The Ancestry of Kennewick Man

[uniface]

5500-5000 B.C.
Earliest of the inferred trans-Atlantic crossings, achieved by the Maritime Archaic Red-Paint Cultures of western Scandinavia and northwest Europe. The archeological remains of these people, carbon-dated in Norway to 5500 B.C., are very similar to those of the Maritime Archaic Red-Paint people of Labrador and New England, carbon-dated to 5000 B.C. On both sides of the North Atlantic these peoples operated sea-going wooden vessels and used similar fishing devices for hunting swordfish and marine mammals.

3200-1000 B.C.
Cup-and-ring petroglyphs are cut in rocks of Europe, notably in Britain and in North America; also elsewhere. Although the American examples have not yet been dated, they appear to be the work of the same sea-going peoples.

3000-1000 B.C.
Megalith builders active in western Europe, including Iberia and Britain, erecting dolmens, stone chambers, men-a-tol, solstice stones, and related monuments. Some American examples may date from this era. Gadelic Ogam inscriptions occur and show Celtic language and religion had already reached both sides of the North Atlantic.
2000 B.C.

Sumerian political power wanes and is extinguished in Mesopotamia, under the assault of Semitic invaders. In South America Sumerian colonists appear, perhaps as refugees from their Mediterranean homeland, to establish animal husbandry and plant cultivation among the native Andean peoples of the Altiplano.
2000 B.C. on

The Old Copper Culture of north Michigan and Lake Superior region, carbon-dated to this era, with some 5000 copper mines in operation on and near the Copper Peninsula. Millions of pounds of copper extracted and apparently exported abroad, as inferred by researches of mining engineers.

1700 B.C.
Nordic navigator-traders arrive in Ontario from Scandinavia, bringing woven textiles as barter material for Canadian copper ingots, shipped back to Scandinavia. At Peterborough site in Ontario they leave a pictorial record, annotated in Tifinag script, and early Norse language, reporting their religious, astronomical, calendric, and trading interests, in their contacts with the Algonquians. Ogam and Celtic elements also present. In Ireland, the Beaker People invade and bring Celtic speech.

1500 B.C. on
Iberian, Celtic, and Egyptian contacts with Indian nations of the northeast. Much of the extant Algonquian vocabulary related to law, medicine, and navigation is derived from these contacts, and overseas scripts, notably the Basque syllabary and Egyptian hieroglyphs, probably acquired from this time onward.

300-100 B.C.
Traders from Carthage visit North America and Caribbean, bringing coinage of the issues of Punic Sicily and North Africa, the work of Greek artists, modeled on the issues of Syracuse, later bringing the low-value bronze coins of other Mediterranean states. Similar coins, often perforated with a hole for use as an ornament, likewise carried to the non-civilized Balearic Islands.

250 B.C.
Celtiberian and Ogam inscriptions on bone and stone artifacts buried with skeletons of both Amerind and Europoid types at sites in eastern Tennessee, and radio-carbon-dated to this era, = Early Woodland Indian.

A.D. 1-100
Carthagenian civil calendar, lettered in degenerate late Punic script, interred with Mayan and other inscribed ceramic objects in Mayan temple and pyramid structures at Comalcalco, Mexico.

http://rootstwigger.com/twigg/?page_id=328

[Tiompan]

Whre to start with this hyper diffusionist nonsense .

Cup and ring engravings pre date your dates ,even in Atlantic Europe . Check the date for the cups at Daraki Chattan in India .They are found on every continent except Antartica .


Dolmens are much earlier than you suggest . Men an Tol is one site with a holed stone probabaly originally a stone circle , so what ? Solstice stones ?? what are they ? You probably mean stones that are part of a monument that may be aligned to a solstice ?

[kbs2244]

We must not forget the Americas cover half of the globe.
A pretty big target.
N A alone has 4 coasts that could be reached.
As well as 2 possible high north walking paths.
S A has 3 coasts.
Why does one have to be the only?

If one group (or individual) could walk a continent south why couldn’t another walk a continent north?

[uniface]

Whre to start with this hyper diffusionist nonsense .

Cup and ring engravings pre date your dates ,even in Atlantic Europe . Check the date for the cups at Daraki Chattan in India .They are found on every continent except Antartica .


Dolmens are much earlier than you suggest . Men an Tol is one site with a holed stone probabaly originally a stone circle , so what ? Solstice stones ?? what are they ? You probably mean stones that are part of a monument that may be aligned to a solstice ?

So you've dated these ?!?!?

LOL !

[Tiompan]

Whre to start with this hyper diffusionist nonsense .

Cup and ring engravings pre date your dates ,even in Atlantic Europe . Check the date for the cups at Daraki Chattan in India .They are found on every continent except Antartica .


Dolmens are much earlier than you suggest . Men an Tol is one site with a holed stone probabaly originally a stone circle , so what ? Solstice stones ?? what are they ? You probably mean stones that are part of a monument that may be aligned to a solstice ?

So you've dated these ?!?!?

Did I suggest that you had personally dated the earlier examples , which excluded the much earlier examples ?
Did you see who had dated the Darki Chattan examples , or more importantly the actual dates , was it me ?
Iit's difficult , but try to make an effort before accepting every fringe "fact" you come across .
You ignored why men an Tol was even mentioned or what a "solstice stone " may be too .

[shawomet]

I don't think I'll ever need to be reminded to never take nonsensical statements/claims by uniface seriously again. This thread could go on for a hundred pages and we will never see an explanation as to how ideology determines the outcome of genome sequencing. If the M.O. Is to make unsubstantiated claims, and then ignore every request to explain the basis of the claim, then that's a ton of effort on my part responding to somebody who has no intention of defending his own claims. My bad for letting him play me for a fool.

Very, very childish response as well, accusing me of trying to "win". When I read that, I did wonder if I was talking to a 10 year old.

I continue to believe this is a case of somebody being controlled by their own ideological bias. Because the study did not yield the results that uniface apparently favored(although he won't actually say, won't actually tell us), therefore the study must be attacked as part of a problem that he perceives exists. We don't need much more then that simple fact to know that we cannot expect an objective assessment from someone who is a "true believer" in their particular ideology.

"Earliest of the inferred trans-Atlantic crossings, achieved by the Maritime Archaic Red-Paint Cultures of western Scandinavia and northwest Europe. The archeological remains of these people, carbon-dated in Norway to 5500 B.C., are very similar to those of the Maritime Archaic Red-Paint people of Labrador and New England, carbon-dated to 5000 B.C. On both sides of the North Atlantic these peoples operated sea-going wooden vessels and used similar fishing devices for hunting swordfish and marine mammals."

Sigh. Well, here's the thing. There has been research since Moorehead's day. It is permitted to examine that research. It's actually OK to see what has been learned in the past 100 years. Why pretend that nothing has been learned about the Maritime Archaic in the past 100 years? Why is it a good thing to say, or suggest, that we should just accept earlier interpretations, but it is not OK to examine what has been learned in the past 100 years?? You won't examine Bourque's work because you don't actually believe in education at all, at least from everything I can see. You think the mainstream scholarship is inflexible and dogmatic. But what is the difference in your own approach? I can't find any. I see the self same inflexible dogmatism. Who needs it, not me. I'd much rather talk to open minded individuals then biased dogmatists. You've been no fun at all, lol. But I support your right to be a dogmatist, of course:-)

[E.P. Grondine]

5500-5000 B.C.
Earliest of the inferred trans-Atlantic crossings, achieved by the Maritime Archaic Red-Paint Cultures of western Scandinavia and northwest Europe. The archeological remains of these people, carbon-dated in Norway to 5500 B.C., are very similar to those of the Maritime Archaic Red-Paint people of Labrador and New England, carbon-dated to 5000 B.C. On both sides of the North Atlantic these peoples operated sea-going wooden vessels and used similar fishing devices for hunting swordfish and marine mammals.

WRONG:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Archaic

The dates that were given before for the appearance of Canadian Martime Archaic were 8,350 BCE.

3200-1000 B.C.
Cup-and-ring petroglyphs are cut in rocks of Europe, notably in Britain and in North America; also elsewhere. Although the American examples have not yet been dated, they appear to be the work of the same sea-going peoples.

What American examples?

3000-1000 B.C.
Megalith builders active in western Europe, including Iberia and Britain, erecting dolmens, stone chambers, men-a-tol, solstice stones, and related monuments.
Some American examples may date from this era.
Gadelic Ogam inscriptions occur and show Celtic language and religion had already reached both sides of the North Atlantic.

What American examples?
What Goedellic Ogham inscritipons?

2000 B.C.
Sumerian political power wanes and is extinguished in Mesopotamia, under the assault of Semitic invaders.
In South America Sumerian colonists appear, perhaps as refugees from their Mediterranean homeland, to establish animal husbandry and plant cultivation among the native Andean peoples of the Altiplano.

WRONG.
Irrigation agriculture appears at Caral much earlier than 2,000 BCE,
using local crops.

2000 B.C. on
The Old Copper Culture of north Michigan and Lake Superior region, carbon-dated to this era, with some 5000 copper mines in operation on and near the Copper Peninsula.
Millions of pounds of copper extracted and apparently exported abroad, as inferred by researches of mining engineers.

WRONG.
If you travel to the museum at Green Bay, they had Canadian Maritime Archaic tools in stone beside their adaptions into copper.
The dates were around 4,000 BCE.

The earliest mines were on the Canadian side near Saulte San Marie.
The total amount of copper mined is "under discussion".

1700 B.C.
Nordic navigator-traders arrive in Ontario from Scandinavia, bringing woven textiles as barter material for Canadian copper ingots, shipped back to Scandinavia.
At Peterborough site in Ontario they leave a pictorial record, annotated in Tifinag script, and early Norse language, reporting their religious, astronomical, calendric, and trading interests,
in their contacts with the Algonquians.
Ogam and Celtic elements also present. In Ireland, the Beaker People invade and bring Celtic speech.

But no Native people remember their arrival.

And of course the Native population could not carve petroglyphs.

Thus they have to be evidence of imaginary European empires in North America.

1500 B.C. on
Iberian, Celtic, and Egyptian contacts with Indian nations of the northeast. Much of the extant Algonquian vocabulary related to law, medicine, and navigation is derived from these contacts, and overseas scripts, notably the Basque syllabary and Egyptian hieroglyphs, probably acquired from this time onward.

But they are not remembered in the Algonquin histories,
and no evidence of their ships or habitations have been found.

Perhaps the similarties lie in the minds of European descendants.

300-100 B.C.
Traders from Carthage visit North America and Caribbean, bringing coinage of the issues of Punic Sicily and North Africa, the work of Greek artists, modeled on the issues of Syracuse, later bringing the low-value bronze coins of other Mediterranean states. Similar coins, often perforated with a hole for use as an ornament, likewise carried to the non-civilized Balearic Islands.

250 B.C.
Celtiberian and Ogam inscriptions on bone and stone artifacts buried with skeletons of both Amerind and Europoid types at sites in eastern Tennessee, and radio-carbon-dated to this era, = Early Woodland Indian.

A.D. 1-100
Carthagenian civil calendar, lettered in degenerate late Punic script, interred with Mayan and other inscribed ceramic objects in Mayan temple and pyramid structures at Comalcalco, Mexico.

So what at best may be a few artifacts by unfortunate mariners,
or a few visitors,
are turned into imaginary European empires.

Like Ancient Aliens, it sells, so it is made up.

http://rootstwigger.com/twigg/?page_id=328

Barry Fells' "readings".

[uniface]

EP -- you're a sincere & knowledgable guy. Much & all as we disagree sometimes, I'll give you that. Hell, I even bought your freaking book (!)

But when there's data that bolsters your agenda, you use a telescope to make it look bigger.

And when it clashes with it, you turn your telescope around backwards so it looks tiny, far away and insignificant.

1) Thanks for pushing the MA back -- I was cutting/pasting older stuff.

2) That your compadres don't remember stuff is no argument against said stuff. I don't even remember where I left my glasses sometimes.

3) See Fell for locations. Shame you never read his stuff.

A closed mind gathers moss. Or something like that.

[shawomet]

uniface, I think you've created an alternate reality. And you appear to be the only inhabitant. "If a theory contradicts the reigning paradigms, it must be valid" is one of the strangest standards for ascertaining "truth" that I've ever encountered. Makes it very easy, though, I'll grant you that. No real thinking required.


Sometimes a good mind just needs to enhance it's discriminating faculty. Good luck, you've got a long, long way to go.....

[uniface]

Deleted by Admin

[shawomet]

uniface wrote, way back when:

"Yet another ideologically-driven pantload."

Do we have a timetable yet as to when uniface is going to.....man up.....and explain how to ideologically sequence a genome?? Tsk, tsk, my little runaway......

Failure to own one's own public statements is cowardly.

[uniface]

Comment deleted by Admin

[shawomet]

What do you call it when someone jumps into a thread and attempts to completely change the subject to their own design?

Obviously, it's called hijacking a thread.

This thread was about a very specific subject, the DNA study of Kennewick Man. Nothing uniface introduced had anything whatsoever to do with that very specific subject. Instead, uniface decided to make the thread about the subject of his choosing: an alternate narrative of world prehistory. Each time uniface was asked to simply explain his opening comment regarding the DNA study, he declined to do that and just continued to direct the thread into the subjects that interested him, and completely away from the subject of the thread. That is not the same thing as allowing a thread to go in natural directions. That does happen, but, in this instance, uniface acted selfishly and simply high jacked the thread.

Moderators: what uniface did is called "highjacking a thread". My interpretation, but I do believe it is an accurate description of what he did here. In addition, when somebody attempts to derail another person's thread in that fashion, they're also know as trolls.

Nothing uniface wrote had anything to do with the subject. I tried repeatedly to bring it back to the subject of my thread, to no avail. The results of a single DNA study, not alternate narratives of prehistory. Jumping into a thread to say "the study is full of it" and then launching one's own thread about world prehistory is ridiculous. The man could start his own thread. There is no call to highjack someone else's thread simply because you don't like the subject. He did not like the results of the study, so he takes over the thread and directs it away from the results he doesn't like?? Is that not ridiculous or what?!?!

[shawomet]

Obama's in Yo' Mama's Pyjamas.

You do realize that's a pretty disgusting thing to say, right? Obama is doing my mother??

Moderators, please take note of the troll. He high jacked the thread. Now he's stooped to making jokes about another member's mother. What a class act......

He should be banned for that one comment alone.

[E.P. Grondine]

EP -- you're a sincere & knowledgable guy. Much & all as we disagree sometimes, I'll give you that. Hell, I even bought your freaking book (!)

But when there's data that bolsters your agenda, you use a telescope to make it look bigger.

And when it clashes with it, you turn your telescope around backwards so it looks tiny, far away and insignificant.

1) Thanks for pushing the MA back -- I was cutting/pasting older stuff.

2) That your compadres don't remember stuff is no argument against said stuff. I don't even remember where I left my glasses sometimes.

3) See Fell for locations. Shame you never read his stuff.

A closed mind gathers moss. Or something like that.

I did read Fell's stuff, along with a lot of other "stuff".

In sum, generally what area at best a few mementos from foreign visitors or
unfortunate mariners are expanded into imaginary empires.

Often "stuff" is simply "made up".

Re: America BC. It may be possible that as the Celts deforested their islands they visited the
Connecticut River Valley to get large trees to make large dugouts. There was not much left of the local peoples' histories that I could find.

Both the Five Nations and the Tuscarora remembered their foreign visitors.

On the Pacific side, Megger's work was immaculate.

How to read my book:
1) Bright light is essential.
2) Read the parts that interest you the most first.
3) Then go back to the start, and if you hit anything to boring, just skip ahead.
4) Take your time. It is not a fast read.
5) Bounce to the footnotes at the end of each chapter. I intended to place them in-line with the text, but was unable to.
5) If you have questions at any point, go to the internet and google my references.