264 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

Swede, on 02 March 2010 - 04:23 AM, said:

Abe, Cormac - What a delight to observe the presentation of worthwhile information. A boon to these pages! It is late, and I have had another long day, so just a few points;

Abe - Thanks for the references, as I was unaware of the more northern glyphs. Unfortunately, I have not had the time to pull up photos. Studying the construction elements could be most insightful. As to the Paabo site, well, I can't really put a great deal of faith in a "Fine Artist" of natural subject matter. If time allows, I will attempt to evaluate his material.

As to the genetic mapping, I would be inclined to consider the second of the two to be the most consistent with other supporting data. The most current information that I have available would tend to indicate at least three immigrations amongst the A,B,C/D haplogroups. The X haplogroup, particularly X2a1b is a relatively new element in the puzzle. While I may have my own personal thoughts, the truth is that the jury is still out on this one. Also, as I have noted under other headings, there is evidence for at least one other gene pool that appears to have suffered extinction.

Cormac - As always, I personally appreciate you taking the time to present this data. May others take note. What many of the individuals in the field are presently attempting to reconcile is the genetic/linguistic/archaeological/forensic/climatological evidence. As you have noted, there is a bit of leeway in regards to the fine-line definition of genetic divergence.

All factors taken into account, a time frame of circa 20,000 to 25,000 (in regards to human habitation of the Americas) may not be too out of line.

Much appreciated Swede.     As the knowledge garnered through genetics is accumulating by leaps and bounds, it pays to use the most recent information one can.

I'm hesitant to go as far as your 20,000 to 25,000 BP dating, just yet, for anything other than Alaska and Northern Canada. That may change in time, but currently I don't believe it's applicable to the lower 48 States, Central or South America.

cormac

[lightly]

Swede said:  
All factors taken into account, a time frame of circa 20,000 to 25,000 (in regards to human habitation of the Americas) may not be too out of line.

   HOORAYYY !*!*!*!*!*!*!*       i was getting awfully tired of hearing...   """" " people came to  the Americas across the Bering Straight  10 to 12 thousand years ago.   We KNOW they did because we KNOW they did.  " """"""      I'm not sure why.. but i basically Never bought that idea... it just seemed too small  and constricted.

Edited by lightlyy, 02 March 2010 - 12:34 PM.

[TheSearcher]

lightlyy, on 02 March 2010 - 12:31 PM, said:

Swede said:  
All factors taken into account, a time frame of circa 20,000 to 25,000 (in regards to human habitation of the Americas) may not be too out of line.

   HOORAYYY !*!*!*!*!*!*!*       i was getting awfully tired of hearing...   """" " people came to  the Americas across the Bering Straight  10 to 12 thousand years ago.   We KNOW they did because we KNOW they did.  " """"""      I'm not sure why.. but i basically Never bought that idea... it just seemed too small  and constricted.

That said, 2000 years of time to migrate across the Bering straight is plenty of time too, all things considered.... I know this, because I know this, because I know this......

Getting aggravated yet?  

This said, we could say the migration started about 25.000 years ago and ended about 12 to 10.000 years ago. I'm fairly sure that this was a gradual process, rather than the mass move of people, which is a misconception many people seem to have.

[cormac mac airt]

lightlyy, on 02 March 2010 - 12:31 PM, said:

Swede said:  
All factors taken into account, a time frame of circa 20,000 to 25,000 (in regards to human habitation of the Americas) may not be too out of line.

   HOORAYYY !*!*!*!*!*!*!*       i was getting awfully tired of hearing...   """" " people came to  the Americas across the Bering Straight  10 to 12 thousand years ago.   We KNOW they did because we KNOW they did.  " """"""      I'm not sure why.. but i basically Never bought that idea... it just seemed too small  and constricted.

Hi lightly,

In all fairness to the original theorists, who had to start somewhere, at least they weren't trying to say the Native Americans "magically appeared out of nowhere". Much like the claim fringe theorists make of civilizations in Egypt and Sumer. That science is pushing those dates back is to be expected, especially where and when we can utilize genetic studies. Keep in mind that those are much like computers, it doesn't take much time at all for the latest information to become obsolete.

cormac

[Littlehawk]

This was a great topic, I agree. It's interesting to play that "what if" game, but my whole take on it is: while it MAY have been possible, I'm not really sure why they would have needed to risk life and limb to go anywhere. Food was abundant, disease was low, there was plenty of land. Most Tribes were happy here ... until.... you know who showed up. I'm speaking only for the tribes I know about, but most were happy with what they had, not seeking to take any more than they needed. It doesn't seem logical, under those circumstances, that they'd have needed to leave.

That's not to say they didn't! I don't know - and without evidence, Science will say it never happened!  

[Abramelin]

cormac mac airt, on 02 March 2010 - 04:34 AM, said:

I don't feel it's really meaningful to use maps which are 8 - 10 years old and therefore outdated, as there is much, MUCH more known via Y Chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups and their migration now than there was then.

For anyone who's interested, here is the most recent (10 November 2009) Mitochondrial Phylogenetic Tree:



Abramelin, you can find the sub-clades I mentioned on the tree along with their dates (numbered in blue-kya). Again, nowhere near the older proposed dates your earlier maps showed before.

cormac

Yes, the date the research was performed is important because the conclusions based on new found data appear to change every year.


Just look at this (from 1998):

From:
http://www.mitochond...hp?pmid=9837837

Am J Hum Genet (1998) 63: 1852-61.
mtDNA haplogroup X: An ancient link between Europe/Western Asia and North America?

MD Brown, SH Hosseini, A Torroni, HJ Bandelt, JC Allen, TG Schurr, R Scozzari, F Cruciani, DC Wallace


On the basis of comprehensive RFLP analysis, it has been inferred that approximately 97% of Native American mtDNAs belong to one of four major founding mtDNA lineages, designated haplogroups "A"-"D." It has been proposed that a fifth mtDNA haplogroup (haplogroup X) represents a minor founding lineage in Native Americans. Unlike haplogroups A-D, haplogroup X is also found at low frequencies in modern European populations. To investigate the origins, diversity, and continental relationships of this haplogroup, we performed mtDNA high-resolution RFLP and complete control region (CR) sequence analysis on 22 putative Native American haplogroup X and 14 putative European haplogroup X mtDNAs. The results identified a consensus haplogroup X motif that characterizes our European and Native American samples. Among Native Americans, haplogroup X appears to be essentially restricted to northern Amerindian groups, including the Ojibwa, the Nuu-Chah-Nulth, the Sioux, and the Yakima, although we also observed this haplogroup in the Na-Dene-speaking Navajo. Median network analysis indicated that European and Native American haplogroup X mtDNAs, although distinct, nevertheless are distantly related to each other. Time estimates for the arrival of X in North America are 12,000-36,000 years ago, depending on the number of assumed founders, thus supporting the conclusion that the peoples harboring haplogroup X were among the original founders of Native American populations. To date, haplogroup X has not been unambiguously identified in Asia, raising the possibility that some Native American founders were of Caucasian ancestry.

==

And from 2004 (according to the date of the most recent reference on that webpage):
LINK

In human mitochondrial genetics, Haplogroup X is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup which can be used to define genetic populations. The genetic sequences of haplogroup X diverged originally from haplogroup N, and subsequently further diverged about 20,000 to 30,000 years ago to give two sub-groups, X1 and X2. Overall haplogroup X accounts for about 2% of the population of Europe, the Near East and North Africa. Sub-group X1 is much less numerous, and restricted to North and East Africa, and also the Near East. Sub-group X2 appears to have undergone extensive population expansion and dispersal around or soon after the last glacial maximum, about 21,000 years ago. It is more strongly present in the Near East, the Caucasus, and Mediterranean Europe; and somewhat less strongly present in the rest of Europe. Particular concentrations appear in Georgia (8%), the Orkney Islands (in Scotland) (7%) and amongst the Israeli Druze (26%); the latter are presumably due to a founder effect.

North and South AmericaHaplogroup X is also one of the five haplogroups found in the indigenous peoples of the Americas.[1] Although it occurs only at a frequency of about 3% for the total current indigenous population of the Americas, it is a major haplogroup in northeastern North America, where among the Algonquian peoples it comprises up to 25% of mtDNA types. It is also present in lesser percentages to the west and south of this area -- in North America among the Sioux (15%), the Nuu-Chah-Nulth (11%–13%), the Navajo (7%), and the Yakima (5%), and in South America among the Yanomami people (12%) in eight villages in Roraima in northwestern Brazil.

Unlike the four main Native American haplogroups (A, B, C, and D), X is not at all strongly associated with East Asia. The sole occurrence of X in Asia discovered so far is in Altaia in South Siberia (Derenko et al, 2001), and detailed examination (Reidla et al, 2003) has shown that the Altaian sequences are all almost identical, suggesting that they arrived in the area probably from the South Caucasus more recently than 5000 BC.

This 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-f 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".[2]

The Solutrean Hypothesis posits that haplogroup X reached North America with a wave of European migration about 20,000 BC by the Solutreans, a stone-age culture in south-western France and in Spain, by boat around the southern edge of the Arctic ice pack.

============================

The next paper refutes this claim about the first arrival and the Europe/Solutrean connection.

This paper dates from March 2008:

http://www.familytre...undes-et-al.pdf  or:

http://www.sciencedi...33edb49bfcc5ee7


A detailed demographic history of the mtDNA sequences estimated with a Bayesian coalescent method indicates a complex model for the peopling of the Americas, in which the initial differentiation from Asian populations ended with a moderate bottleneck in Beringia during the last glacial maximum (LGM), around 23,000 to 19,000 years ago. Toward the end of the LGM, a strong population expansion started 18,000 and finished 15,000 years ago. These results support a pre-Clovis occupation of the New World, suggesting a rapid settlement of the continent along a Pacific coastal route.

But even that earliest date is still very early.

Edited by Abramelin, 02 March 2010 - 02:30 PM.

[Swede]

cormac mac airt, on 02 March 2010 - 09:49 AM, said:

Much appreciated Swede.     As the knowledge garnered through genetics is accumulating by leaps and bounds, it pays to use the most recent information one can.

I'm hesitant to go as far as your 20,000 to 25,000 BP dating, just yet, for anything other than Alaska and Northern Canada. That may change in time, but currently I don't believe it's applicable to the lower 48 States, Central or South America.

cormac

I can understand your reserve, but the evidence from Meadowcroft, Cactus Hill, Topper, etc. is quite compelling at least as far as predating the 14,600 figure by over 1,000 yrs. And then we have Monte Verde. Taking into account the recent information that indicates that the Cordilleran/Laurentide ice passage wasn't available from at least the LGM to circa 11,500 (with apparently no herbivores in the area until 10,500), the western coastal route is gaining more support. Should this be the case, earlier dates become more of a possibility. The low population density during the late Pleistocene certainly influences the number of sites that may exist from this period and thus it will likely take quite some time to confirm such earlier dates.

On the other hand, we are in a period of rather rapid expansion of our knowledge in this regard. Exciting times!

.

[Abramelin]

MARAB0D, on 02 March 2010 - 08:03 AM, said:

I did not say they were not living there, I said they were living over all South Europe up to Caucasis in the east. They still have similar languages, cuisine and even dances. And Georgians were living there since time prehistoric, it is from them Jason pinched golden fleece and Medea (they still have this name in use). Golden fleece was the technology of alluvial gold extraction on sheepskins, which the Greeks wanted desperately, and Medea was a chemist... Later Georgians fell under Persian rule, but retained the original tongue.

On migration to Ireland and Britain you clearly confuse them with the Celts. Spain in coastal areas was populated with the mixed Celto-Iberian tribes, which during the Punic wars were Roman allies and in 3rd century BC were known exactly as Celtiberes. Some of these tribes could together with the Celts move to Ireland and Britain. In Britain they were living all over the island until the Scots arrived from Ireland and took over the northern part, trying to spread all over. But in 1st century BC Brits (as they were calling themselves) were colonized by Romans and later baptised. They were remaining a Roman colony and protected against Scots till late 4th century AD when the Romans abandoned the colony. Soon after this Horsa and Hengwist, two Saxon vikings from Denmark (on Roman maps "Angulus" hence Anglo-Saxes) arrived and were hired by the Brits for protection against Scots in exchange for the lands (East Sax, WestSax, South Sax etc), but then the war happened with the fast multiplying Saxons and when the peace was once celebrated, Hengwist suddenly ordered the Saxes to draw their saxes (cleavers), so they slayed most of British gentry and fighters, and squeezed out the rest of them into Wales, which was named like this because it was covered with forest. Brits were pure Celts like Gauls, Boadicea was their queen captured by the Romans. It is enough to compare the appearance of a typical Iberian with any Irish, Welsh or Scottish to make sure they may have only a minority of their blood, as the Basques (same as Georgians) are olive skinned and very dark haired people, resembling Persians, they are of another race than Celts, as Iberians are a separate kind of people, maybe lived in Europe before the Deluge. Just find photos of the Basques and compare with the Welsh or Irish.

"They still have similar languages, cuisine and even dances."

Similar languages?? I think a linguist would disagree with you here. There is the slightest of slightest of similarity, and if you read the theories about it, you'll notice that linguists have tried - almost in desparation - to link the Basque language to another language.

"On migration to Ireland and Britain you clearly confuse them with the Celts"

No, not at all. There seems to be genetic evidence that the ancestors of the Basques went to Ireland and Wales (and part of England), and mixed with the pre-Celtic tribes living there (some say even the Irish Book of Invasions/Conquests talks about their arrival). Or maybe it was the other way round because it is said that the first pre-Celtic tribes arrived there around 5000 BC.

And you cannot just compare present day looks. You can be white as a lilly with blond hair and blue eyes, but still have genetic markers inherited from some ancient black African ancestor in your family tree.

BUT....

The Basques and Britons tend to be far apart in the BGA maps. One example from one of the most accurate BGA maps developed so far: the Basques are quite apart from the Britons, the Britons tend to fall in the Orcadian cluster, or in between France and the Orcadians.

http://i50.tinypic.com/2zs79dj.png

From : https://www.forumbio...p?t=3193&page=2

Like I already said: the new data flood in every year, and every year the theories about migration patterns have to be adapted.

(and I haven't the faintest clue what BGA stands for...)


.

Edited by Abramelin, 02 March 2010 - 02:46 PM.

[lightly]

TheSearcher, on 02 March 2010 - 12:55 PM, said:

That said, 2000 years of time to migrate across the Bering straight is plenty of time too, all things considered.... I know this, because I know this, because I know this......

Getting aggravated yet?  

This said, we could say the migration started about 25.000 years ago and ended about 12 to 10.000 years ago. I'm fairly sure that this was a gradual process, rather than the mass move of people, which is a misconception many people seem to have.

       naaaaa  ..i'm not getting aggravated ...   closed mindedness does bug me tho... people should be more empty minded   ..like me!  lol   . . . . .  What you say is true..  The dates for the Bering Straight crossings are being pushed back by necessity.    .. I stumbled upon this bit (below)  while doing a little suggested (by Swede) reading about the Cactus HIll and Topper sites.

( Hi Cormac   ... copy that  .. . . .  over. )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many scientists thought humans first ventured into the New World across a land bridge from present-day Russia into Alaska about 13,000 years ago.

This new discovery suggests humans may have crossed the land bridge into the Americas much earlier -- possibly during an ice age -- and rapidly colonized the two continents.

"It poses some real problems trying to explain how you have people (arriving) in Central Asia almost at the same time as people in the Eastern United States," said Theodore Schurr, anthropology professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a curator at the school's museum.

"You almost have to hope for instantaneous expansion ... We're talking about a very rapid movement of people around the globe."

Since the 1930s, archaeologists generally believed North America was settled by hunters following large game over the land bridge about 13,000 years ago.

"That had been repeated so many times in textbooks and lectures it became part of the common lore," said Dennis Stanford, curator of archeology at the Smithsonian Institution. "People forgot it was only an unproven hypothesis."

A growing body of evidence has prompted scientists to challenge that assumption.

A scattering of sites from South America to Oklahoma have found evidence of a human presence before 13,000 years ago -- or the first Clovis sites -- since the discovery of human artifacts in a cave near Clovis, New Mexico, in 1936.

These discoveries are leading archaeologists to support alternative theories -- such as settlement by sea -- for the Americas.

http://www.cnn.com/2....dig/index.html

[Abramelin]

lightlyy, on 02 March 2010 - 03:18 AM, said:

hi Abramelin,  so have DNA or Immunity differences sunk the west to east N. Atlantic travelers ?

This is my personal favorite info bit about  that so far.. from your  post #179 - page 12.

"The oldest Maritime Archaic sight in Europe
is Teviec prospering about 7200 years ago, off the coast of Brittany in
France, and the artifacts, method of burial, artistic designs, and evidence
of shamanistic rituals of the Maritime Archaic in Europe are amazingly
similar to the other Red Paint sights in America. "

with  Older amazingly similar evidence being found  in N. America (9000 yrs. ago?)   and Labrador... and Greenland...    it seems like the amazing similarities spoken of would strongly suggest a very similar, and  so  interactive ? , culture skirting  the entire  N. Atlantic  .. for quite awhile at least ?      or is that much too speculative??    Another case of parallel development ?  .. maybe.. but how can the amazingly similar ,culturally specific,  transAtlantic artistic designs  be explained away ????  
   dunno... interesting thread tho.

Well, lol, you know what I will say to that: the people who survived the tsunami that flooded Doggerland  around 8100 BP fled to all corners of the North Sea, and further into Europe. And as I have posted in the Doggerland thread, they were very probably great seafarers -  and god knows what they were doing on Doggerland when it was still above sealevel - and spread their culture wherever they settled. Maybe even America ? And the Fomorians from Irish legends (described as being a darker race of people) maybe came from America, but where whiped out by the invasions of the Doggerlanders, and after that by the pre-Celtic tribes (around 5000 BC) and the ancient ancestors of the Basques.

But this is just a nice fantasie, lol.

[cormac mac airt]

Swede, on 02 March 2010 - 02:24 PM, said:

I can understand your reserve, but the evidence from Meadowcroft, Cactus Hill, Topper, etc. is quite compelling at least as far as predating the 14,600 figure by over 1,000 yrs. And then we have Monte Verde. Taking into account the recent information that indicates that the Cordilleran/Laurentide ice passage wasn't available from at least the LGM to circa 11,500 (with apparently no herbivores in the area until 10,500), the western coastal route is gaining more support. Should this be the case, earlier dates become more of a possibility. The low population density during the late Pleistocene certainly influences the number of sites that may exist from this period and thus it will likely take quite some time to confirm such earlier dates.

On the other hand, we are in a period of rather rapid expansion of our knowledge in this regard. Exciting times!

Which is why some latitude should be given to the dates we do have. We can't dismiss your dates outright, as we are quickly approaching at least the lower end of them, but I don't believe the Gottweig Interstadial that Abramelin was talking about is even remotely relevant at present. Perhaps that will change in time, but for now I don't think it's even on-the-table, so to speak.

cormac

[Abramelin]

cormac mac airt, on 02 March 2010 - 03:40 PM, said:

Which is why some latitude should be given to the dates we do have. We can't dismiss your dates outright, as we are quickly approaching at least the lower end of them, but I don't believe the Gottweig Interstadial that Abramelin was talking about is even remotely relevant at present. Perhaps that will change in time, but for now I don't think it's even on-the-table, so to speak.

cormac

The Göttweig Interstadial was an interval in the last ice age when conditions in Europe and Siberia changed for the better, and a lot of migrations and cultural changes took place.

Even though at present the latest research on genetics concerning the DNA of native Americans shows that the first migration to the Americas took place around 18,000 BP, linguists put that date of first arrival almost a millennium further back in time.

Now I know you and me have our doubts about that date the linguists came up with.

But at that interstadial there were people living on the Siberian side of the Bering Strait. For me it is not a farfatched idea to assume these people did cross that Bering Strait landbridge at that time.

The conditions on that landbridge were similar to those on the Siberian side, people wandered, and just continued their journey, hunting game or whatever.

And I think that all the proof we need for that much earlier date is lying on the bottom of the present Bering Strait or off the submerged coast of Alaska.

[lightly]

Aberamelin,     your Doggerland stuff is Interesting.... but i forgot  and can't find where it was...   where exactly were the Doggerlands?   ... nestled between England and France???

[Harte]

Abramelin, on 02 March 2010 - 07:42 PM, said:

The Göttweig Interstadial was an interval in the last ice age when conditions in Europe and Siberia changed for the better, and a lot of migrations and cultural changes took place.

Even though at present the latest research on genetics concerning the DNA of native Americans shows that the first migration to the Americas took place around 18,000 BP, linguists put that date of first arrival almost a millennium further back in time.

Now I know you and me have our doubts about that date the linguists came up with.

But at that interstadial there were people living on the Siberian side of the Bering Strait. For me it is not a farfatched idea to assume these people did cross that Bering Strait landbridge at that time.

The way I see it, the debate has never been about precisely when the first human entered North (or South) America.

It's been more about what evidence we have and how to interpret it.

I am certain that, when the "Clovis first" school of thought was predominant, there was not a single researcher that thought that the Clovis people crossed the Bering land bridge and then immediately beat it down to Clovis, New Mexico and started making spear points.

I mean, everybody in the field realizes that they are only able to determine what the evidence itself tells them, which may or may not have anything to do with the actual date of the crossing of the land bridge that was made by the people that left the evidence in question.

I think we can be certain that people crossed over and then crossed back several times.  Some stayed, some returned.  Whatever.

But the only factual case(s) that we can make is (are) associated with actual evidence that we can find.

Everything else is speculation.  Of course, in this case it is reasonably logical speculation.

Harte

[Abramelin]

lightlyy, on 02 March 2010 - 08:04 PM, said:

Aberamelin, your Doggerland stuff is Interesting.... but i forgot  and can't find where it was...   where exactly were the Doggerlands?   ... nestled between England and France???

I'd say between England, Holland and Denmark.


http://www.unexplain...howtopic=165493

Doggerland ar an early stage:



At a later stage: