Archaeologica.org

Haplogroup M in Ancient North America

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpr ... americans/

uniface wrote:Haplogroup M in Ancient North America

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpr ... americans/

Interesting article. Fairly old, too. I wonder if there is anything more current on the subject?

I believe that as technology advances, we will be forced to acknowledge that mankind roamed everywhere on Earth that he was able to wander to...

Why does "conventional wisdom" insist on placing limitations on the 'whom' and the 'where & when'?

circumspice wrote:

uniface wrote:Haplogroup M in Ancient North America

I believe that as technology advances, we will be forced to acknowledge that mankind roamed everywhere on Earth that he was able to wander to...

Why does "conventional wisdom" insist on placing limitations on the 'whom' and the 'where & when'?

It takes a certain amount of curiosity to wonder what's around the corner or over the hill. For years "conventional scientists have taught that before HSS came on the scene men were one step above animals and didn't think outside the bubble that was their world or territory. They told us finding food and protection were the only things that mattered to them, they were unable to think that maybe there was food over there.

I often got in trouble with teachers because I said that without curiosity we wouldn't have made any progress at all.

uniface wrote:Haplogroup M in Ancient North America

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpr ... americans/

From what I can make out from the abstract, I don't think that they found M mt DNA widely in surviving populations.

There is a difference between a few mariners carrying technologies, and a larger group leading to later descendants.

Another vegetable for the soup.

E.P. Grondine wrote:There is a difference between a few mariners carrying technologies, and a larger group leading to later descendants.

Which spread faster and wider: technologies (i.e. cultures) or DNA?
Of course there is no hard and fast answer. Sometimes technologies (cultures) would spread faster and wider, and sometimes DNA. But, all in all, I bet they went hand-in-hand.

Yeah, but E.P.s point is still valid. One shipwrecked survivor can teach someone how to shape a stone in a certain way but he is not a viable candidate for establishing a dynasty.

Minimalist wrote:Yeah, but E.P.s point is still valid. One shipwrecked survivor can teach someone how to shape a stone in a certain way but he is not a viable candidate for establishing a dynasty.

I disagree: if he could still do "it", his chances of establishing a genetical dynasty among his new best friends are extremely strong, because his DNA would be totally 'fresh', i.e. different from the local DNA, and therefore a strong, radical, and healthy, DNA strain relative to those of the locals. It would 'anchor' easily, desired, in the local DNA landscape. And Hey! Presto! you have a genetical 'dynasty'! That would be visible in the local DNA landscape for generations, centuries. Millennia even. In fact, I bet it sticks out like a sore thumb, like a lighthouse, if you know how to look for it.

Abstract speculation aside : if there is one constant in history, it is that -- absent extraordinary circumstances (the pan-Islamic civilization of the middle ages comes to mind) -- ethnic-cultural differences tend to breed animosities which, in turn, result in anywhere from ethnic cleansings to outright, systematic genocide.

I've broached this before, with less than enthusiastic response, but that can't be helped.

One example directly relevant to haplogroup survival (or otherwise) in North America would certainly be the Crow Creek Massacre in 1325 of the Initial Coalescent people by the Middle Missouri people in South Dakota.

The survivors encountered by the Europeans here were not necessarily a representative cross-section or composite of everyone who ever made it over here.

For whatever this may be worth -- posted for no better reason than that it confirms my suspicions about the thoroughness, relative completeness and overall accuracy of the technology as it exists and is practiced. (Global Warming, anyone ?)

http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/8692

The problem with DNA is that it is only looking at the outer inherited lines. It is only direct mother to mother and direct father to father. See (F=Father, M=Mother, L=Lost):

0. Current
1. (F + M)
2. (F + L) + (L + M)
3. (F + L) + (L + L) + (L + L) + (L + M)
4. (F + L) + (L + L) + (L + L) + (L + L) + (L + L) + (L + L) + (L + L) + (L + M)

So in our DNA we have 9 persons accounted for of 31. Just 4 generations back we have lost 71%. Now what if other DNA is present from those Lost persons, but we currently lack the ability to trace it. (Really irrelevant as all cultures are either matrilinear or patrilinear for legal purposes.) The thing is, a ton of gold mine keys could be hidden in our DNA, but we can only trace two things.

Eventually, I believe the other peoples will show up as being present. We just have dominant breeding strains as the primary tracers at the moment.