The Ancestry of Kennewick Man

[shawomet]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 38/?no-ist

"For about 9,000 years, his bones lay entombed in earth, an unknown record of early life in the Americas. But since a chance find in the 1990s, the remains have been at the nexus of a scientific and political firestorm over the ancestry of this ancient individual. Now, the first genome analysis of Kennewick Man, or “the wise one”, is adding fresh fuel to the flame.

Contrary to previous results based on the size and shape of the skeleton, the DNA analysis, published today in Nature, suggests that Kennewick Man is more closely related to modern Native Americans than any other population of modern humans. While the researchers were not able to link the skeleton to a specific contemporary Native American group, the study could have implications for the fierce debate over who should be its modern caretakers.

“We will never be able to say what population, what individual in the Americas, is most closely related to [Kennewick Man] simply because most Native Americans haven’t been sequenced,” says Eske Willerslev, a geneticist at the University of Copenhagen and a co-author on the study. “What we can say is that Kennewick Man is more closely related to some Native American groups than others.”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vn ... 14625.html

Abstract:

Kennewick Man, referred to as the Ancient One by Native Americans, is a male human skeleton discovered in Washington state (USA) in 1996 and initially radiocarbon-dated to 8,340–9,200 calibrated years before present (BP)1. His population affinities have been the subject of scientific debate and legal controversy. Based on an initial study of cranial morphology it was asserted that Kennewick Man was neither Native American nor closely related to the claimant Plateau tribes of the Pacific Northwest, who claimed ancestral relationship and requested repatriation under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The morphological analysis was important to judicial decisions that Kennewick Man was not Native American and that therefore NAGPRA did not apply. Instead of repatriation, additional studies of the remains were permitted2. Subsequent craniometric analysis affirmed Kennewick Man to be more closely related to circumpacific groups such as the Ainu and Polynesians than he is to modern Native Americans2. In order to resolve Kennewick Man’s ancestry and affiliations, we have sequenced his genome to ~1× coverage and compared it to worldwide genomic data including the Ainu and Polynesians. We find that Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide. Among the Native American groups for whom genome-wide data are available for comparison, several seem to be descended from a population closely related to that of Kennewick Man, including the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville), one of the five tribes claiming Kennewick Man. We revisit the cranial analyses and find that, as opposed to genomic-wide comparisons, it is not possible on that basis to affiliate Kennewick Man to specific contemporary groups. We therefore conclude based on genetic comparisons that Kennewick Man shows continuity with Native North Americans over at least the last eight millennia.

[uniface]

Yet another ideologically-driven pantload.

His not being related to contemporary European groups is a crock in light of the Proto-Europeans having been in Asia at the time. Making his relation to Asiatics what ?

D'oh

At least they spared us the Darwinian Cave Man.

Who came from Out of Africa.

[shawomet]

Along with the discovery of Naia, the belief is developing that physical evolution took place in Berengia and the Americas to explain the difference between the earliest arrivals and later Native Americans:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new ... migration/

"The divers who found the skeleton in 2007 named her “Naia,” Greek for water nymph.

The young woman’s skeleton shares many of the physical traits that led Chatters to question Kennewick Man’s relationship to modern Native Americans. “Even though she is extremely feminine looking and he is very masculine, they look a lot alike,” he said.

Both skeletons have narrow brain cases, short faces and prominent foreheads typical of people from the Pacific Rim, Australia and Africa.

Native Americans more closely resemble people from northeast Asia. That jibes with genetic studies documenting their descent from Siberians believed to have migrated east into the land mass that once linked Asia and Alaska, and thence into the Americas beginning about 17,000 years ago.


To explain why the bones of the Western Hemisphere’s oldest inhabitants — called paleoamericans — have such an unexpected appearance, Chatters and other scientists hypothesized that the Americas were colonized twice in prehistoric times: first by people from Southeast Asia or even Europe, then by migrants from Siberia.

But DNA extracted from Naia’s teeth changed his mind.

Genetic analyses conducted at Washington State University and other labs show a clear link between the girl in the cave and modern Native Americans.

The study is the first to show that despite having unusual features, at least one paleoamerican — Naia — is descended from the same ancestors as modern Native Americans, said WSU anthropologist Brian Kemp.

That means the physical differences must be due to evolution, as the earliest human occupants adapted to their new environments in the Western Hemisphere.

“For nearly 20 years, since Kennewick Man turned up, I’ve been wondering why these early people looked so different from Native Americans,” Chatters said. “This is one step toward resolving that issue.”


The study supports the traditional view that most of the people who colonized the Americas had their roots in northeast Asia, whether they came via a Bering land bridge or by sea, said University of New Mexico anthropologist James Dixon, who was not involved in the project.

“It’s a very sound piece of work, and it makes a lot of sense,” he said. “All the DNA evidence we have on these early skeletons — which is very meager — points to the northeast Asian origin,”

[shawomet]

Yet another ideologically-driven pantload.

His not being related to contemporary European groups is a crock in light of the Proto-Europeans having been in Asia at the time. Making his relation to Asiatics what ?

D'oh

At least they spared us the Darwinian Cave Man.

Who came from Out of Africa.

What in the world are you talking about??? I can't find anywhere in the synopsis or the actual paper where it says "not related to contemporary European groups". Where are you getting that?? Of course there was a relationship at that point. Knowledge of that is relatively new, but it's certainly not overturned by this study. So what are you talking about?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... icans.html

Further:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/scien ... beria.html

http://www.nature.com/news/americas-nat ... ts-1.14213

Most Europeans and Native Americans share this ancient branch. I don't understand why you think this fact is somehow not acknowledged by this latest DNA study. It sounds like you just jumped to a conclusion without factoring in the other recent studies linked to above. Why?? Why are you claiming this study overturns the genetic ties that connect modern Europeans and Native Americans?? All the study says is Kennewick is more closely related to present day Native Americans then other living groups. What did you expect?? That Kennewick Man would be found to be most closely related to the present day Irish?? What exactly are you talking about? You seem to be confusing things here. For no good reason that I can find. Groups entering the Americas during the Paleolithic had some Northern Eurasian ancestry. Modern Europeans and Native Americans are related through that ancient third branch. So, what are you talking about??

Based on all of the above, your characterization of this study as "a pantload" is mighty strange......
"Ideologically driven"? Really. They sequenced the genome ideologically?? How do you do that?? Calling the study "ideologically driven" is just a totally ridiculous statement to make. Tell us how you sequence the genome to fit preconceived notions. How do you do that?? How do you sequence the genome to suit your particular ideology?? Bottom line: this study does not negate a genetic relationship between Europeans and present day Native Americans, nor does it negate the mixing that had already occurred. It actually has nothing whatsoever to do with that genetic relationship.

[uniface]

Reality check :

In order to resolve Kennewick Man’s ancestry and affiliations, we have sequenced his genome to ~1× coverage and compared it to worldwide genomic data including the Ainu and Polynesians. We find that Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide . . . We therefore conclude based on genetic comparisons that Kennewick Man shows continuity with Native North Americans over at least the last eight millennia.

[shawomet]

Reality check :

In order to resolve Kennewick Man’s ancestry and affiliations, we have sequenced his genome to ~1× coverage and compared it to worldwide genomic data including the Ainu and Polynesians. We find that Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide . . . We therefore conclude based on genetic comparisons that Kennewick Man shows continuity with Native North Americans over at least the last eight millennia.

You've got to be kidding me, right over your head? For heaven sakes, uniface, couldn't you at least read my comments instead of committing the same fundamental mistake?? It's closer to modern Native Americans. That does not negate the recent studies clearly showing that Native Americans and modern Europeans share genetics from Paleolithic Northern Eurasians. Your extracted quote is not the reality check you think it is. The study is very straight forward. We already know there is a genetic connection between Native Americans and Europeans. All the study shows is that, by ~9000 years ago, the genetics of one Kennewick Man more closely resembled later generations of Native Americans then any other population group living today. That is simply not the same thing as saying Kennewick Man had no Northern Eurasian ancestry. It's not the same thing.
Your "reality check" is meaningless. I don't think you understand at all.

Nor have you explained how one sequences a genome in a ideological manner. How do you make sure you sequence a genome so it gives you the answer that agrees with your ideology? That is what your statement "ideologically driven pantload" implies. Does it not? That's a ridiculous claim. The DNA study showed what it showed. Nobody's ideology is going to change that. Read the study of Naia, and what her DNA revealed.

You know what, uniface. It really seems like YOU are ideologically driven. And yet you seem to ignore the earlier DNA studies. You insist, apparently, that Kennewick Man should have shown closest affinity to modern Europeans. Why in the world would you expect such a thing? It really seems to be you who is determined to find some way to overturn the study because it does not agree with your ideology. If you are a geneticist, then describe exactly how they went wrong. Otherwise, this claim that they were ideologically driven is just silly.

Both Kennewick Man and Naia are pointing to the likelihood of physical evolution in the New World. That's an extraordinary finding. If you ask me. I thought it the most extraordinary finding to come out of the DNA studies of Kennewick and Naia. That, appearances notwithstanding, the genetics point to a close relationship with later generations of Native Americans.

I'm no geneticist. In over my head by a certain point. But I do understand what these various studies are telling us. I don't think you do. At least the quote you point out would seem to indicate that you don't understand. Are you expecting that Kennewick Man should show his closest relationship is modern Europeans? Is that what you think? Why???

But, if you can at least show how a genome can be sequenced in a fashion that will lead to preconceived ideologies, maybe I could begin to understand where in the world you are coming from......

"His not being related to contemporary European groups is a crock in light of the Proto-Europeans having been in Asia at the time. Making his relation to Asiatics what ?"

Your quote, uniface. You stated that the study does not indicate a relationship with contemporary Europeans. That is your statement. But, my point, and I left plenty of links for you to begin to educate yourself, is that the study did not say any such thing. Your quote above is a crock, uniface. Why? Because the study did not say he was not related to contemporary Europeans. He would have had ancestry from the Northern Eurasian branch, and therefore share genetics with both Northern Eurasian contemporaries of his own times as well as today's Europeans. But, his genetics are CLOSEST to modern Native Americans. Closest does not mean there is no relationship to his contemporaries among a Northern Eurasian group or to Europeans alive today. So I maintain that your quote above demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part. And not an ideologically driven DNA study. You know, uniface, it's your business if you want to see some kind of "mainstream orthodox boogeyman" behind this study. But, until or unless you can actually overturn it with an analysis a little deeper then it's a "pantload", well, you really have not added anything at all. Sorry, but your problem, in this instance, seems to be self created.

These studies are in fact helping us understand the peopling of the Americas from a genetic standpoint. Nonsensical protests notwithstanding. Regardless of what you believe, uniface, I know that you cannot demonstrate how to sequence a genome in a way that upholds a preconceived ideology/belief/theory. It does not work that way, and your insistence that all this is ideologically driven is very silly. It should not be difficult to understand your mistake, if you pay any attention to what I've posted here, including the links.

You made a mistake. It ain't the end of the world. I do believe if you had read my initial reply, and comprehended it, you would not have come back with a "reality check" that completely misses all the points I made in an effort to correct your lack of understanding. You don't make it easy, that 's for sure.....

[shawomet]

uniface, I left more then enough information to clarify the results, and I have addressed your objections to the best of my ability. I believe you're interjecting something that was never in this study to begin with. The study never said there was no genetic relationship with Europeans, contemporary then, or now. The study did show, and this was true of Naia as well as Kennewick Man, that the closest genetic relationship to living populations is Native Americans. And those results are unambiguous. And those results do not overturn the genetic relationship to Northern Eurasians during the time Kennewick Man lived, nor does it overturn those clearly demonstrated genetic roots present in today's populations. I see no reason to conclude the study was "ideologically driven". Not only would that be a tough slog with a genome sequence, but you don't even give good reasons why this would be the case, or, for that matter, exactly what ideology these dishonest researchers are advancing. What is the ideology you claim is being driven here? What "truth" are these genetic scientists hiding from us??
It cannot be they are trying to hide the genetic relationship between Kennewick/living Native Americans, and an ancient genetic root of Northern Eurasians. They're not hiding that undisputed fact. So what do you propose these scientists are hiding from us?

[uniface]

Some time, just for giggles, leaf through an issue of National Geographic and count the number of times they gratuitously work passing references to "Global Warming" into articles (and even commercials) that are unrelated to it.

Then ask yourself (if you're feeling bold) why there still has not been a DNA analysis done (& published) of the 9,000-year-old brains found intact in the bog burials in Florida we discussed here some time back. And why the powers-that-be were so hysterically trying to re-bury Kennewick man before his DNA could be extracted, forbidding it while the court case was limping along. (Reminds me of the way both the Murraugh Building in Oak City & the World Trade Center remains were bulldozed and hauled away post haste, with independent analysis of both forbidden at gun point). And why the Red Paint Culture of Maine is still officially -- evidence be damned -- an entirely in-house development by locals. (I could drag "the Holocaust" : purported history vs. technological possibility into it as maybe the most extreme example of all, -- except for maybe 9/11 : Laws of Physics vs. Official History -- but that would only piss people off worse).

There is ALWAYS an official version of the past. And it ALWAYS lends the color of credibility to the social agenda of those who impose it. The passage I quoted from what you posted illustrates this more than adequately, IMO.

[shawomet]

New York Times article on the findings:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/scien ... c=rss&_r=1

"On Thursday, Danish scientists published an analysis of DNA obtained from the skeleton. Kennewick Man’s genome clearly does not belong to a European, the scientists said.

“It’s very clear that Kennewick Man is most closely related to contemporary Native Americans,” said Eske Willerslev, a geneticist at the University of Copenhagen and lead author of the study, which was published in the journal Nature. “In my view, it’s bone-solid.”

Kennewick Man’s genome also sheds new light on how people first spread throughout the New World, experts said. There was no mysterious intrusion of Europeans thousands of years ago. Instead, several waves spread across the New World, with distinct branches reaching South America, Northern North America, and the Arctic.

“It’s probably a lot more complicated than we had initially envisioned,” said Jennifer A. Raff, a research fellow at the University of Texas, who was not involved in the study."

----------------------------------------------------

It's very interesting how all the recent DNA results from disparate places are coming together and supporting each other very nicely. From the Lake Baikal child, at 24,000 years old to Naia and Eva from underwater Mexican caves, to the Montana Clovis child to Kennewick Man. All pointing to the same conclusions regarding genetics and Early Amercans. I'm no geneticist, but these findings are actually very easy to understand. And exciting that it's all happened in just a few years. And the knowledge that evolution, in terms of appearance, occurred in the New World may be the biggest surprise of all.

I don't dispute the results of sequencing Kennewick Man's genome at all. If someone wishes to suggest that the results were deliberately doctored to yield a "desired" result, well, I won't dignify that suggestion with any reply at all.

"There is always an official version of the past"

But, what is the point of that statement. Is this how your logic goes:

1. Premise: there is always an official version of the past.
2. The official version of the past is always a lie.
3. That Kennewick Man's genome is most closely related to Native Americans is an official version
4. Therefore, the Kennewick Man genome report is a lie.

That seems to be the gist of your idea of logic in this instance. You babble about "official versions", as you always do, yet you don't answer any of the pertinent questions I very fairly raised:

1. How does this official version manage to sequence the genome to get a ideological "pantload"? Or, to put it succinctly, WHY are their results wrong? Simply because you label it an "official version of history"? That ain't good enough. What exactly bothers you so much about the conclusions?? Yes, I am aware scientists fought tooth and nail to test the skeleton. And yes there was understandable excitement/consternation over the physical differences with living Natve Amercans.


And you speak of "official versions of history", but, in this instance, you do not tell me why this official version, on Kennewick Man, is incorrect. Am I supposed to read your mind?? I asked you what "truth " the study was hiding, did I not? You stated the study was an ideological pantload. What is that ideology?? I can only guess, since you still have not deemed it helpful to explain your point of view, that you feel it must have something to do with keeping Europeans out of the Amercas at an early date. I'm guessing, because you won't say.
And, BTW, being an "official version" is not a crime by it's nature. Sometimes the official version is actually correct.

You won't say why the study is wrong.
You won't say what the study is hiding.
You tell me there is "always" an official version of history. And you deliver this message with a very unmistakable corollary: the official version of history is always wrong. Always.

All you ever do is beat around the bush with generalities concerning your core ideology. I very fairly asked for some specifics. Your statement that the quote you extracted is "quite enough" in your opinion, is, of course, perfectly ridiculous.
All that simply indicates is that you feel the study's findings,that the genome was most closely related to living Native Americans, is the "official version". I'm afraid that's hardly a crime. Especially when the results are unambiguous and "bone solid", to quote the senior author.

Back up your claim that the study is bulls**t with any specifics? You won't do that. Telling me what you stated is "quite enough " is absurd. What that really tells me is that you can't back up your opinion at all. Which I already knew, because your claim that the study is bulls**t is an absurd claim, and you cannot possibly back it up. You just like to lash out at what you perceive to be an orthodox opinion, even when you don't have a leg to stand on.

So far, the ONLY thing you have said in this thread is that the study was ideologically driven, and bulls**t, assuming that's what you mean by pantload.



So, according to you, the conclusions are bulls**t. And the ONLY reason you provide as to why the study is bulls**t is because it's the "official version of history".

Well then, all of the above being the case, this is the ONLY thing I get from what you have stated: this study is an official version of history and Kennewick Man is not closely related to living Native Americans. Because you say so. Because the official version is always wrong. Always. Because you say so. In fact, Kennewick Man is most closely related to contemporary Europeans. Genome sequencing be damned. Because you say so. Because, whatever the unofficial version of history is, that must be the truth. Because you say so.

[circumspice]

@shawomet: To understand uniface, you must remember that he is a Neo Nazi, White Supremacist, aluminum foil hatted conspiracy theorist & hate monger. If you understand his ideology, you understand why he keeps spewing all that nonsense. Such as:

"(I could drag "the Holocaust" : purported history vs. technological possibility into it as maybe the most extreme example of all, -- except for maybe 9/11 : Laws of Physics vs. Official History -- but that would only piss people off worse)."

[Tiompan]

Shawomet ,
Don't feel that you are wasting your'e time simply because the recipient doesn't get it . Reasoned response to the nonsense is always worthwhile .

[shawomet]

Some time, just for giggles, leaf through an issue of National Geographic and count the number of times they gratuitously work passing references to "Global Warming" into articles (and even commercials) that are unrelated to it.

Then ask yourself (if you're feeling bold) why there still has not been a DNA analysis done (& published) of the 9,000-year-old brains found intact in the bog burials in Florida we discussed here some time back. And why the powers-that-be were so hysterically trying to re-bury Kennewick man before his DNA could be extracted, forbidding it while the court case was limping along. (Reminds me of the way both the Murraugh Building in Oak City & the World Trade Center remains were bulldozed and hauled away post haste, with independent analysis of both forbidden at gun point). And why the Red Paint Culture of Maine is still officially -- evidence be damned -- an entirely in-house development by locals. (I could drag "the Holocaust" : purported history vs. technological possibility into it as maybe the most extreme example of all, -- except for maybe 9/11 : Laws of Physics vs. Official History -- but that would only piss people off worse).

There is ALWAYS an official version of the past. And it ALWAYS lends the color of credibility to the social agenda of those who impose it. The passage I quoted from what you posted illustrates this more than adequately, IMO.

Just as an aside, I was trained as a cultural historian. All this is common knowledge, old hat as it were. No need to lecture me on the subject of history. I've been a cultural historian for over 50 years now. And Voltaire said it better then you ever could:

"History is the lie commonly agreed upon."

As for the so-called Lost Red Paint People, why don't you bring yourself up to speed. Not only was it a local development, but the Moorehead Phase itself was restricted to a very limited portion of coastal Maine, between the Kennebec and Penobscot Rivers. You can bring yourself up to speed, instead of remaining stuck in 19th century romanticized views, by reading Bruce Bourque's The Swordfish Hunters(2012).

Our knowledge of the Moorehead Phase is not static, uniface. You're stuck in earlier interpretations. The so-called Lost Red Paint culture was really a very local expression within the greater Maritime Archaic culture zone....

https://vimeo.com/70149661

Here's a good talk by Bourque. we've come a very long way in understanding the Maritime Archaic, and thanks to Bourque, rthe Moorehead Phase in particular. Chances are none of this new knowledge is known to you, uniface. You might actually learn something new. Up to you. You can remain close minded to advancing knowledge on that phase, or you can see how far we've come since Moorehead's day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRFZfNUOTxM

At any rate, spare me the lectures on history and its interpretations. I've spent my entire adult life as a cultural historian. Ironically, specializing in the history of Western Science. Tell me something I didn't learn 50 years ago....

[uniface]

That's what I thought. You're out to Win the Discussion and be the big deal. Well, cool. Tell me a little more about how awesomely impressive YOU are. I'll sit down and shut up -- too intimidated to hazard anything more than a quote from some guy I ran into a book by :

Who controls the past controls the future.
Who controls the present controls the past.

[shawomet]

That's what I thought. You're out to Win the Discussion and be the big deal. Well, cool. Tell me a little more about how awesomely impressive YOU are. I'll sit down and shut up -- too intimidated to hazard anything more than a quote from some guy I ran into a book by :

Who controls the past controls the future.
Who controls the present controls the past.

I believe you're making excuses. I know nothing at all. My role model is Socrates. A body could do worse, lol. Told he was the wisest man in the Greek world, he told his students and friends "we'll see about that. I'm gonna look for a wiser man". Returning to Athens after a long journey in search of one wiser then he, he told his friends: "I guess what folks say is true. I must be the wisest man in the known world. I've spoken with wise men everywhere, and I'm the only one who knows he doesn't know anything at all." I paraphrase, of course, but that's the true gist of that story told by Plato about his teacher Socrates. And it's an excellent model to follow. IMHO. It's something I NEVER forget, so don't be telling me I'm out to be "the big deal". You're wrong, and don't know what you're talking about on that score at all. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Just because your opinions of history and historical scholarship are old hat to me, does not mean I am telling you to shut up. Or trying to "win" an argument. Yes, your opinions are old hat to me. But the point was/is those opinions don't clarify the statement you made that the conclusions of the study were a "pantload". Consider, this was a very specific study. You made the claim that the conclusions were bull. I only asked you to clarify that specific opinion. You would not. Far from telling you to shut up, I waited for you to elaborate and tell me why Kennebeck Man is not most closely related to Native Americans. And that's all. I don't think I was asking for too much from you. Now, here you are running away by using the excuse that I am trying to be "the big deal". All I was pointing out is that it's very unlikely any philosophy/theory of history you come up with is going to be something I've never heard of before. And I do believe Voltaire accurately expresses your approach to history, so I quoted him. Don't you agree with Voltaire? Lol. Heck, it ain't a crime if I've spent 50 years in the profession, is it? You're going to hold my training and profession against me?! Why?! I guess I should not have said don't lecture me on History, if that sounded too arrogant for you. But I did want you to know your philosophy in that area is very well known and understood by me. I do in fact understand your point, up to a point. It's just that the real question was not whether "History is Bulls**t"( my old Asian History professor's favorite refrain, with which he started each and every lecture), but rather why are the conclusions mistaken in your view.

You're an intelligent man. Did I say I'm too smart to talk to you? Of course not. You're just grabbing an excuse by accusing me of trying to "win". We have not really had a debate to win, or lose, because you won't tell me why the study is inaccurate. I thought my question as to how one gets results from sequencing a genome that agrees only with a preconceived ideology was a fair question. How does ideology see to it that the genome says the closest relatives are Native American?

The lesson illustrated by Socrates has ALWAYS been my model. I may be intelligent and highly educated, but I am only wise enough to know I don't know anything at all. Whether we know it or not, we are all in the dark. In so many, many ways. And I never forget that fundamental human condition, uniface. Never. Every generation thinks it's knowledge is the "end all and be all" of intellectual development. I don't fall for that at all. If there is one thing the history of science has taught me it's how often people are flat out wrong, and the great lengths they will go to to defend nonsense(rocks do not fall from the sky! What does a peasant know? They are uneducated. Educated people know a rock cannot fall from out of the heavens. Woops, maybe meteorites can!) I am not "out to be the big deal". If you cannot tell us why the conclusions of the study are wrong, fine. I did not expect you could, for which reason I wondered why you would even make such a claim in the first place. It was your claim. If you cannot back it up, why make it?? Don't be using my background as a reason not to talk. Do you think I tell students "shut up, I'm smarter then you"? Lol, I don't think so! Besides, how does my training mean "I win"? How does that work? Lol.

And if you do want to learn what has been learned about the "Red Paint People" (in the 100 years since you last checked, lol, couldn't help it), well, I left you a real good talk by Bruce Bourque. And the book The Swordfish Hunters is excellent. The Maritime Archaic is one of only three prehistoric deep sea fishing cultures known, and it is the oldest known such culture.

As to the blood sport that is the clash of ideas in science(think Clovis-first vs. Pre-Clovis), there is this seminal work.
Pertinent to the issue of "official" or "orthodox" theorizing vs. the introduction of anomalies and ideas "out of the box":

http://projektintegracija.pravo.hr/_dow ... utions.pdf

Lost in all this, I'm sure, is the fact that, on a personal level, I'm not at all unsympathetic to looking outside orthodoxy. Where else will I find the new, the breakthroughs waiting to be discovered? Thinking outside the box is much more intellectually invigorating, and, as long as one does not just flush one's hopefully well honed discriminating faculty down the drain, I think it keeps a person much more open minded. And helps avoid falling into the trap of thinking paradigms are forever. Paradigms are not forever. But, my opinion on History and how it is written, or science and what paradigm rules the day, or uniface's opinion on that, are beside the point in this matter. Either they know how to sequence a genome, or they do not. We're not dealing with ideologies at all.

[uniface]

In the initial synopsis it states: "DNA harvested from the remains of an infant buried 13,000 years ago confirms that the earliest widespread culture in North America was descended from humans who crossed over to the New World from Asia, scientists say"

But at the end of the article it states: "The scientists say they strongly suspect, but cannot yet prove, that Native Americans in the United States are also closely related to the Clovis people."  

Funny, I don't see how one questionable sample of 1%-2% is sufficient to draw any general conclusions one way or another let alone to say it "confirms that the earliest widespread culture....".  One sample does not confirm anything. All it says is this one individual and his ancestors had some Asian connection which could have come via Siberia-Alaska or from Siberia-Europe migration.

This does not prove anything, especially, it does not prove that Eastern North American "Indians" were not originally of European origin.  Over 20,000 years there was a lot of mixing of the genetics in North America especially with the practice of breeding with adopted extra-tribal captures. Also, there was not just one migration from one source . . .

I have always wondered why there seems to such an emotional need to prove Early Americans came only from Siberia-Asia via Siberia-Alaska.

http://investordiscussionboard.com/boar ... -americans