Archaeologica.org

Boats, hematite?

Boats, hematite and celestial navigation. Makes for long distance trade and exploration that nobody is willing to discuss in official circles.

Makes for long distance trade and exploration that nobody is willing to discuss in official circles

Yes, but I'll give him a nod and a wink Cogs.

.....and mtDNA

http://cita.chattanooga.org/mtdna.html


john

Dr. Wallace began studying the mtDNA of Native Americans in the mid-1980s in hopes of resolving a long-raging debate over when prehistoric peoples entered the Americas. The presumption long has been that the ancestors of Native Americans came from Siberia. But anthropologists have argued for year over how many, and when, such migrations occurred.

The mtDNA analyses are showing that the ancestors of the Amerinds, who comprise most Native Americans, entered the Americans in a single migratory wave 20,000 to 40,000 years ago, Dr. Wallace and his Emory colleagues ... reported last year. This puts humans in the Americas long before a fluted stone-spear point--the oldest American tool ever found--was dropped by a prehistoric dweller near Clovis, N.M., 11,000 years ago.

This man's findings are quite true John, but they have been accounted for by the new Beringia Theory. The Clovis Firsters have a ridiculous but bullet proof theory.

This is NOT my field of study, but thought someone might have seen this as well: there is a t.v program called "Stoneage Columbus" that I caught some time ago. Unless I am mistaken, their premise is that early settlers in N.A first came from what was then north-eastern Europe, and not the classical Siberian route. Personally I can't imagine how they survived the months at sea in small boats, particularly in that the program had them crossing via Iceland, Greenland, etc. following the coasts of these land masses, then open ice fields till they hit either Newfoundland or Labrador.

Anyone else seen this perchance ? Comment ?

CShark wrote:.....Unless I am mistaken, their premise is that early settlers in N.A first came from what was then north-eastern Europe, and not the classical Siberian route. Personally I can't imagine how they survived the months at sea in small boats, particularly in that the program had them crossing via Iceland, Greenland, etc. following the coasts of these land masses, then open ice fields till they hit either Newfoundland or Labrador.

Tim Severin proved it was possible with his Brendan Voyage

http://www.timseverin.net/brendan.htm

That's Dennis Stafford's Solutrean hypothesis and he doesn't see it as a "migration". Just hunters moving along the pack ice and ending up here. There was no intent to migrate. They were sort of accidental tourists.

Personally I can't imagine how they survived the months at sea in small boats, particularly in that the program had them crossing via Iceland, Greenland, etc. following the coasts of these land masses, then open ice fields till they hit either Newfoundland or Labrador.

If indeed they did follow the migrating seafood, it would have been simple to park a small boat on the ice overnight and continue on their way the next morning. The hunting would have been excellent.

Beagle wrote:

Dr. Wallace began studying the mtDNA of Native Americans in the mid-1980s in hopes of resolving a long-raging debate over when prehistoric peoples entered the Americas. The presumption long has been that the ancestors of Native Americans came from Siberia. But anthropologists have argued for year over how many, and when, such migrations occurred.

The mtDNA analyses are showing that the ancestors of the Amerinds, who comprise most Native Americans, entered the Americans in a single migratory wave 20,000 to 40,000 years ago, Dr. Wallace and his Emory colleagues ... reported last year. This puts humans in the Americas long before a fluted stone-spear point--the oldest American tool ever found--was dropped by a prehistoric dweller near Clovis, N.M., 11,000 years ago.

This man's findings are quite true John, but they have been accounted for by the new Beringia Theory. The Clovis Firsters have a ridiculous but bullet proof theory.

Beagle -

NOT Bulletproof.

Cite for me one single lonely set of skeletal Amerinidian remains which has been dated earlier than 10K BP. Just one.

I have no problem with a "late" wave of migration to the Americas by Siberian peoples, although I doubt they did it on foot over ice over land.

There were earlier people.

The Windover people.

Kennewick man.

The Baja California tribes.

The Monte Verde people.

These were the pre 10k peoples.

Non-Amerind.

Das Klub is pretending that they don't exist.

And the Amerinds are pretending they don't exist (gotta keep them Casino profits rollin', rollin', rollin').

And, apparently, you, also.

I have long-headed people, pre 10k, with linkages to the Ainu and Europe.

No Amerinds pre 10k.

See you and raise you.



john

Sorry John

I just came to this thread to post another article and saw your post. I'm not sure how I missed it earlier but I did.

If the lack of remains drove any archaeological theory, then there would be no "Out of Africa" theory and Neanderthals would be theorized to be the original HSS.

Africa is full of primitive human remains, but just try to find any true HSS. Recently a very small handful of bones, that had been categorized as archaic HS was reclassified as HSS. That was Omo 1. That still seems to be a political move to me.

In the Americas, as in Africa, artifacts are driving the theories. If we had remains, we wouldn't have theories. We would have facts.

John, I replied to your post above.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080221/sc_ ... _PecgE1vAI

One striking finding was the genetic similarities between the Yakut people, who live in Siberia, and several native populations from Mexico, Central America, Colombia and Brazil, the researchers said. These include the Maya in Central America and the Surui and Karitiana in Brazil.

"That's really an indication of shared ancestry," Absher said.

This fits into the theory that humans migrated into the Americas from Siberia along a now-vanished land bridge across the Bering Strait between perhaps 12,000 and 30,000 years ago.

This new article doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, except that we know that many of them came to the Americas by boat.

I remember reading, and posting on this forum some time ago, that the mathematical chances of finding 'human' remains prior to interment as a common practice, would mean judging the population of the USA by analysing the remains of just three people!
The maths would then infer that with a smaller population the chances of finding remains would be even smaller, and that below a certain level the chances would become, mathematically, zero!

Beagle wrote:Sorry John

I just came to this thread to post another article and saw your post. I'm not sure how I missed it earlier but I did.

If the lack of remains drove any archaeological theory, then there would be no "Out of Africa" theory and Neanderthals would be theorized to be the original HSS.

Africa is full of primitive human remains, but just try to find any true HSS. Recently a very small handful of bones, that had been categorized as archaic HS was reclassified as HSS. That was Omo 1. That still seems to be a political move to me.

In the Americas, as in Africa, artifacts are driving the theories. If we had remains, we wouldn't have theories. We would have facts.

.......there's a good article in the latest Nat. Geographic about the Lapita peoples who somehow managed to navigate the entire Pacific Ocean

despite no archaeological evidence of boats.

Maybe they flew.

An then there are those Chilean chickens whose DNA is from them thar Polynesian chickens.

Refrain (for Das Klub)

"There was blood and

whiskey on the highway,

but I didn't hear

nobody praying".


john

Just playing devil's advocate here. If, and I don't doubt there were other incursions from other populations groups other than the Siberian route, but if there were significant earlier cultures from Europe or Polynesia or even a different location in Asia than Siberia, where is the DNA evidence?

There doesn't seem to be any European Y's or strictly polynesian mtdna floating around in the Native American populations. Did the original settling colonies fail and all die without leaving any offspring or refuse to interbreed with the new siberian interlopers? Were the numbers so small in light of the later influx from Siberia, that their dna was completely swamped and diluted to the point it doesn't form a whisper in the current native populations? It seems the Native American dna samples are asian with some minor twists from isolation. Why can't we find a single norse signature in the native populations of the east coast? Why aren't we finding dna signatures common in Tonga in Peru?

Not trying to pick a fight just looking for alternative theories as to the lack of lingering DNA signals. Roxanne

There doesn't seem to be any European Y's

I think you must have missed a number of earlier posts Roxanne. European Dna has been found in NA tribes in the east of the US. In addition Moorish Dna can't be found in the modern Spanish population, and that's only after most left only 500yrs ago.