North American Neanderthals

[Tiompan]

One may also have to concider the ability to see the other shore.
Even with a wide river you can see the other bank.
(I think 30 miles is the horizon for a 6 foot man. Lake Michagan is 80 miles wide and I know you can be out of sight of land on it.)
It may take some imagination to wounder about what you cannot see.

It depends on the difference of height from observer to horizon , at sea or for a horizon the same height as the observer the distance is more like 3 miles , to see 30 miles you would have to be about 90 metres higher than the horizon .


George

[gunny]

Perhaps water levels were much lower

[Minimalist]

One may also have to concider the ability to see the other shore.
Even with a wide river you can see the other bank.
(I think 30 miles is the horizon for a 6 foot man. Lake Michagan is 80 miles wide and I know you can be out of sight of land on it.)
It may take some imagination to wounder about what you cannot see.

It depends on the difference of height from observer to horizon , at sea or for a horizon the same height as the observer the distance is more like 3 miles , to see 30 miles you would have to be about 90 metres higher than the horizon .


George

Exactly. That's why sailing ships sent lookouts up to the crow's nest. You could significantly increase your visibility to the horizon.

[E.P. Grondine]

We'll simply have to disagree on what comprises compelling evidence versus circumstantial evidence. I think we can both agree that aliens using flying saucers did not pick up and move hominid populations. Leaving the other alternatives, walking versus boating depends on the geological setting to get a "when". But in my view "when" an island has been an island at all the relevant "whens", the case is closed, particularly if you have a toolkit for maritime foods.


Yes, we agree although let's not kid ourselves...the ancient alien crowd is alive and well out there.
I tend to go with legal definitions of evidence in which "direct evidence" requires a witness as opposed to "circumstantial" which requires some reasoning. The cops know that eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Actually, min, not only are they alive, but they live right down the street here in Kempton, Illinois. Funny how that works. I see you haven't read my guide inside the cult archaeology industry yet.

In my opinion, maritime technologies and the lack thereof were what differentiated HH into HSS and HN. The two populations were separated by the Zamanshan impact.

A quick search for the Zamanshan impact revealed 4 hits....all either written by you or people commenting on your posts. Clearly, you have a long way to go to get this idea into general acceptance.

Ah, Min, you've stumbled into my fiendish plot to get the "Zamanshin Impact" renamed the "Zamanshan Impact".

(You may object to my use of the HH term. From my point of view I just wish the physical anthropologists would agree on their taxonomic terms. There's a fellow in Malaysia having similar problems describing the finds there.)

Object? No. I prefer Homo Erectus but I won't quibble.

Thank M'si Manitou for that. And the scientist who wrote the piece linked to in today's news.

Keep in mind that river crossings may be accomplished via fords at very low water, and by ice when a river freezes over. Or you can cross upstream where the river is shallower. By the way, these are all good techniques for finding early remains.

How far upstream on the Danube would you have to go in order to find a ford? I had this discussion with R/S a few times. Overland travel through a wilderness is not a piece of cake. Even moving upstream along a river means that you will come to tributaries that have to be crossed not to mention the marshes along many rivers. Boats were the preferred means of transportation until the 19th century. I just don't think our ancestors were too stupid to overlook this method and obviously neither do you.

If you can follow very early usage from a quarry, then it will give you dead on knowledge of fords or ice crossings.

Overland travel was actually pretty much a piece of cake, if you simply used the animals' annual migration paths between winter pastures and summer pastures. These often followed water ways, which provided water, muck, and protection against predators. Other places to look are for routes connecting springs, mucks, and salt licks.

I agree with you on very early maritime technology.

Once again, the YD impact is not without its critics

No sh*t, min - like I haven't been dealing with them personally for roughly 5 years now.

For the latest, go to cosmictusk.com.

The original laboratories findings on the YD impactites have now been duplicated by some 10 other major laboratories.

And there is a new paper on population decline in North America at the YD.

By the way, while we don't know yet if it was YD impact or YD impacts, the consensus is that it was cometary.

I think the English sailors' word for sea food stew was "salamagundy". If you find baleen, harpoons, whale ivory, and whale oil lamps at a site...

Lest I forget, a signed copy of "Man and Impact in the Americas" makes the perfect gift for both friends interested in North America history, and any stodgy old coot you may wish to irritate.

[kbs2244]

3 mile does make more sense.
I guess I was thinking of seeing high trees or mountians on the far side.
Non the less, not many rivers are 3 miles wide.
It would not take a "maritime" culture to cross rivers.

As much as I like sea fareing as a way of diffusion, I don't think it applies here.
Crude canoes or rafts for inland waters yes, but except for some possible "coasting," no open water.

[Digit]

Paddle across and let the river's flow carry you with it, you'll beach downstream of your start point. Not difficult.

Roy.

[kbs2244]

Yeah,
That all makes sense.
For shure if you watched some guys trying it first.
But it assumes you can see the far side.
A start point and an end pint.
And caculate from there.

[jw1815]

I remember reading that haplogroup X was located in populations of the Altai Mountains of Siberia. That doesn't prove it's responsible for all or any of the North American incidence of X, but it's probably a good assumption.

If I understand uni’s links correctly, they’re about an X chromosome hereditary link with HN, but not about the mtDNA haplotype X. Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks to me like the X chromosome link in uni’s post means that HN traits were added to the HS genome via gender linked heredity (like baldness is passed on by women via X linked heredity). Meaning that HN traits in the HS genome would come from matings of HS men with HN women?? I could be reading this wrong, but here’s the quote from uni’s first link to an abstract that leads me to this conclusion:

“Here we provide evidence of a notable presence (9% overall) of a Neandertal-derived X chromosome segment among all contemporary human populations outside Africa.”

At any rate, an X chromosome hereditary link is not the same thing as the mtDNA haplotype X found in Europe, the Altai Mountains, the Druze of Lebanon, and a few pockets of Native Americans in North America.

You and EP seem to know the distribution of mtDNA haplotype X, but there’s a lot of confusion about what it means that haplotype X exists among some Native Americans, so I’m going to try to explain it for anyone who might be interested or confused by it.

First, it does NOT mean that the X haplotype in North America came from Europe. As you pointed out, it’s more likely that the North American X haplotype comes from the Altai region.

Haplotypes can be traced through the trail of mutations that they leave. It’s a little like following Hansel and Gretel’s crumbs. Every time a mutation occurs, it remains in the generations of future descendants, so that geneticists can trace where and approximately when one group diverges from another one.

The mtDNA X haplotype in HS shows that it originated about 30,000 years ago in the ME or Black Sea area. Shortly afterward, the mtDNA mutation record shows that the original group split in two, with one group going westward into Europe and the eastern Mediterranean area and the other moving eastward into Asia.

The North American haplotype X is closer to the Asian X than the European one and apparently derived from the Asian one. The mutation record shows that the North American mtDNA haplotype X lacks mutations that occurred in the European one soon after the original group split, but retains mutations from Asia and has added a few of its own that mark it as distinctly North American, having evolved (mutated) further after arrival in North America.

Or, in other words, the record of mutations in mtDNA haplotype X in North America demonstrates that it could not have come from Europe, or from the Druze population, which is closely related to the European haplotype X. It had to come from someone (or some group of someones) in Asia. No record of mtDNA X has been found farther east in Asia than central Siberia. Geneticists are split on whether the X haplotype from the Altai region is ancestral to the North American X haplotype. The sequences diverge from European X and are closer to North American X, but there’s some disagreement about the degree of isolation of the Altai people and whether they — or someone else in Asia — were the ancestral source of the North American haplotype.

Why doesn’t X appear in eastern Asia? Maybe there were people in eastern Asia with the X haplotype, but they’re the ones who left for North America, taking their haplotype mutations with them and leaving none behind in eastern Asia. My guess is that a small band from the Altai region moved eastward and continued east into North America, leaving no traces behind in eastern Asia.

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi JW -

(Sadly, I can not yet bring up in this discussion the fact that many of the First Peoples remembered these folks as being quite distinct, as Native America historical traditions are generally dismissed as nonsense...)

The problem with your hypothesis is the distribution of X mt DNA in North America, and the distribution of its associated polished stone and serated edge technologies, along with unmistakable maritime technologies. Given that evidence, and the X mt DNA variants you mention, then the only possibility appears to me to be that that X mt DNA variant occurred before a part of that population left to head to the Altai, while another part headed west.

There have been many different estimates of the rate of human genetic change.

Your and Uni's assumption is that X mt DNA came from HN; my view is that if X mt DNA existed in HN, then it came to them from HH, before the HN/HSS split.

It is my hope that perhaps impact data may allow biologists to refine their understanding of the rate of human genetic change.

For the HN/HSS split (from HH), see the Zamanshin impact.

[jw1815]

(Sadly, I can not yet bring up in this discussion the fact that many of the First Peoples remembered these folks as being quite distinct, as Native America historical traditions are generally dismissed as nonsense...)

I, for one, do not dismiss Native American traditions as nonsense. However, I'm not aware of any NA traditions that identify "these folks" (haplogroup X) as being “quite distinct.”

There's a popular misunderstanding that mtDNA is equivalent to "race" or to visible biological appearance. It's not. Barack Obama's mtDNA, for example, would identify him as a white person of northern European descent. (Only his NRY DNA would identify his father's regional heritage in Africa.) mtDNA only reveals at most about 25% of an individual's genetic history. And mtDNA is NOT the same as autosomal DNA. Autosomal DNA is the genetic mixture, half from each parent, that gives us our physical appearance, among other characteristics. mtDNA doesn't do that. Therefore, I simply don’t believe that NA's identified people with mtDNA haplotype X as being distinctly different from everyone else.

The problem with your hypothesis is the distribution of X mt DNA in North America, and the distribution of its associated polished stone and serated edge technologies, along with unmistakable maritime technologies. Given that evidence, and the X mt DNA variants you mention, then the only possibility appears to me to be that that X mt DNA variant occurred before a part of that population left to head to the Altai, while another part headed west.

First, you’re misapplying the term "hypothesis." Hypothesis refers to suggested possibilities BEFORE data is accumulated, tested, and verified. My comments about mtDNA are from the accumulated, tested, and verified data on mtDNA distribution and the migration patterns of HS based on numerous samples and comparisons of human mtDNA from around the globe. Since this is science that we're talking about, the currently established and tested data are always open to change if and when new evidence is available. But, for the time being, the mtDNA model and how it works is as I presented it.

The rest of your paragraph doesn't make sense. You're confusing archaeological cultural artifacts with biology.

There have been many different estimates of the rate of human genetic change.

Yes, there are variables in the formulas for calculating coalescence date estimates for haplotypes. One of the variables is the estimate of the size of the founding population for a haplotype at the time it coalesced. I sometimes question the estimated coalescence dates for some groups. However, even when an estimated date is questionable, it's still possible to determine the sequence of development for a haplogroup and its clades. It's very simple. A haplogroup will have a particular sequence of mutations. If another population has that sequence plus additional ones following them, then we know that the population group with the additional ones is a later branch (clade) from the original. And from that, geneticists can tell which clades branched off from other clades, so that they can determine the sequence of development for additional clades or subclades. Geneticists might not have absolute dates for the original or the branched off groups, but they do have a linear sequence that establishes which ones preceded or followed others.

Your and Uni's assumption is that X mt DNA came from HN; my view is that if X mt DNA existed in HN, then it came to them from HH, before the HN/HSS split.

Say what?? Where did you get the notion that I make that assumption? Your statement indicates that you misread the link and are consequently confusing two biological terms. Uni’s link refers to biological traits from HN being passed on to HS as a result of interbreeding. But the link says the genetic material from HN came to HS via the X chromosome, not via the X haplotype. Therefore, the link does not say that the X haplotype came from HN. And, for the record, I don’t claim that that the X haplotype came from HN either.

What I did say is that, if we got our HN genetic heritage through the X chromosome, it MIGHT indicate that interbreeding was between HS men and HN women since the X chromosome is linked most often in genetics with females (although males do carry one X chromosome). Did you notice the double question marks at the end of my sentence where I said that? Those double question marks express doubt and joking irony about that conclusion. Irony because X chromosome inheritance from HN doesn’t really mean that interbreeding was only between HS men and HN women. It simply means that the HN genetic traces in HS come to us through the X chromosome (NOT the X haplotype).

But, even with HN women contributing to HS genetic inheritance, that doesn’t mean that the X haplotype (or any other haplotype, for that matter) came from HN. HS outnumbered HN. It would have been very easy for any HN mtDNA lineage to die out over thousands of generations since then, which it apparently has.

The following link might help to clear up your confusion between autosomal DNA and mtDNA.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/ ... otype.html

[jw1815]

I've read several published articles and abstracts on the origins and distribution of mtDNA haplotype X around the world. The following Wikipedia article does a good job of summarizing the studies and the issues regarding the origins of haplotype X in North America. It also has a map showing the distribution of haplotype X in Europe, Asia, Africa, and North America.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)

"In addition these same researchers have detailed that the mtDNA haplogroup X haplotype present in the Altaians of Siberia is intermediate between Native Americans clades and that of Europeans. As a Russian research group observed, "American Indian and European haplogroup X mtDNAs ... are distantly related to each other". They propose however not an early European colonization of America, but that Altaians contributed to migrants bound for Europe and America; "The network further suggests that the Altaian X haplotypes occupy the intermediate position between European and American Indian haplogroup X mtDNA lineages"[11]

One theory of how the X Haplogroup ended up in North America is it migrated from central Asia along with the A,B,C, and D Haplogroups, from an ancestor from the Altai Region of Central Asia.[12] Two sequences of haplogroup X2 were sampled further east of Altai among the Evenks of Central Siberia.[4] These two sequences belong to X2* and X2b. It is uncertain if they represent a remnant of the migration of X2 through Siberia or a more recent input.[12]

This relative absence of haplogroup X2 in Asia is one of the major factors causing the current rethinking of the peopling of the Americas. However, the New World haplogroup X2a is as different from any of the Old World X2b, X2c, X2d, X2e and X2f lineages as they are from each other, indicating an early origin "likely at the very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East".[12]"

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi JW -

"I, for one, do not dismiss Native American traditions as nonsense. However, I'm not aware of any NA traditions that identify "these folks" (haplogroup X) as being “quite distinct.”

Glad to hear that. There's special on "Man and Impact in the Americas" over at cosmictusk.com, and some of the Native American traditions and hard data concerning them are set out at length in that edition. I hope that more traditions included in the second edition, but that is not my decision to make.

"There's a popular misunderstanding that mtDNA is equivalent to "race" or to visible biological appearance. It's not. Barack Obama's mtDNA, for example, would identify him as a white person of northern European descent. (Only his NRY DNA would identify his father's regional heritage in Africa.) mtDNA only reveals at most about 25% of an individual's genetic history. And mtDNA is NOT the same as autosomal DNA. Autosomal DNA is the genetic mixture, half from each parent, that gives us our physical appearance, among other characteristics. mtDNA doesn't do that. Therefore, I simply don’t believe that NA's identified people with mtDNA haplotype X as being distinctly different from everyone else. "

Very nice summary, down to the conclusion. Read the book. There are also copies available via interlibrary loan.

"First, you’re misapplying the term "hypothesis." Hypothesis refers to suggested possibilities BEFORE data is accumulated, tested, and verified. My comments about mtDNA are from the accumulated, tested, and verified data on mtDNA distribution and the migration patterns of HS based on numerous samples and comparisons of human mtDNA from around the globe."

Yes, so are my comments. See the footnotes in the book.

"Since this is science that we're talking about, the currently established and tested data are always open to change if and when new evidence is available."

The data doesn't change, but our method of examining it can. New data can emerge as well, such as data that extremely large impacts occurred during our evolution. What changes are the the labels we use to describe the data, and the hypothetical framework into which the data is put.

"The rest of your paragraph doesn't make sense. You're confusing archaeological cultural artifacts with biology."

No. What I am telling you is that cultural artifacts are data as well as biological data. Any biological hypothesis has to account for the hard artifact data as well. Particularly when it employs a hypothesis as to rate of human genetic change.

There have been many different estimates of the rate of human genetic change.

Yes, there are variables in the formulas for calculating coalescence date estimates for haplotypes. One of the variables is the estimate of the size of the founding population for a haplotype at the time it coalesced. I sometimes question the estimated coalescence dates for some groups."

I have to question that about every week, when another team of biologists makes yet another announcement based on their estimate.

Your and Uni's assumption is that X mt DNA came from HN; my view is that if X mt DNA existed in HN, then it came to them from HH, before the HN/HSS split.

"Say what?? Where did you get the notion that I make that assumption? Your statement indicates that you misread the link and are consequently confusing two biological terms. Uni’s link refers to biological traits from HN being passed on to HS as a result of interbreeding. But the link says the genetic material from HN came to HS via the X chromosome, not via the X haplotype. Therefore, the link does not say that the X haplotype came from HN. And, for the record, I don’t claim that that the X haplotype came from HN either. What I did say is that, if we got our HN genetic heritage through the X chromosome, it MIGHT indicate that interbreeding was between HS men and HN women since the X chromosome is linked most often in genetics with females (although males do carry one X chromosome)."

Whether X mt DNA or X chromosomal material, the hypothesis is that HN and HS interbreeded; another hypothesis is that either or both may possibly have come from a common ancestor, HH, or from both a common ancestor (HH) and interbreeding with HN.

"Did you notice the double question marks at the end of my sentence where I said that? Those double question marks express doubt and joking irony about that conclusion."

No - but given the very tenative nature of understanding this time period ,"??" will come in handy to me. Thanks. It's way shorter than "but I have been wrong in the past, and retain the right to be wrong both now and in the future." Now I can just use "??".

"Irony because X chromosome inheritance from HN doesn’t really mean that interbreeding was only between HS men and HN women. It simply means that the HN genetic traces in HS come to us through the X chromosome (NOT the X haplotype)."

I suppose I was confused by your post, as the topic was X mt DNA distributions, and I read it that way.

[jw1815]

"I, for one, do not dismiss Native American traditions as nonsense. However, I'm not aware of any NA traditions that identify "these folks" (haplogroup X) as being “quite distinct.”

Glad to hear that. There's special on "Man and Impact in the Americas" over at cosmictusk.com, and some of the Native American traditions and hard data concerning them are set out at length in that edition. I hope that more traditions included in the second edition, but that is not my decision to make.

Just because I don’t dismiss NA traditions doesn’t mean that I accept any and all claims about what NA traditions are, were, or supposedly indicate. And, in order for interpretations of traditions to be valid demonstrations of facts embedded within legends and religion, there has to be objective, concrete verification outside of the traditions.

I’m aware that NA legends and sacred stories have become, for many people, a Rorschach blot for projecting the agendas and personal, subjective feelings and views of the people who “interpret” them. Consequently, I approach all such “interpretations” with a very high degree of skepticism.

The major problem that I have with your claim that NA traditions identify a haplotype is, as I've mentioned, that haplotypes are not identifiable by visual appearance. If they were, then geneticists could simply dispense with their labs and travel the world writing down whatever they see when they look at people.

Instead of promoting your book here, have you tried getting onto Coast to Coast as a guest? I think their audience would be very receptive.

"Since this is science that we're talking about, the currently established and tested data are always open to change if and when new evidence is available."

The data doesn't change, but our method of examining it can. New data can emerge as well, such as data that extremely large impacts occurred during our evolution. What changes are the the labels we use to describe the data, and the hypothetical framework into which the data is put.

But the body of accumulated, tested and verified data does change whenever something is deleted or added. The key there is whether data is tested, peer reviewed, verifiable, and can be independently arrived at by others using the same methods. Not sure that applies to your impact info. I don’t doubt that there have been impacts from time to time, i.e. the one that occurred in Russia in the early 20th century. But, I don’t see evidence that impact events are a continuous, ongoing major factor in human evolution and cultures.

BTW, you’ve misused the word hypothetical. Untested and unverified knowledge, supposition, or belief without objective evidence to back it up is hypothetical. Tested and verified hypotheses that can be reproduced objectively by others get moved up to the category of a theory that explains how the data work and are related to each other within the framework. If you don’t distinguish hypothesis from theory or supposition and belief from tested and verified data, then you can’t convince me that your book contains valid, verifiable, reliable information to make it worth looking at.

"The rest of your paragraph doesn't make sense. You're confusing archaeological cultural artifacts with biology."

No. What I am telling you is that cultural artifacts are data as well as biological data. Any biological hypothesis has to account for the hard artifact data as well. Particularly when it employs a hypothesis as to rate of human genetic change.

I’m well aware that cultural artifacts are “data.” But, cultural artifacts do not apply in this instance. They do not identify biological haplotypes or vice versa. Cultural artifacts do sometimes have bearing on biology. For example, Paleolithic tool design has something to tell us about the evolution of the hominid hand away from the shape and use of more apelike hands. The complexity of a tool and its use in Paleolithic times gives us insights into the evolution of the human brain. But biological artifacts (as opposed to cultural ones) can tell us about the shape of a hand or the size and shape of a cranium, too.

However, toolkits and other cultural archaeological artifacts do not tell us what an individual’s haplotype is. Can you tell me the haplotype of a person living 2000 years ago in the Roman Empire just from looking at the type of coin you find in his grave? If it’s a Roman coin, was he a Roman citizen? If he was a Roman citizen, was his ethnic origin Greek, Iberian, Phoenician, Jewish, Celtic, Gaulic, Egyptian? Did all people who used Roman coins have the same haplotype? What if you find that Roman coin in India? Does that mean that the people of India 2000 years ago had the same haplotype as a Roman senator? Or, did the coin get there through trade, having nothing to do with a segment of DNA in the body of the person who took it to India? You’ll find far fewer Roman coins in India than within the boundaries of the Roman empire, so you can pretty much guess that it got to India through trade, with no biological connection to Rome. Then again, there might be a biological connection to Rome if it got to India via a Roman soldier rather than through trade. But, was the soldier descended from the “original” Roman citizens or from a conquered nation? If an original Roman citizen, which tribe did his ancestors belong to and did all the Roman tribes, or even all the members of one Roman tribe have the same haplotype?

You can’t possibly know or even make a good educated guess, not even if there are other artifacts like jewellery or clothing, pottery, and style of burial. You don’t know if that person was from a conquered nation that adopted Roman customs. Even if the hair and skin were preserved, you couldn’t tell from physical appearance because, like President Obama, that individual might carry the genotype of one parent and the haplotype of the other parent.

"Say what?? Where did you get the notion that I make that assumption? Your statement indicates that you misread the link and are consequently confusing two biological terms. Uni’s link refers to biological traits from HN being passed on to HS as a result of interbreeding. But the link says the genetic material from HN came to HS via the X chromosome, not via the X haplotype. Therefore, the link does not say that the X haplotype came from HN. And, for the record, I don’t claim that that the X haplotype came from HN either. What I did say is that, if we got our HN genetic heritage through the X chromosome, it MIGHT indicate that interbreeding was between HS men and HN women since the X chromosome is linked most often in genetics with females (although males do carry one X chromosome)."

Whether X mt DNA or X chromosomal material, the hypothesis is that HN and HS interbreeded; another hypothesis is that either or both may possibly have come from a common ancestor, HH, or from both a common ancestor (HH) and interbreeding with HN.

But there is a huge difference between the claim that the mtDNA haplotype X came from HN and the claim by the article that uni linked, which says that the HN X chromosome suggests genetic contributions to HS from HN. I tend to doubt the validity of claims that come from people who discuss the subject without knowing the difference.

True that the common genetic material between HN and HS could have come from either interbreeding or from sharing a common ancestor. Since HN was a hominid, I think it’s fairly certain that HN and HS had common ancestry, either recent for their time period, or more distant.

"Did you notice the double question marks at the end of my sentence where I said that? Those double question marks express doubt and joking irony about that conclusion."

No - but given the very tenative nature of understanding this time period ,"??" will come in handy to me. Thanks. It's way shorter than "but I have been wrong in the past, and retain the right to be wrong both now and in the future." Now I can just use "??".

You’ve missed the point completely. It had nothing to do with being right or wrong about something. It was a joking reference to the role of women and the X chromosome in genetics.

"Irony because X chromosome inheritance from HN doesn’t really mean that interbreeding was only between HS men and HN women. It simply means that the HN genetic traces in HS come to us through the X chromosome (NOT the X haplotype)."

I suppose I was confused by your post, as the topic was X mt DNA distributions, and I read it that way.

Actually, there were two topics going on in this thread:

1. Uni’s links about HN haplotype B0006 being passed on to HS via the X chromosome and uni's interest in the presence of HN DNA in NA's.
2. The misinterpretation of those links by others to mean that mtDNA haplotype X came from HN. That misinterpretation wasn’t part of the original thread and links.

I addressed both topics in my post.

[E.P. Grondine]

Good afternoon, JW -

Just because I don’t dismiss NA traditions doesn’t mean that I accept any and all claims about what NA traditions are, were, or supposedly indicate. And, in order for interpretations of traditions to be valid demonstrations of facts embedded within legends and religion, there has to be objective, concrete verification outside of the traditions.

Absolutely agree. The interpretations passed on in "Man and Impact in the Americas" meet that criteria.

You'll find objective, concrete verification of Native American traditions of a major cometary impact over at the cosmictusk.com. Several peoples remembered where they were when they occurred some 13,000 years ago, and hence NAGPRA issues can be decided with a fair degree of certainty from essentially "forever".

I’m aware that NA legends and sacred stories have become, for many people, a Rorschach blot for projecting the agendas and personal, subjective feelings and views of the people who “interpret” them. Consequently, I approach all such “interpretations” with a very high degree of skepticism.

I agree completely. I encounter personal, subjective "interpretations" all the time, and have to deal with them. There is great loss in the Native American community, and a great deal of anger. That's one of the features which make impact events such a very useful tool - they can be used to lock the surviving historical traditions in time and thus lock them onto the archaeological record.

The major problem that I have with your claim that NA traditions identify a haplotype is, as I've mentioned, that haplotypes are not identifiable by visual appearance.

Well, I suppose is that it depends on what trait is controlled by the genetic information.
See "Man and Impact in the Americas" for more detailed discussion of one specific case.

The next edition of "Man and Impact in the Americas" will contain a detailed discussion of the fate of a different mt DNA haplogroup which was pretty much extincted by recent impacts and then genocide during the conquest.

If they were, then geneticists could simply dispense with their labs and travel the world writing down whatever they see when they look at people.

It would probably help the geneticists if they would leave their labs and travel at least a little bit - say to some of those large holes in the ground mentioned above.

Instead of promoting your book here, have you tried getting onto Coast to Coast as a guest? I think their audience would be very receptive.

Please excuse my irritation, but I also have to deal with cranks constantly, and sometimes its hard to tell the professionals and the cranks apart.

I'd love to speak to the entire archaeological establishment, instead of just sparring with you here. You may not like it, but I think of it as trying to prevent you from making a fool of yourself. The problem of course is how to do that without having you make yourself a fool.

I have done radio, but only 50,000 listeners, while Coast to Coast has 6,000,000,000 listeners. As a matter of fact, I do better than Seth Shostak in ratings. So please, please write George Noory an email and tell him he needs to have me on as a guest.

Others will tell you that my book is "landmark", and I don't mind pointing you to it, as I have no intention of typing it out again here for you personally.

But the body of accumulated, tested and verified data does change whenever something is deleted or added. The key there is whether data is tested, peer reviewed, verifiable, and can be independently arrived at by others using the same methods. Not sure that applies to your impact info. I don’t doubt that there have been impacts from time to time, i.e. the one that occurred in Russia in the early 20th century. But, I don’t see evidence that impact events are a continuous, ongoing major factor in human evolution and cultures.

Please stop displaying your ignorance of comet and asteroid impact. Read my book, then run mouth. Big holes in the ground, well dated ones, formed only by massive impacts during hominid evolution.

And that is why a copy of "Man and Impact in the Americas" is such a good investment.

BTW, you’ve misused the word hypothetical. Untested and unverified knowledge, supposition, or belief without objective evidence to back it up is hypothetical. Tested and verified hypotheses that can be reproduced objectively by others get moved up to the category of a theory that explains how the data work and are related to each other within the framework. If you don’t distinguish hypothesis from theory or supposition and belief from tested and verified data, then you can’t convince me that your book contains valid, verifiable, reliable information to make it worth looking at.

No misuse on my part. The area under question is HSS/HN relations. One "hypothesis" is that HSS b0006 came from HN, another is that HSS X mt DNA came from HN.

What you don't understand is that it appears there was a third major Homonid population which evolved in the Black Sea region, and traveled to North America, and it is far more likely that b0006 in Native American populations came from it.

I’m well aware that cultural artifacts are “data.” But, cultural artifacts do not apply in this instance.

They do not identify biological haplotypes or vice versa. Cultural artifacts do sometimes have bearing on biology. For example, Paleolithic tool design has something to tell us about the evolution of the hominid hand away from the shape and use of more apelike hands. The complexity of a tool and its use in Paleolithic times gives us insights into the evolution of the human brain. But biological artifacts (as opposed to cultural ones) can tell us about the shape of a hand or the size and shape of a cranium, too.

However, toolkits and other cultural archaeological artifacts do not tell us what an individual’s haplotype is. Can you tell me the haplotype of a person living 2000 years ago in the Roman Empire just from looking at the type of coin you find in his grave? If it’s a Roman coin, was he a Roman citizen? If he was a Roman citizen, was his ethnic origin Greek, Iberian, Phoenician, Jewish, Celtic, Gaulic, Egyptian? Did all people who used Roman coins have the same haplotype? What if you find that Roman coin in India? Does that mean that the people of India 2000 years ago had the same haplotype as a Roman senator? Or, did the coin get there through trade, having nothing to do with a segment of DNA in the body of the person who took it to India? You’ll find far fewer Roman coins in India than within the boundaries of the Roman empire, so you can pretty much guess that it got to India through trade, with no biological connection to Rome. Then again, there might be a biological connection to Rome if it got to India via a Roman soldier rather than through trade. But, was the soldier descended from the “original” Roman citizens or from a conquered nation? If an original Roman citizen, which tribe did his ancestors belong to and did all the Roman tribes, or even all the members of one Roman tribe have the same haplotype?

You can’t possibly know or even make a good educated guess, not even if there are other artifacts like jewellery or clothing, pottery, and style of burial. You don’t know if that person was from a conquered nation that adopted Roman customs. Even if the hair and skin were preserved, you couldn’t tell from physical appearance because, like President Obama, that individual might carry the genotype of one parent and the haplotype of the other parent.

"You can’t possibly know or even make a good educated guess, not even if there are other artifacts like jewellery or clothing, pottery, and style of burial."

I think that you'll have to grant me that genetic information from skeletal remains is genetic information.

What I did say is that, if we got our HN genetic heritage through the X chromosome, it MIGHT indicate that interbreeding was between HS men and HN women since the X chromosome is linked most often in genetics with females (although males do carry one X chromosome)."

And I simply stated that it was more likely that the HN genetic heritage was passed on by a different process entirely: Whether X mt DNA or X chromosomal material, one hypothesis is that HN and HS interbreeded; another hypothesis is that either or both may possibly have come from a common ancestor, HH, or from both a common ancestor (HH) and interbreeding with HN. [/quote]

True that the common genetic material between HN and HS could have come from either interbreeding or from sharing a common ancestor.

Thanks. Score 1-0.

Since HN was a hominid, I think it’s fairly certain that HN and HS had common ancestry, either recent for their time period, or more distant.

And I simply provided you with an estimate as to the time of the HSS/HN split: the Zamanshin Impact??, and the common ancestor: Homo Heidelbergensis??

I also told you about a third?? descendant from HH.

"Did you notice the double question marks at the end of my sentence where I said that?

Yes.

Actually, there were two topics going on in this thread:

1. Uni’s links about HN haplotype B0006 being passed on to HS via the X chromosome and uni's interest in the presence of HN DNA in NA's.
2. The misinterpretation of those links by others to mean that mtDNA haplotype X came from HN. That misinterpretation wasn’t part of the original thread and links.

I addressed both topics in my post.

And there was also a third topic:

"But, I don’t see evidence that impact events are a continuous, ongoing major factor in human evolution and cultures."

You haven't seen the evidence because you have not read the book yet.

[Cognito]

1. Uni’s links about HN haplotype B0006 being passed on to HS via the X chromosome and uni's interest in the presence of HN DNA in NA's.
2. The misinterpretation of those links by others to mean that mtDNA haplotype X came from HN. That misinterpretation wasn’t part of the original thread and links.

Just read the above discussion.

HN Haplotype B0006 being passed to an HS X chromosome would occur with minor recombinant activity in the nuclear genome. Not to be confused with mtDNA X which is mitochondrial. These are two completely different structures that have nothing to do with each other and have no interaction whatsoever. No HN mtDNA survives in the HS population from breeding between the two groups.

Finding B0006 in Native American populations would simply mean that those populations were derived from descendants of Africans who were part of the OOA exodus circa 50-125kya. That's a big group of people.