of my own
skull, with its cephalic index of 72.9)
Receding cheekbones (What? Races can't have a little variation?)
Long, broad nose (I maintain Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
V-shaped mandible (I maintain AGAIN that Chatters hasn't seen many
Indians.)
Dental characteristics fit Turner's sundadont pattern. (Turner never
looked at Indian teeth when he announced we were sinodonts. It turns
out we lack many of the sundadont traits, such as three roots on the
lower first molar.)
His problem was that he used a system of three races. As such, he
ASSUMED Indians would look just like Orientals. Assuming all
brown-skinned people look alike is even more stereotypical than
assuming all Indians look alike.
He also assumes traits which are essentially environmental, and
stereotypical at that (cradleboard deformation, early teeth rotting,
and arthritis), are the essence of Indianness. Of course, he ignores
that modern Indians have the highest rate of diabetes in the world,
which could probably be explained by the high-carb commodities; it
doesn't take a genius to figure out what a diet high in carbohydrates
does to teeth. Similarly, a traditional lifestyle would contribute
less to arthritis, hence the higher rate of arthritis now. And the
cradleboard assumes it was an early-Holocene invention, rather than a
more recent invention, the fallacy of course being the assumption that
technology is a constant.
Can I suggest that the last thing we need to do when faced with this
kind of argument is to get bogged down with arguing on the same level.
The best thing to do is to ignore possible racist motivation and
simply deal with the facts. The only problem is that there are so many
facts in this area which are not yet known.



Eric Stevens
MIB529
2003-07-25 12:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
And when they do a snow job it does. Look at Kennewick man; the
Prognathous jaw (Um, no. It most likely occurs in negroids, and rarely
occurs in caucasoids)
Narrow face (Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
Cephalic index 73.8 (You'll ignore the laughter coming out of my own
skull, with its cephalic index of 72.9)
Receding cheekbones (What? Races can't have a little variation?)
Long, broad nose (I maintain Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
V-shaped mandible (I maintain AGAIN that Chatters hasn't seen many
Indians.)
Dental characteristics fit Turner's sundadont pattern. (Turner never
looked at Indian teeth when he announced we were sinodonts. It turns
out we lack many of the sundadont traits, such as three roots on the
lower first molar.)
His problem was that he used a system of three races. As such, he
ASSUMED Indians would look just like Orientals. Assuming all
brown-skinned people look alike is even more stereotypical than
assuming all Indians look alike.
He also assumes traits which are essentially environmental, and
stereotypical at that (cradleboard deformation, early teeth rotting,
and arthritis), are the essence of Indianness. Of course, he ignores
that modern Indians have the highest rate of diabetes in the world,
which could probably be explained by the high-carb commodities; it
doesn't take a genius to figure out what a diet high in carbohydrates
does to teeth. Similarly, a traditional lifestyle would contribute
less to arthritis, hence the higher rate of arthritis now. And the
cradleboard assumes it was an early-Holocene invention, rather than a
more recent invention, the fallacy of course being the assumption that
technology is a constant.
Can I suggest that the last thing we need to do when faced with this
kind of argument is to get bogged down with arguing on the same level.
The best thing to do is to ignore possible racist motivation and
simply deal with the facts.
And the facts are that those "pre-Indian caucasoids" look virtually
identical to modern Indians. It's only by comparing them to Orientals
that you get anything different.

After mentioning the facts, it IS interesting, the motivation behind
such stories. Notice that when Kennewick man first occurred, I argued
the facts, THEN argued the motivation. (Not that I hadn't figured the
motivation out in, like, five seconds. In most of the US, it's open
season on Indians.)
Post by Eric Stevens
The only problem is that there are so many
facts in this area which are not yet known.
And so many of the facts are common sense. The Bering Strait theory
doesn't work in a Darwinian context, for example, unless you want to
simultaneously argue that Indians don't have the intelligence to
figure out that colder environments aren't a way to get warm, but
simultaneously argue that Indians have the technology to stay off
natural selection's radar for at least 1500 years. Which leads one to
wonder: Where did the technology come from?
MIB529
2003-07-25 06:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
Ah, one of the "We're not racist" crowd. Isn't it amazing? Folks can
call for Indians' extinction with signs like "Save a spawning walleye,
spear a pregnant squaw" and still insist they're not racist. Clue:
Saying "I'm not racist" doesn't absolve you of racism.
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-24 16:01:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
You mean like Inger has been doing?
Eric Stevens
2003-07-24 20:43:57 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:01:07 -0500, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
You mean like Inger has been doing?
Like there is any factual basis for Duncan Craig's statement
(deliberately snipped by you) that:

"I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when
he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white
man's burden."

I'm not arguing one way or another for the origin of that story but I
certainly wouldn't try to reach a conclusion on the basis a statement
such as Duncan's. I was hoping he could produce a better argument.



Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
2003-07-25 08:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:01:07 -0500, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
You mean like Inger has been doing?
Like there is any factual basis for Duncan Craig's statement
"I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when
he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white
man's burden."
I'm not arguing one way or another for the origin of that story but I
certainly wouldn't try to reach a conclusion on the basis a statement
such as Duncan's. I was hoping he could produce a better argument.
Eric Stevens
I could and have, Eric, with Lee Huddleston and Bernard Montellano.
The subject of whether the story of a bearded white (and I use the
term broadly, as Phillip pointed out) was an invention of the
Spaniards, or pre-existant to the arrival of Europeans has been much
discussed. And the statement that I made isn't the arguement, merely
emblematic of it. I've discussed it in terms of pre-existing
portrayals, the calendrics, the reactions of Montezuma, Cortes, the
local forms the story takes. I've speculated on the origins and the
purpose of the legend,
its etymology. It's a very popular subject which I would have thought
people are familiar with, to the point of boredom. So if you're
interested in the discussions, google. I didn't think it was
appropriate in this thread subject or necessary to go into it over an
aside. as it's not exactly a new discussion.
It sounds to me as though the complexity of the argument might extend
beyond the capacity of two brain cells. :-)
What then is the true basis of the story of Moctezuma so easily
surrendering his rule of the Aztecs and why did the Aztecs so readily
accept it?
Eric Stevens
Why do you think?
Eric Stevens
2003-07-25 21:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:01:07 -0500, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
You mean like Inger has been doing?
Like there is any factual basis for Duncan Craig's statement
"I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when
he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white
man's burden."
I'm not arguing one way or another for the origin of that story but I
certainly wouldn't try to reach a conclusion on the basis a statement
such as Duncan's. I was hoping he could produce a better argument.
Eric Stevens
I could and have, Eric, with Lee Huddleston and Bernard Montellano.
The subject of whether the story of a bearded white (and I use the
term broadly, as Phillip pointed out) was an invention of the
Spaniards, or pre-existant to the arrival of Europeans has been much
discussed. And the statement that I made isn't the arguement, merely
emblematic of it. I've discussed it in terms of pre-existing
portrayals, the calendrics, the reactions of Montezuma, Cortes, the
local forms the story takes. I've speculated on the origins and the
purpose of the legend,
its etymology. It's a very popular subject which I would have thought
people are familiar with, to the point of boredom. So if you're
interested in the discussions, google. I didn't think it was
appropriate in this thread subject or necessary to go into it over an
aside. as it's not exactly a new discussion.
It sounds to me as though the complexity of the argument might extend
beyond the capacity of two brain cells. :-)
What then is the true basis of the story of Moctezuma so easily
surrendering his rule of the Aztecs and why did the Aztecs so readily
accept it?
Eric Stevens
Why do you think?
Does this mean you don't really know?




Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
2003-07-25 21:06:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:50:14 +1200, in sci.anthropology.paleo, Eric
[SNIP]
What then is the true basis of the story of Moctezuma so easily
surrendering his rule of the Aztecs and why did the Aztecs so readily
accept it?
Aren't you making some assumptions here? And why are you implying that
the Aztecs readily accepts Moctezuma's 'surrendering his rule'?
You're right, Doug. Moctezuma didn't readily accept his rule. It was
M's ambiguity and hesitation that led to his downfall.
I have an article somewhere by a military historian who goes into some
depth into the conquest of the Aztecs. I can't find it at the moment and
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/16cen/cortez15191521.html
Right again. Not worth bothering.
What annoys me is all the myth that has built up around this that only the
skeptics bother to penetrate. By the time he reached Mexico City In
Novenber 1919 Cortez had some formidable allies. Moctezuma was taken
hostage, remember? You wouldn't know that from your comment above. When
Cortez left Mexico City the Aztecs didn't accept rule from the garrison he
left behind, they rebelled.
Due to the heavy hand that Alvarado wielded in Cortes' absence.
It was not until August 1521, after about four months of fierce fighting,
that the Spanish finally overcame the Aztecs. Almost two years after
Cortez first took Mexico City.
Doug
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-25 22:12:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:18:21 -0500, "Thomas McDonald"
If one thinks that, absent his Indian allies, Cortes could have walked
over the Aztecs, I have a bridge over some swampland that I'd like to sell
you.
Yes and the logic of doing that would be revealed in 1524.
lol. The enemy you know is frequently better than the one
you don't.

Diarmid Logan
2003-07-24 21:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
So you are accusing Spencer Wells and the other scientists who
participated in this research racists?
MIB529
2003-07-25 06:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
So you are accusing Spencer Wells and the other scientists who
participated in this research racists?
In a word, yes. Sorry, but if they're not racist, they're incredibly
stupid. Geologists agree the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets
met, and thus Clovis is untenable. (In fact, the only way to do it is
either a 10,500-year maximum or a 40,000-year minimum. Radiocarbon
REPEATEDLY tells us against a 10,500-year maximum - and even against
this 18,000-year maximum - therefore, either we're going to redefine
quantum mechanics, in which case I'll x-post this to sci.physics right
now; or we'll reject the 18,000-year minimum entirely.)

What do I have to do? Build a time machine and bring one of these
early Indians here? The case for an age over 18,000 years has done
pretty much everything but that. I've also provided you with a variety
of Indian features, such as longer limbs, which couldn't survive
Siberia.

Let me guess: Geology, physics, and biology are all "Jew science",
right?
Daryl Krupa
2003-07-25 20:36:01 UTC
Permalink
***@zxmail.com (Bob Lancaster) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
For example, there is a group in a unuversity close to where I live
that is currently digging in central Alaska, looking for remants of a
civilization that has already been shown to have been there from 13k
BP to about 6k BP.
Unless cities have been found there, there was no "civilisation"
there.
You claim too much.
Except the Clovis crowd says the first
paleo-injuns got to Alaska about 12k BP.
Wrong. They claim that the first paleo-Indians got
OUT OF Alaska about 12 ka BP.
Until then, they were IN Alaska waiting for the ice-free corridor to
open up and let them migrate southeast OUT OF Alaska so that they
could GET TO Alberta about 12 ka BP.
Alaska is the northernmost part of the United States of America,
just across the Bering Strait from Russia, with a Pacific Ocean coast
and an Arctic Ocean coast, and is bordered on the east by Yukon
Territory and on the southeast by British Columbia (both part of the
Dominion of Canada).
Alberta is also part of the Dominion of Canada, but it has no sea
coasts.
Alberta is on the east side of British Columbia, east of the
Conrinental Divide.
While your confusion is understandable
(both "Alaska" and "Alberta" start with an "A" and end with and "a",
and they both have thre syllables)
you really should have a look at a map of North America before you
start
criticizing others for being ignorant.
Isn't faster than light
migration fun?
-Bob
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-25 20:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Krupa
While your confusion is understandable
(both "Alaska" and "Alberta" start with an "A" and end with and "a",
and they both have thre syllables)
you really should have a look at a map of North America before you
start
criticizing others for being ignorant.
Daryl at his finest once again. Pray tell us Daryl, when did
the arrive in AlAskA? 1 my BC?
MIB529
2003-07-25 02:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Eric Stevens
2003-07-25 02:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?



Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
2003-07-25 08:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?
Eric Stevens
Probably more human than he turned out to be...and certainly more
human than the Aztecs appeared to Cortez.
Duncan
Eric Stevens
2003-07-25 21:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?
To which I must reply, did he have brown scales? Did he have a rainbow tail?
He had a beard, He wore strange clothes and, presumably, armour. He
was a different colour. Clearly he did not physically conform to the
Aztec model/




Eric Stevens
deowll
2003-07-23 21:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Diarmid Logan
They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.
There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it disappeared
in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new world 15 kya.
Sounds like a displacement. What happens in Japan 15 kya,
protoJomon arrives. What does that look like, clovis
culture.
I'm not sure I know what Clovis culture looks like. Most artifacts other
than the points are sort of generic. I've never seen something I could call
a Clovis point from Asia. Unless you know something I don't I think the
points developed in North America. I don't question a linkage between North
Easter Asian culture and Native American culture.

I would bet that the expansion took place before the displacement or at
least the people displaced aren't the ones that moved when the group
expanded. In most cases the ones dispaced die with few if any descendents
while some may be absorbed. Large bodies of people did move around after the
mesolithic but before that is seems to have been one small group moving then
budding off another group at the expense of the neighbors and so on.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Diarmid Logan
For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State known as
Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its
long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American
populations tend to have short, broad skulls.
Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this way
because Europeans and early Americans had a common origin around
35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.
Native americans did not have a common origins in south
central asia. They have many points of origin from
melanesians that came up through Japan in the south to
diplaced WEA/ME that came up from the south west to siberia.
To mongols that came from siberia proper . . . . .
Post by Diarmid Logan
But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more ancient
American populations carrying unidentified Y chromosome haplotypes
could have been swamped by later migrations, resulting in their
genetic legacy being erased.
"We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have to deal
with what's extant."
Genes not found in a living populations aren't found in a living population
and taking a trip won't help. Genes that once were but have no living owners
are gone. Sometime you might get lucky and find a few but as you have
pointed out unless they are frozen somewhere in the tundra the older ones
are most likely gone.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Then he should make a trip to Japan.
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-24 16:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:09:56 -0600, "Tedd"
this opens up a whole other topic of debate; there is currently (as far as my undergraduate
knowledge knows) no supportive evidence for linkage between clovis technology or clovis culture and
asian contexts. there are multiple relationships as evident in the record between alaska and eastern
asia, but as of yet no one has been able to produce a clear relationship to link alaska and clovis
of the lower 48. dates retrieved from alaskan sites which are claimed to be pre-clovis are still
disputed due to carbon contamination and lack of cultural layer association, those that are
established are shown to be younger than clovis. in both cases neither group of dated sites contain
assemblages that show any cultural relation to clovis.
C. Vance Haynes 1982
Irrelevantly old.
Roosevelt, Douglas and Brown 2002
There are researchers that say that, but I frankly disagree
with them. There is a current divide in this study some come
for cultural exchange and carry over from asia, some come
against it. I think in the next 5 years the archaeology from
Japan will become so convincing that no-one would reasonably
there was no cultural carry over from asia.
Michael Clark
2003-07-25 03:53:17 UTC
Permalink
[..]
this opens up a whole other topic of debate; there is currently (as far as my
undergraduate
knowledge knows) no supportive evidence for linkage between clovis technology or
clovis culture and
asian contexts. there are multiple relationships as evident in the record between
alaska and eastern
asia, but as of yet no one has been able to produce a clear relationship to link
alaska and clovis
of the lower 48. dates retrieved from alaskan sites which are claimed to be
pre-clovis are still
disputed due to carbon contamination and lack of cultural layer association,
those that are
established are shown to be younger than clovis. in both cases neither group of
dated sites contain
assemblages that show any cultural relation to clovis.
C. Vance Haynes 1982
Roosevelt, Douglas and Brown 2002
tedd.
Has anything been done to compare clovis points with Monte Verde points?
Some references:

Clovis revisited: New Perspectives on Paleoindian Adaptations from
Blackwater Draw, New Mexico (Philadelphia: The University Museum,
University of Pennsylvania, 1999) Anthony T. Bouldurian, John L. Cotter

The Fenn Cache: Clovis Weapons and Tools (Santa Fe: One Horse
Land and Cattle Company, 1999) George Frisson, Bruce Bradley

Clovis Blade Technology: A Comparative Study of the Kevin Davis
Cache, Texas (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999) Michael B. Collins,
Marvin Kay
Duncan
MIB529
2003-07-25 06:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by deowll
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Diarmid Logan
They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.
There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it disappeared
in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new world 15 kya.
Sounds like a displacement. What happens in Japan 15 kya,
protoJomon arrives. What does that look like, clovis
culture.
I'm not sure I know what Clovis culture looks like. Most artifacts other
than the points are sort of generic. I've never seen something I could call
a Clovis point from Asia. Unless you know something I don't I think the
points developed in North America. I don't question a linkage between North
Easter Asian culture and Native American culture.
this opens up a whole other topic of debate; there is currently (as far as my undergraduate
knowledge knows) no supportive evidence for linkage between clovis technology or clovis culture and
asian contexts. there are multiple relationships as evident in the record between alaska and eastern
asia
...which therefore explains the lower date for DNA evidence. The BBC
article was written by idiots. If anthropologists weren't so insistant
on the rantings of a 17th-century missionary, perhaps we could get
something done.

I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
John Wilkins
2003-07-25 07:01:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>,
***@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote:
...
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
--
John Wilkins
It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed.
Truman Capote
MIB529
2003-07-25 11:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
...
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
Straw man. I'm not surprised. Just because I don't have a theory
doesn't logically mean that I can't debunk a current theory. Let's
face it: The theory claims that Indians have all the intelligence of
mollusks. Are you willing to hold that theory? Are you also willing to
explain why the features we associate with Indianness are the exact
features that would've been selected AGAINST in the Bering Strait
region? Oh, let me guess: A miracle happened. Lots of em.
MIB529
2003-07-25 11:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
...
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
So, what you're saying is, since Redi didn't know about evolution, we
should believe in spontaneous generation?
Tedd
2003-07-25 16:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
...
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
which theory would you like? land route? coastal route? water transport? how
about Stanford and Bradly's theory of migration across a northern atlantic land
bridge? or the southern route up through argentina?

very few archaeologist (with the exception of the old cultural historians, but
they are dying out) actually believe beringia was the _only_ migratory route to
the america's, in fact, few believe it was even the primary route, the time line
just doesnt fit. the problem is... we dont know, we dont have the information.
we all have speculation, conjecture, hypotheses, but very little, if any,
evidence of what route was used at this time. there is more evidence to stand
against the beringia migration than there is against the joe smith renaissance
of the water transport theory from the middle east, thats a pretty far fetched
idea, but it's the reality of it. you dont have to have subscribe to an
alternative theory to know you dont agree with an outdated one.
MIB529
2003-07-23 20:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Yeah, and moon dust proves a young earth. You don't date something by
the YOUNGEST date; you date something by the OLDEST date.

Anyway, the idea of telling the age of a mutation eerily mirrors
neo-Lamarckism, in which the organism "remembered" its ancestral forms
and was thus able to go through them more quickly, adding something at
the end. Seems there are still those who would Haeckel biology.

As for the skull shape, here's a second clue for you: Most Indians are
dolichocephalic, and the cephalic index was discredited a century ago.
Quit trying to find differences between ancient remains and Orientals,
as if all brown-skinned people look alike.

Reminds me of Hooten's claim of "pseudo-Australoids",
"pseudo-Negroids", "pseudo-Alpines", and "long-faced Europeans", all
in a single pueblo 700 years ago. His data, when viewed from a
scientific lens, disproves any claim of pre-Indian Caucasians; after
all, if these Caucasians were here 700 years ago, in the middle of the
Mojave no less, then a cline exists - while the entire "pre-Indian
Caucasian" claim rests on the lack of a cline.
Post by Diarmid Logan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3086777.stm
Date limit set on first Americans
By Paul Rincon
BBC Science
A new genetic study deals a blow to claims that humans reached America
at least 30,000 years ago - around the same time that people were
colonising Europe.
The subject of when humans first arrived in America is hotly contested
by academics.
On one side of the argument are researchers who claim America was
first populated around 13,000 years ago, toward the end of the last
Ice Age. On the other are those who propose a much earlier date for
colonisation of the continent - possibly around 30,000-40,000 years
ago.
The authors of the latest study reject the latter theory, proposing
that humans entered America no earlier than 18,000 years ago.
They looked at mutations on the form of the human Y chromosome known
as haplotype 10.
This is one of only two haplotypes carried by Native American men and
is thought to have reached the continent first. Haplotype 10 is also
found in Asia, confirming that the earliest Americans came from there.
The scientists knew that determining when mutations occurred on
haplotype 10 might reveal a date for the first entry of people into
America.
Native Americans carry a mutation called M3 on haplotype 10 which is
not found in Asia. This suggests it appeared after people settled in
America, making it useless for assigning a date to the first
migrations.
But a mutation known as M242 looked more promising. M242 is found in
Asia and America, suggesting that it appeared before the first
Americans split from their Asian kin.
Knowing the rate at which DNA on the Y chromosome mutates - errors
occur - and the time taken for a single male generation, the
scientists were able to calculate when M242 originated. They arrived
at a maximum date of 18,000 years ago for its appearance.
This means the first Americans were still living in Asia when M242
appeared and could only have begun their migration eastwards after
this date.
"I would say that they entered [America] within the last 15,000
years," said Dr Spencer Wells, a geneticist and author who contributed
to the latest study.
In 1997, a US-Chilean team uncovered apparent evidence of human
occupation in 33,000-year-old sediment layers at Monte Verde in Chile.
They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.
The debate over the biological origins of the first Americans has
wide-ranging political and racial implications.
In the US, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(Nagpra) has resulted in the handover of many scientific collections
to claimants.
Some archaeologists argue that the remains of early Americans are
sufficiently different from their descendents to be exempt from
Nagpra.
For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State known as
Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its
long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American
populations tend to have short, broad skulls.
Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this way
because Europeans and early Americans had a common origin around
35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.
"[Dolichocephaly] is a general feature of very early skulls," Dr Wells
told BBC News Online.
He said a later migration into America from East Asia 6,000-10,000
years ago associated with the spread of Y chromosome haplotype 5 could
have been responsible for the Asiatic appearance of many present-day
Native Americans.
But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more ancient
American populations carrying unidentified Y chromosome haplotypes
could have been swamped by later migrations, resulting in their
genetic legacy being erased.
"We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have to deal
with what's extant."
http://diarmidlogan.blogspot.com/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...