Archaeologica.org

This is an important paper:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180497/

also:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9837837

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 837837.pdf

For information on the ongoing discussion of the southern extent of X mt DNA:
https://www.ancestry.com/boards/thread. ... .melungeon

Note that if the eastern appearance if X mt DNA is linked to the arrival of Red Paint,
then the estimate used for the rate of genetic change in human populations used is a little wrong

The use of a similar faulty human DNA rate of change estimate see here:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/ju ... .Ge.r.html

EP ,
Archaeogenetics is a very fast moving subject , books are out of date by the time they are published .
Papers from 2003 are considered old never mind 1998 . Like the ditching of the Thom paradigm we have moved on .
Here's a simple popular article that might help . https://dna-explained.com/2016/01/28/na ... beringian/
For up to date papers try http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ypal20/1/4

Yeah, it is a fast-moving subject and frankly that makes it hard to take their various hypotheses and speculations without an enormous pinch of salt. I guess one of the biggest problems I have is that unlike buried artifacts people move. And they move for a lot of reasons.

This chart:



Purports to show the "ancestral locations" of the haplogroup. But this is just where they find a skeleton with the right characteristics and postulate the existence of a group in that area. For all they know a person or group was passing through and one of them died and was buried there. Also, if the Solutreans did arrive most of those Canadian sites would have been buried under the retreating ice sheet. Obviously, humans moved in after the ice melted and that would have been thousands of years after the Solutreans arrived.

It is an excellent example of the scientific process at work though as ideas are presented and either saluted or shot full of holes in the peer review mechanism. Keep going, boys.

The map and article are not supporting the Solutrean hypothesis ,quite the contrary . The ancestral locations are simply the oldest known sites where haplogroup X2a has been found .
Speculation is often problematic and salt should always be at hand whatever the discipline .
The progression we find in archaeogenetics is often due to better technology and if there is any speculation we might expect an agenda and can thus ignore it , but we can't ignore the advances .
that have given a better insight into the subject than was only dreamt of a decade ago .
The reason the article was highlighted was due to it providing a basic non-technical update on the our knowledge re. Haplogroup X and how a paper from 1998 limited to a discussion of simply haplogroup X is very old hat .
It is even older that the the "Seven Daughters of Eve" , (remember Xenia ) which is still being quoted by those living in the comparative dark ages .

The map and article are not supporting the Solutrean hypothesis ,quite the contrary .

Yeah, I'm supporting the Solutrean Hypothesis, at least until someone can cogently explain away the Solutrean artifacts that were found in Virginia. That's why I mentioned it.

Nonetheless, I don't think the Solutreans "colonized" the Americas. A few boatloads of Ice Age hunters working their way along the edge of the LGM ice sheet hunting for sea mammals makes sense, and it even makes sense for them to have spotted land and gone looking for a supply of stone to replenish supplies for the return trip. But given the kinds of craft they would have had it is unlikely that a sustainable population could have arrived in this manner.

Far more likely is colonization by boat from the Pacific. Or even Africa. The charts of the winds and currents in the Atlantic strongly suggest that possibility.

Certainly, the technological advances will continue as well they should. In the meantime, I keep the salt shaker handy, as you say.

[quote="Minimalist"[/quote]

Yeah, I'm supporting the Solutrean Hypothesis, [/quote]
Which ,by it's nature , is in the category that you suggested " makes it hard to take their various hypotheses and speculations without an enormous pinch of salt."

Dennis Stanford makes a convincing argument for Solutrean artifacts in the Eastern US. They did not walk here by themselves.

Minimalist wrote:Dennis Stanford makes a convincing argument for Solutrean artifacts in the Eastern US. They did not walk here by themselves.

In general it is a hypothesis that most would agree requires a greater amount of salt than usual .
In particular ,the artefacts also need it . Stanford's Cinmar biface (the most famous book cover one) is problematic ,http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9X15000280 .
There isn't a salt mine big big enough to do deal with the genetic problems .It looks like they didn't walk "here" at all .

Any DNA or estimate of the human DNA change rate
has to agree with the data,
including the archaeological data.

We Have Red Paint showing up entire on the NE coast of North America
with absolutely no developmental sequence nearby.
We also had/have a distribution of tall Native Americans;
Those are the facts;
what you make of them is up to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBFlFRL ... Ofte_O_Rhp

My current working estimate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbM4vHc ... hp&index=7

Another major factor in human evolution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCD9u7X ... hp&index=6
which may go a long way toward explaining the development of distinct haplogroups.

I want to close this note by pointing out to all of you
that based on the known bottlenecks in human DNA,
we (all of us) nearly went the way of the dinosaur.

There is a very desperate need to get the NEOcam satellite launched.

E.P. Grondine wrote:Any DNA or estimate of the human DNA change rate
has to agree with the data,
including the archaeological data.

No it doesn't , any genetic analysis stands alone ,and is primary when considered alongside archaeology and fwiw writings and folklore .
It doesn't need any input from archaeology to support it's findings .
However genetic analysis can support an archaeological interpretation .
A long way behind is an historical interpretation which can be trumped by archaeology .

Tiompan wrote:

Minimalist wrote:Dennis Stanford makes a convincing argument for Solutrean artifacts in the Eastern US. They did not walk here by themselves.

In general it is a hypothesis that most would agree requires a greater amount of salt than usual .
In particular ,the artefacts also need it . Stanford's Cinmar biface (the most famous book cover one) is problematic ,http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9X15000280 .
There isn't a salt mine big big enough to do deal with the genetic problems .It looks like they didn't walk "here" at all .

The Clovis-First crowd always has a problem with everything. They are very "religious" in that regard.

Minimalist wrote:

Tiompan wrote:

Minimalist wrote:Dennis Stanford makes a convincing argument for Solutrean artifacts in the Eastern US. They did not walk here by themselves.

In general it is a hypothesis that most would agree requires a greater amount of salt than usual .
In particular ,the artefacts also need it . Stanford's Cinmar biface (the most famous book cover one) is problematic ,http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9X15000280 .
There isn't a salt mine big big enough to do deal with the genetic problems .It looks like they didn't walk "here" at all .

The Clovis-First crowd always has a problem with everything. They are very "religious" in that regard.

Most of those with no agenda would see the Solutrean Hypothesis crowd as as having a "religious " approach .
Much of it based on faith rather than evidence .

Hell, no.

Most of those with no agenda would see the Solutrean Hypothesis crowd as as having a "religious " approach .
Much of it based on faith rather than evidence .

I really don't see the Clovis First or the Solutrean Hypothesis as faith at all. Both have their adherents with Clovis Firsters requiring more evidence before they will budge while many others are more open to the possibility that humans travelled the planet whenever possible, in all directions. Anomalous finds show up consistently in the Americas and the simplest explanation would be that a few people showed up every so often and did not successfully reproduce for a myriad of reasons (i.e. a boatload of sailors off course won't last more than a few years, but they could leave traces behind, etc.).

Colonization into a virgin area requires about 20-40 breeding couples (see John Moore and Ethnopop). With existing children, parents, etc. that could be 50-100 people travelling into the unknown, a rarity. As Min mentioned, travelling from Europe along the ice during the LGM to the Americas would not have been too difficult; however, doing so with families would have been an extreme challenge. Why go in the first place? Easy: follow the marine migrations, it's a good way to eat healthy and far safer than travelling on land at the time.

Just my 2 cents, you get what you pay for!