Archaeologica.org

Thanks, Digit... You're right, of course. Working is time-consuming, expensive, and bad for one's health - one really shouldn't do it if it can be avoided. Unfortunately, unless we are born wealthy, during most of our lives we have little choice in the matter if we happen to enjoy food with our meals.

Um....have I told you guys about "retirement?"

If you have retired Min and can still walk upright you've probably found the same as me. There ain't enough hours in the day!

I agree Digit. I'm retired also but life seems to slow down for me some in the winter.

I'll hibernate then.

Do what I did Beagle, I walked away from a good job when the kids were old enough and moved to where I am now. Lowest temperature this Fall has been +5 degrees C and plenty of sunshine. I love global warming.

Our winters have been mild also digit. It seems so many of my favorite pastimes are in the summer. Although, I rarely golf any more, I try to pack in all my other favorite things.

And a mild winter is often still very dreary here. Except for football.

Dreary?






Not here.




Summers can be a tad warm, though.

That's beautiful. But I couldn't take the summers. The southwest is a great place to visit at the right time of the year, for me anyway.

The difference AD is between working to live and living to work. The right balance is sometimes difficult.

santyago wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... rans.shtml

Haven't we discussed this old and erroneous claim about Haplogroup X before?

Haven't we discussed this old and erroneous claim about Haplogroup X before?

I haven't had time to read through earlier discussions of haplogroup X in this forum, but from what very little I know of this, I'd say it's not so much "erroneous" as just highly inconclusive. Apparently the closest match (so far) of Native American haplogroup X subgroup X2a is with Iran, which seems not at all inconsistent with very early eastward migration ultimately ending up in North America via Beringia.

Tracing through haplogroups still seems rather nebulous. A couple years ago, I submitted one of my hairs as a control sample along with about a dozen from the site I have been investigating here in Ohio. Unfortunately, the hairs of interest (mostly dark brown) had no surviving mtDNA, but it was a relief to hear that mine was alive and well. This is haplogroup K, which shows up in relatively high proportion in western Scotland, this being consistent with available genealogical data. However, K is also common in, for example, Ashkenazic Jews, and it also appears in Ethiopia and parts of sub-Saharan Africa. So what can one really make of all this?

I've seen Dr. Dennis Stanford's presentation at conferences twice now, not to mention on TV programs. His glibly engaging and entertaining shtick offers some compelling and thought-provoking circumstantial evidence, but to me the bottom line is maybe, maybe not.

At this point, what I've been seeing in evidence from here and other parts of the planet leads me to tentatively hypothesize that early migration into North America was mainly or entirely from the west, but much earlier than we have been led to believe, and by many more people. (And think about the recent finds like Pakefield and Dmanisi, indicating that humans - or precursors thereof - were on the move hundreds of thousands of years earlier than generally assumed.)

Alan

Hi AD,
I think I can go along with what you wrote. What is erroneous is any claim that Hap X proves a European origin, or that Native American Hap X matches European.

Greetings, Doug...

Absolutely - I'll go along with "erroneous" in that context. Thanks!

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/gen ... atlas.html

The real controversy surrounding haplogroup X is its place as one of the haplogroupsnfound in the indigenous peoples of the Americas, where it is found exclusively in North America at varying frequencies. In the Ojibwa from the Great Lakes region it is found around 25%, in the Sioux at around 15%, the Nuu-Chah-Nulth at over 10%, and in the Navajo at 7%. But the branch of haplogroup X found in these Native American groups, namely X2, is almost entirely absent from Siberia, the proposed land route of the first migrations into the New World
The widespread geographic distribution of theis haplogroup, and its virtual absence in Siberia despite a prevalence among some Native American groups, promises to remain the focus of much scientific interest as anthropologists look to recreate the migrations that first brought humans to all corners of the globe.

Bruce wrote:https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/gen ... atlas.html

The real controversy surrounding haplogroup X is its place as one of the haplogroupsnfound in the indigenous peoples of the Americas, where it is found exclusively in North America at varying frequencies. In the Ojibwa from the Great Lakes region it is found around 25%, in the Sioux at around 15%, the Nuu-Chah-Nulth at over 10%, and in the Navajo at 7%. But the branch of haplogroup X found in these Native American groups, namely X2, is almost entirely absent from Siberia, the proposed land route of the first migrations into the New World
The widespread geographic distribution of theis haplogroup, and its virtual absence in Siberia despite a prevalence among some Native American groups, promises to remain the focus of much scientific interest as anthropologists look to recreate the migrations that first brought humans to all corners of the globe.

Well, to be exact, X2a, which is what we are talking about in the Americas, isn't found anywhere else, which proves?
It's closest relation may be related to the Altai X2 so there may indeed be a Siberian link (there are other Siberian links but we are only talking about X2a here.

Doug