Archaeologica.org

Let's drag this board back to archaeology.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9188095

A scientific reconstruction of one of the oldest sets of human remains found in the Americas appears to support theories that the first people who came to the hemisphere migrated from a broader area than once thought, researchers say.

Mexico's National Institute of Anthropology and History on Thursday released photos of the reconstructed image of a woman who probably lived on Mexico's Caribbean coast 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. She peeks out of the picture as a short, spry-looking woman with slightly graying hair.

Anthropologists had long believed humans migrated to the Americas in a relatively short period from a limited area in northeast Asia across a temporary land corridor that opened across the Bering Strait during an ice age.

But government archaeologist Alejandro Terrazas says the picture has now become more complicated, because the reconstruction more resembles people from southeastern Asian areas like Indonesia.

It's hardly surprising really is it Min? Walking, swimming, flying or boating the new world is difficult to miss isn't it?

Roy.

SALT LAKE CITY - (Business Wire) An international team of genetic scientists has discovered the ancestors of Native Americans had at least 15 unique maternal genetic lines, many more “founding mothers” than had been expected for the Paleo-Indians . .

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/pres ... 63544.html

Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans . . . The increasing evidence that all late Pleistocene/early Holocene human groups from South America are characteristically non-Mongoloid has major implications for the colonization of the Americas . . .

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003784.html

Like other early American skeletons, the Kennewick remains exhibit a number of morphological features that are not found in modern populations. For all craniometric dimensions, the typicality probabilities of membership in modern populations were zero, indicating that Kennewick is unlike any of the reference samples used . . . The Kennewick skeleton can be excluded, on the basis of dental and cranial morphology, from recent American Indians. More importantly, it can be excluded (on the basis of typicality probabilities) from all late Holocene human groups. There are indications, however, that the Kennewick cranium is morphologically similar to Archaic populations from the northern Great Basin region*, and to large Archaic populations in the eastern woodlands.
..........
*Hello, Kennewick Man

http://www.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/powell_rose.htm

Which, as EP can tell you, were descendants of the Red Paint People of Scandanavia.

Curiously, a certified Native American on a board I participate in recounted that a DNA study his people had been involved in put their ancestor back around 8000 BC in NorthWestern Europe/Lapland.

Now that the Woodhenge story is public, how much more evidence does there need to be ?

At least one of the 15 will have been a Jewish merchant!
Ever had your DNA checked Uni?

Roy.

Depends on which side of the Clovis-First stockade you happen to be standing, I imagine.

Something wrong there Min, can't open your link.

Roy.

Don't know what happened there. That was a picture I got for another board.

Something wrong there Min, can't open your link.

Here she is:


Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38384521/ns ... -americas/

A short, spry-looking woman with slightly graying hair? Add dirty with frayed clothing and barefoot.

Looks more southern European than SE Asian to me...

Pretensions (and politics) aside, DNA stuff is in its infancy.

Going by DNA, of all currently existing populations, the Australian Aborigines are most closely related to the Vietnamese.

Go figure.

The fact that it's in its 'infancy' doesn't automatically make all results wrong Uni any more than age automatically makes all results correct.
If your ancestry is European there is fair chance that you have a Jewish ancestor somewhere!
Shock, horror, disgust!
Go on! Take the test!!!! Be a man!!

Roy.

Digit wrote:fair chance that you have a Jewish ancestor somewhere!
Shock, horror, disgust!
Go on! Take the test!!!! Be a man!!

Test?
Like looking in your underpants...?

Why RS? Do you also assume that all Jewish males are circumcised?

Roy.

Digit wrote:Why RS? Do you also assume that all Jewish males are circumcised?

No, I don't assume that. There are many that haven't been circumcised. But if they're 'practicing' Jews they should be circumcised, according to the faith.

I wouldn't want to practice that much.