Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Abramelin

Did ancient native American seafarers cross

265 posts in this topic

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. :tu: 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :rofl:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :alien:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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:

ANewChronologyfortheHumanmtDNATree.jpg

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 223c.gif23,000 to 223c.gif19,000 years ago. Toward the end of the LGM, a strong population expansion started 223c.gif18,000 and finished 223c.gif15,000 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much appreciated Swede. :tu: 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!

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :rofl:

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.

:lol: 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/2004/TECH/science/11/17/carolina.dig/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=165493

Doggerland ar an early stage:

2007_dogger_1.jpg

At a later stage:

doggerlandoriginsof.jpg

doggerland.jpg

doggerlandou5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's Northern Europe on that chart? The Bok Saga speaks of people living in the North 75,000 years ago. Dating of bones found in the cave described by Ior Bok, validates this claim. Why couldn't people have migrated to the Americas from there, thousands of years farther back in history than what we're claiming? Once the people realized that they were becoming frozen in, they surely would have tried to move on. Some that stayed probably thought they could wait out the freeze, and seemingly, they did. But the Bok Saga also talks about sending out "rememberers" to the colonies, keeping tabs on them to make sure they were upholding the traditions and to teach them the ancient language based on their sound system. Where would these "rememberers" go? They had to have known where the colonies were, and they had to have a way to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Abramelin,

Jump back up there and re-read Swede's post #232. As he said, "the Cordilleran/Laurentide ice passage wasn't available from at least the LGM to circa 11,500". Meaning there was no open passage from c.18,000 BC - 11,500 BC. Anyone coming over had to do so by following the ice shelf, by sea, or waiting things out. Neither of which, once again, is relevant to your Gottweig Interstadial given as 40,000 - 29,000 BC nor to any possible migrations of NA to Europe during that Interstadial.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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...)

.

How can a genetic evidence tell where exactly the mixing few thousand years ago did occur? We have absolutely bullet-proof historical records about the Celts (Gauls) blending with the Iberians in Spain and forming the mixed tribes of Celto-Ibers. That those celts were exactly the same Gauls as in now-France comes from the name of Portugal, meaning Port of Gaul, the sea gates to Gaul. Celtic tribes were the first Indo-Europeans settling in Europe, this is why they occupied the Western part of it. They are "Celts" only because they were using the specific axe of this name, but the ancient descriptions of the Gauls are all matching the people, living today in Ireland and Wales. Iberians may have left traces in their genotype but did little to change their phenotype.

If my memory works OK then the first celts came to Europe from Asia Minor in the end of 3rd beginning of 2nd millenium AD, followed by the Germanic tribes in the middle-late 2nd millenium AD, Greek literature actually describes first Germanic tribes coming (Dorians) and they did not come from Asia Minor but from Northern Africa, hence that Philistine/Olaf hypothesis. Greeks thought they originated from ants, hence those under Achiless' command were called Mirmidons, Ants. Hellenes are also Celts, but mixed with Iberians and Phoenicians, same as most Italian tribes - one has to keep in mind that Romans were distinguioshing two Gauls - Transalpian (European) and Cisalpian (northern part of Italy).

Nennius gives another version of Celts coming to Britain, by deriving them from the Trojans, who landed in Latium with Aeneus, but later instead of forming one tribe with Aborigines (later Latins), left Italy under leadership of Brutus, nephew of Aeneus, sailed through Gibraltar and landed at Cassiteras, renaming them into Britain after their leader. In his view Ireland was populated independently from Spain - so he puts the timeframe of re-settling of the Celts to Ireland and Britain as about 11th-12th century BC. I mean there is no such thing as pre-Celts at 5000 BC, they were already formed tribes from Asia Minor and came to Europe much later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Abramelin,

Jump back up there and re-read Swede's post #232. As he said, "the Cordilleran/Laurentide ice passage wasn't available from at least the LGM to circa 11,500". Meaning there was no open passage from c.18,000 BC - 11,500 BC. Anyone coming over had to do so by following the ice shelf, by sea, or waiting things out. Neither of which, once again, is relevant to your Gottweig Interstadial given as 40,000 - 29,000 BC nor to any possible migrations of NA to Europe during that Interstadial.

cormac

???

The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) refers to the time of maximum extent of the ice sheets during the last glacial period, approximately 20,000 years ago.[1] This extreme persisted for several thousand years. It is followed by the Late Glacial Maximum.

http://en.wikipedia....Glacial_Maximum

Swede said:

"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."

So, from around 20,000 - 11,500 BP the ice passage wasn't availabe.

The Gottweig Interstadial lasted from roughly 40,000 BC to about 24,000 BC..... was there a passage in the Cordilleran/Laurentide ice sheet then??

EDIT:

Migrants from northeastern Asia could have walked to Alaska with relative ease when Beringia was above sea level. But traveling south from Alaska to the rest of North America may have posed significant challenges. The two main possible routes proposed south for human migration are: down the Pacific coast or by way of an interior passage along the eastern flank of the Rocky Mountains.[14] When the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets were at their maximum extent, both routes were likely impassable. The Cordilleran sheet reached across to the Pacific shore in the west, and its eastern edge abutted the Laurentide, near the present border between British Columbia and Alberta. Geological evidence suggests the Pacific coastal route was open for overland travel before 23,000 years ago and after 15,000 years ago. During the coldest millennia of the last ice age, roughly 23,000 to 19,000 years ago, lobes of glaciers hundreds of kilometers wide flowed down to the sea.[12] Deep crevasses scarred their surfaces, making travel across them dangerous. Even if people traveled by boat—a claim for which there is currently no direct archaeological evidence as sea level rise has hidden the old coast line — the journey would have been difficult with abundant icebergs in the water. Around 15,000 to 13,000 years ago the coast was presumed ice-free. Additionally, by this time the climate had warmed, and lands were covered in grass and trees. Early Paleo-Indian groups could have readily replenished their food supplies, repaired clothing and tents, and replaced broken or lost tools.[12]

Coastal or watercraft theories have broad implications; one being that Paleo-Indians in North America may not have been purely terrestrial "big-game hunters", but instead were already adapted to maritime or semi-maritime lifestyles.[8] Additionally, it is possible that "Beringian" (western Alaskan) or European groups migrated into the northern interior and coastlines only to meet their demise during the last glacial maximum, approximately 20,000 years ago,[18] leaving evidence of occupation in specific localized areas. However they would not be considered a founding population, unless they had managed to migrate south, populate and survive the coldest part of the last ice-age.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_migration_to_the_New_World

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

???

The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) refers to the time of maximum extent of the ice sheets during the last glacial period, approximately 20,000 years ago.[1] This extreme persisted for several thousand years. It is followed by the Late Glacial Maximum.

http://en.wikipedia....Glacial_Maximum

Swede said:

"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."

So, from around 20,000 - 11,500 BP the ice passage wasn't availabe.

The Gottweig Interstadial lasted from roughly 40,000 BC to about 24,000 BC..... was there a passage in the Cordilleran/Laurentide ice sheet then??

EDIT:

Migrants from northeastern Asia could have walked to Alaska with relative ease when Beringia was above sea level. But traveling south from Alaska to the rest of North America may have posed significant challenges. The two main possible routes proposed south for human migration are: down the Pacific coast or by way of an interior passage along the eastern flank of the Rocky Mountains.[14] When the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets were at their maximum extent, both routes were likely impassable. The Cordilleran sheet reached across to the Pacific shore in the west, and its eastern edge abutted the Laurentide, near the present border between British Columbia and Alberta. Geological evidence suggests the Pacific coastal route was open for overland travel before 23,000 years ago and after 15,000 years ago. During the coldest millennia of the last ice age, roughly 23,000 to 19,000 years ago, lobes of glaciers hundreds of kilometers wide flowed down to the sea.[12] Deep crevasses scarred their surfaces, making travel across them dangerous. Even if people traveled by boata claim for which there is currently no direct archaeological evidence as sea level rise has hidden the old coast line the journey would have been difficult with abundant icebergs in the water. Around 15,000 to 13,000 years ago the coast was presumed ice-free. Additionally, by this time the climate had warmed, and lands were covered in grass and trees. Early Paleo-Indian groups could have readily replenished their food supplies, repaired clothing and tents, and replaced broken or lost tools.[12]

Coastal or watercraft theories have broad implications; one being that Paleo-Indians in North America may not have been purely terrestrial "big-game hunters", but instead were already adapted to maritime or semi-maritime lifestyles.[8] Additionally, it is possible that "Beringian" (western Alaskan) or European groups migrated into the northern interior and coastlines only to meet their demise during the last glacial maximum, approximately 20,000 years ago,[18] leaving evidence of occupation in specific localized areas. However they would not be considered a founding population, unless they had managed to migrate south, populate and survive the coldest part of the last ice-age.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_migration_to_the_New_World

I think perhaps you've answered your own question, since the bolded part above and the 20,000 - 11,500 BP I mentioned earlier are the same general timeframe where there was NO ice-free corridor. The possibility of an ice-free corridor before the Last Glacial Maximum shows no evidenced archaeological or genetic connection with human migrations into the Americas, particularly the US, thus far. All of which is still not helpful to any speculation of early NA migrating across North America only to manage their way back into Europe.

There had been no ice-free passage south along the eastern margin of the Cordillera from about 21,000 YBP (perhaps earlier) to as late as 12,000 YBP.

The Ice-Free Corridor Revisited

The ends of what was later to become an ice-free corridor had begun to open by 15,000 14C y.a., but about 1000 km of ice still remained blocking its course.

NORTH AMERICA DURING THE LAST 150,000 YEARS

An "ice free corridor" through western Canada to the northern plains is thought to have opened up no earlier than 13,500 years ago.

Late Glacial Maximum

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abramelin, Thanks a lot for showing the location of the Doggerlands , again. I like to look at Satellite images of continental shelves and other now submerged lands... and sometimes try to find the depths.. to see what was above water at certain times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abramelin, Thanks a lot for showing the location of the Doggerlands , again. I like to look at Satellite images of continental shelves and other now submerged lands... and sometimes try to find the depths.. to see what was above water at certain times.

Well Lightlyy. read the Doggerland thread if you like. I have posted many images of the submerged land that is now the North Sea.

Yeah, I know, it's a lot of pages, but - well, that's just me - it's worth the trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think perhaps you've answered your own question, since the bolded part above and the 20,000 - 11,500 BP I mentioned earlier are the same general timeframe where there was NO ice-free corridor. The possibility of an ice-free corridor before the Last Glacial Maximum shows no evidenced archaeological or genetic connection with human migrations into the Americas, particularly the US, thus far. All of which is still not helpful to any speculation of early NA migrating across North America only to manage their way back into Europe.

cormac

I have read here and there - and I think you and many here did too - that there are signs the Americas were being peopled long before 20,000 BP.

Now there may have been no ice-free coridor, but people also travelled by boat/canoe.

And that is what I said: anything that might prove a far earlier arrival into the Americas is very probably lying off the now submerged coast of north west America/ Alaska.

But yes, you are right, there is no scientific proof of that as far as I know of.

Liightlyy talked about the Red Paint Peopl/Maritime Archaic. Many finds in ancient Europe are very similar to finds in North America.

I think it's no coincidence, I think they were in contact.

There have been reports during the past centuries of people arriving in Ireland and Scotland. Some say they may have been Inuit who had drifted of course. I read here, on Unexplained Mysteries, about a discovery in Greenland (??), dating to only 5000 years ago of people who were genetically linked to Siberian people (if I find that post again I will add a link).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's Northern Europe on that chart? The Bok Saga speaks of people living in the North 75,000 years ago. Dating of bones found in the cave described by Ior Bok, validates this claim. Why couldn't people have migrated to the Americas from there, thousands of years farther back in history than what we're claiming? Once the people realized that they were becoming frozen in, they surely would have tried to move on. Some that stayed probably thought they could wait out the freeze, and seemingly, they did. But the Bok Saga also talks about sending out "rememberers" to the colonies, keeping tabs on them to make sure they were upholding the traditions and to teach them the ancient language based on their sound system. Where would these "rememberers" go? They had to have known where the colonies were, and they had to have a way to get there.

I am sure I said earlier in this thread that people resembling the present day Saami (Lapps) may have taken part in the migrations to America, along with the Siberian Mongoloids.

And what chart are you talking about? The ones I posed about Doggerland??

Btw, the Bok Saga appears to me to be a hoax, just like the Dutch "Oera Linda Book".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abramelin, Thanks a lot for showing the location of the Doggerlands , again. I like to look at Satellite images of continental shelves and other now submerged lands... and sometimes try to find the depths.. to see what was above water at certain times.

It may help if instead of satellite images you look at bathymetry maps of the ocean floor, as they normally colour-code the elevation levels. To find them I search for "bathymetry" or "ocean floor maps" or just ocean bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.