Did ancient native American seafarers cross

[Qoais]

"Atlantis interacted regularly with other Mediterranean empires"... in other words, Plato saying they "held sway over" ?? I would agree with that. One does not just send a canoe into the Med. and take control of the whole Western end of it do they? They would have had to have been around for quite some time I would think, to "hold sway" over Libya and Europe.

[Swede]

You forget the very ancient petroglyphs in Norway and Sweden, depicting boats with many people on it, people hunting whales and seals on the open ocean.

Abe - Cancel the above request. It was the phrase "very ancient" that threw me off. I guess I tend to think in different time-frames. Occupational hazard! The petroglyphs that I believe you are referring to date to circa 4,000 BP. This is consistent with other factors relating to Scandinavian watercraft. The earliest recovered craft that I am aware of is the Hjortspring Boat circa 2,350 - 2,300 BP. See below:

http://nautarch.tamu.edu/class/316/hjortspring/

One of the factors that I find significant here is the instability of the design that would have restricted the use of sail. It may be speculated that earlier craft would have also faced this limitation.

This paper also has some interesting points:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20793249

Amplification note - The Scandinavian Bronze Age = 3,700 BP- 2,500 BP., so consistent with petroglyphs.

Of course whaling can, depending on the situation, be pursued relatively close to shore. This activity would not necessarily entail "deep ocean" travel.

Taking the above into account and combining it with the lack of other supporting evidence, it would not appear that contact from this quarter during the period presented would be a high probability.

.

[Qoais]

Scandinavian Rock Art

Oh crap!! I thought it was bigger. I can't remember where I got this picture either. It's the one with the ancient boats.

Ok. I got it from Crichton Miller's site - here's a bigger shot:

http://www.crichtonmiller.com/carving%20from%20Vitlycke%201300BC.jpg

Edited February 28, 2010 by Qoais

[cormac mac airt]

Although scientists believed they had retrieved DNA from the fairly intact brain matter recovered from some of the human burials, subsequent research has shown that the mtDNA lineages reported are absent in all other prehistoric and contemporary Native American populations studied to date. Further attempts to retrieve more DNA have failed, and an amplification study has shown that there is no analyzable DNA left in the Windover burials.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/mesolithicarchaic/a/windover.htm

So, first they say that "subsequent research" showed that the mtDNA lineages reported are absent in all other prehistoric and contemporary Native American populations to date, thus confirming in a way what the scientist in the video already claimed.

And then they say that again further research showed there was no analyzable DNA left.

Sorry, but this sounds like a desparate attempt to please the present native Americans who would certainly be very displeased with the original results.

==

Well, I've seen the Windover lineages at the on-line mtDNA

Concordance but have not had access to any of the articles on

the subject and so take this for what it's worth.

(...)

In conclusion, if the information at the mtDNA Concordance is

accurate, then the issue is extremely murky. In a recent TV

program on the Windover Bog, Lorenz was briefly interviewed.

To the best of my recollection, he said that he was finding

European markers instead of Native American and that it could

possibly be due to contamination.

"From: Gisele Horvat" (you didn't give a link)

Sorry, but this is someone judging the research on what she thought she remembered she heard, and who didnt have access to any of the articles.

Btw, your second link directs to a different webpage.

No, this doesn't help, LOL.

The second link is right, don't know what happened to the third, but here is the correct one:

Source 3

You said:

So, first they say that "subsequent research" showed that the mtDNA lineages reported are absent in all other prehistoric and contemporary Native American populations to date, thus confirming in a way what the scientist in the video already claimed.

And then they say that again further research showed there was no analyzable DNA left.

No, what this is saying IMO is that the mtDNA lineages claimed earlier "as European” are unevidenced in all other recent and prehistoric Native American populations studied. And that futher attempts to verify the original claim failed due to lack of analyzable DNA.

As to Gisele Horvat, she's not "just someone" as you seem to imply. Among her contributions, she co-wrote or was acknowledged in the following:

Expanding Southwest Pacific mitochondrial haplogroups P and Q (2005)

Friedlaender, Jonathan, Schurr, Theodore, Gentz, Fred, Koki, George, Friedlaender, Françoise, Horvat, Gisele, Babb, Paul, Cerchio, Sal, Kaestle, Frederika, Schanfield, Moses, Deka, Ranjan, Yanagihara, Ric, Merriwether, D. Andrew

Source

Melanesian mtDNA Complexity

Friedlaender, Jonathan S., Friedlaender, Françoise R., Hodgson, Jason A., Stoltz, Matthew, Koki, George, Horvat, Gisele, Zhadanov, Sergey, Schurr, Theodore G., Merriwether, D. Andrew

Source 2

Acknowledged in: "Ancient mitochondrial M haplogroups identified in the Southwest Pacific" and "Genes, language, and culture history in the Southwest Pacific"

Source 3

Source 4

cormac

[MARAB0D]

You forget the very ancient petroglyphs in Norway and Sweden, depicting boats with many people on it, people hunting whales and seals on the open ocean.

The most ancient native population of Europe which we know is Finnish tribes, closely related to Mongolian tribes by their appearance and language except in Northern Europe they developed blond hair and blue eyes. They still live along the Arctic coast, still use long canoes, made mostly of walrus skins on a wooden frame, and still hunt seals and whales from these canoes. Same as their American relatives, Inuits, Eskimo.

But the most solid argument against the Americans ever crossing back to Old World is that since the Columbus' discovery we had intensive exchange of DISEASES with them, to which neither side had any immunity. They gave us smallpox (syphilis) and clam (gonorrhoea), while we gave them chicken pox and measles. Right at start all these diseases were deadly for those whose ancestors did not leave any immunity for them. Syphilis in medieval Europe acted like a Black Plague, emptying the entire cities - and the fact that it is now a slow-developing disease only shows that most if not each of us had an ancestor who had it. Smallpox was killing American Indians with the same efficiency.

The above shows that the human communities on both sides of Atlantic hardly ever communicated with each other at all - this means that the Africans and Europeans, if in prehistoric times even visiting Atlantis (whoops!) for trade purposes and heard those stories of "outer continent" which Plato mentions, they most likely never were at the continent itself. Even later vikings' visits to Newfoundland were probably short and did not involve contacts with native American population.

[jmccr8]

Hello,

In the artice that I posted earlier,George Erikson describes a series of imigations to the Americas of several groups of people and shows that they settled in various locations.He states that the polynesians developed communities from Brazil(human remains Luzia11,300bp),Mexico City(Penon WomanIII 12,755BP),Tula(Valley of Mexico),and Baja with the Pericue peoples would died out in the 18th century from disease.

The Olmec were an ethnicaly diverse society comprised of Mediterranian(Chichin Itza and El Ceibal),African(La Venta),and Chinese(Copan,Honduras).Erikson also states that these groups had been imigrating and developing settlements from 1,500-15,000bp.He also describes that the Algonkian and Ojibway people as being of the halogroupX.HalogroupX is also found in2-4% of european and Middle East populations.

If what he is infering is valid then the probability of these people appearing in the America creating trade and it would seem that there would also be fairly constant influx of imigrants in order to maintain the growyh of these cultures without extensive inbreeding.Would you be able to see any effect to Americans leaving a distinct dna mark on the counties that they may have been travelling to if those cultures had been interacting in Europe and the Middle East and the Americans were already from the same areas originally?They would likely have the same immunities at that time and the development and transfer of diseases may not have been the same at that time.Possibly the effects of isolation due to some change be it raising sea levels and the loss of land masses between the continents that the immunities to deseases changed as cultures in the Americas began to assimilate and intergrate.jmccr8

[Swede]

Hello,

In the artice that I posted earlier,George Erikson describes a series of imigations to the Americas of several groups of people and shows that they settled in various locations.He states that the polynesians developed communities from Brazil(human remains Luzia11,300bp),Mexico City(Penon WomanIII 12,755BP),Tula(Valley of Mexico),and Baja with the Pericue peoples would died out in the 18th century from disease.

The Olmec were an ethnicaly diverse society comprised of Mediterranian(Chichin Itza and El Ceibal),African(La Venta),and Chinese(Copan,Honduras).Erikson also states that these groups had been imigrating and developing settlements from 1,500-15,000bp.He also describes that the Algonkian and Ojibway people as being of the halogroupX.HalogroupX is also found in2-4% of european and Middle East populations.

If what he is infering is valid then the probability of these people appearing in the America creating trade and it would seem that there would also be fairly constant influx of imigrants in order to maintain the growyh of these cultures without extensive inbreeding.Would you be able to see any effect to Americans leaving a distinct dna mark on the counties that they may have been travelling to if those cultures had been interacting in Europe and the Middle East and the Americans were already from the same areas originally?They would likely have the same immunities at that time and the development and transfer of diseases may not have been the same at that time.Possibly the effects of isolation due to some change be it raising sea levels and the loss of land masses between the continents that the immunities to deseases changed as cultures in the Americas began to assimilate and intergrate.jmccr8

jmccr8 - I have not had the opportunity to read any of Mr. Erikson's work, but, based upon what you have presented (which set off some major red flags), I did take the time to do a bit of background research. I am afraid I have my doubts as to the qualifications of his research. While some sources use the term "anthropologist", others class him as an "author and explorer". In an admittedly rather brief search, I was unable to obtain a vitae. It does appear that he is associated with obvious "fringe" authors/organizations. See below;

http://www.sedonacreativelife.com/pre1230.html

Based upon your writings, a number of Erikson's positions may be more than a bit questionable. The apparent reference to X2a1b may be a good example. I will reserve further comment until more research has been conducted, but my initial impression is that we may be dealing with the next "generation" of less-than-qualified sensationalistic authors.

.

[jmccr8]

jmccr8 - I have not had the opportunity to read any of Mr. Erikson's work, but, based upon what you have presented (which set off some major red flags), I did take the time to do a bit of background research. I am afraid I have my doubts as to the qualifications of his research. While some sources use the term "anthropologist", others class him as an "author and explorer". In an admittedly rather brief search, I was unable to obtain a vitae. It does appear that he is associated with obvious "fringe" authors/organizations. See below;

http://www.sedonacreativelife.com/pre1230.html

Based upon your writings, a number of Erikson's positions may be more than a bit questionable. The apparent reference to X2a1b may be a good example. I will reserve further comment until more research has been conducted, but my initial impression is that we may be dealing with the next "generation" of less-than-qualified sensationalistic authors.

Hello Swede,

Thank you for your response I read the link that you attached and then tried poking around a bit to see what I could find,however I must note that I am not that proficient using this form of research as of yet.I saw that he has writen a fair amount of books and that from some of the articles that I perused that he does cite and quote archeologists and anthropologists but in all fairness I did not see any disclosure of his personal credentials.

The article that I had posted earlier was on History News Network and was titled "Who Were the Earliest Americans".I am sorry that I did not post a link but I haven't figured out the cut and paste process that everyone uses.

While looking for information on Erikson I saw that he has writen a book "Atlantis in America".I also saw an article on the Fuente Mangna and the Monolith of Pokotia in Bolivia.The article states that this sculpture is ingraved with Semantic and Proto Sumarian cuniform which I found interesting,this article also incorperates the use of scientists as references,although I have not checked their credentials as of yet.jmccr8

.

[Abramelin]

Abe - Cancel the above request. It was the phrase "very ancient" that threw me off. I guess I tend to think in different time-frames. Occupational hazard! The petroglyphs that I believe you are referring to date to circa 4,000 BP. This is consistent with other factors relating to Scandinavian watercraft. The earliest recovered craft that I am aware of is the Hjortspring Boat circa 2,350 - 2,300 BP. See below:

http://nautarch.tamu...16/hjortspring/

One of the factors that I find significant here is the instability of the design that would have restricted the use of sail. It may be speculated that earlier craft would have also faced this limitation.

This paper also has some interesting points:

http://cat.inist.fr/...cpsidt=20793249

Amplification note - The Scandinavian Bronze Age = 3,700 BP- 2,500 BP., so consistent with petroglyphs.

Of course whaling can, depending on the situation, be pursued relatively close to shore. This activity would not necessarily entail "deep ocean" travel.

Taking the above into account and combining it with the lack of other supporting evidence, it would not appear that contact from this quarter during the period presented would be a high probability.

.

Thanks for the links, Swede, especially the first one.

But some time ago I found this:

(...) Hesjedal thus estimates that the Sørøya images were carved between 6,000 and 9,000 years ago. That makes them the oldest known boat images in Europe and among the oldest in the world. (The boat drawers of Sørøya were certainly not the first boat builders, however; Australia was settled as early as 37,000 years ago by people who must have arrived in boats.)

Who were the early inhabitants of Sørøya? The answer is not clear. Ten thousand years ago, as the ice sheet covering Scandinavia began to shrink, northern Norway is thought to have been colonized from two directions: from the east, by hunters from the Russian steppes who were pursuing migrating game such as reindeer, and whose rock carvings of reindeer have been found not far from Sørøya on the Norwegian mainland; and from the south, by people who made their way up Norway's ice-free west coast. At the moment there is no way of telling which direction the Sørøyans came from--or whether it was both south and east.

Certainly they were accomplished sailors, because their settlements have been found on islands even farther from the coast than Sørøya. And surely, says Hesjedal, they could not have survived on the occasional reindeer; they must have eaten fish and sea mammals, both of which are plentiful in the rich, Gulf Stream-warmed waters off northern Norway. Curiously, though, apart from two murky drawings that may represent whales, no sea creatures are depicted in the rock carvings from Sørøya. (...)

http://discovermagaz...hernexpositi343

And this is an image of a textpage (about the finds in Slettnes: "The boats of Slettnes: sources of Stone Age shipbuilding in Northern Scandinavia"):

http://www3.wileyint...4/firstpage.png

EDIT:

I uploaded the textpage to a picture host to be able to display it here:

Edited March 1, 2010 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

The second link is right, don't know what happened to the third, but here is the correct one:

Source 3

You said:

No, what this is saying IMO is that the mtDNA lineages claimed earlier "as European" are unevidenced in all other recent and prehistoric Native American populations studied. And that futher attempts to verify the original claim failed due to lack of analyzable DNA.

As to Gisele Horvat, she's not "just someone" as you seem to imply. Among her contributions, she co-wrote or was acknowledged in the following:

Expanding Southwest Pacific mitochondrial haplogroups P and Q (2005)

Friedlaender, Jonathan, Schurr, Theodore, Gentz, Fred, Koki, George, Friedlaender, Françoise, Horvat, Gisele, Babb, Paul, Cerchio, Sal, Kaestle, Frederika, Schanfield, Moses, Deka, Ranjan, Yanagihara, Ric, Merriwether, D. Andrew

Source

Melanesian mtDNA Complexity

Friedlaender, Jonathan S., Friedlaender, Françoise R., Hodgson, Jason A., Stoltz, Matthew, Koki, George, Horvat, Gisele, Zhadanov, Sergey, Schurr, Theodore G., Merriwether, D. Andrew

Source 2

Acknowledged in: "Ancient mitochondrial M haplogroups identified in the Southwest Pacific" and "Genes, language, and culture history in the Southwest Pacific"

Source 3

Source 4

cormac

OK, thanks Cormac.

"Murky" is the word here, lol.

Well, I thought it was quite stunning to hear that part of the present European population might have originated in the Americas, but it was just too good to be true.

[Abramelin]

The most ancient native population of Europe which we know is Finnish tribes, closely related to Mongolian tribes by their appearance and language except in Northern Europe they developed blond hair and blue eyes. They still live along the Arctic coast, still use long canoes, made mostly of walrus skins on a wooden frame, and still hunt seals and whales from these canoes. Same as their American relatives, Inuits, Eskimo.

But the most solid argument against the Americans ever crossing back to Old World is that since the Columbus' discovery we had intensive exchange of DISEASES with them, to which neither side had any immunity. They gave us smallpox (syphilis) and clam (gonorrhoea), while we gave them chicken pox and measles. Right at start all these diseases were deadly for those whose ancestors did not leave any immunity for them. Syphilis in medieval Europe acted like a Black Plague, emptying the entire cities - and the fact that it is now a slow-developing disease only shows that most if not each of us had an ancestor who had it. Smallpox was killing American Indians with the same efficiency.

The above shows that the human communities on both sides of Atlantic hardly ever communicated with each other at all - this means that the Africans and Europeans, if in prehistoric times even visiting Atlantis (whoops!) for trade purposes and heard those stories of "outer continent" which Plato mentions, they most likely never were at the continent itself. Even later vikings' visits to Newfoundland were probably short and did not involve contacts with native American population.

"The most ancient native population of Europe which we know is Finnish tribes"

Not only the Finnish tribes, also the Basques. And their ancestors occupied the Atlantic coast of Europe, from Iberia to the UK.

"But the most solid argument against the Americans ever crossing back to Old World is that since the Columbus' discovery we had intensive exchange of DISEASES with them, to which neither side had any immunity"

But that could be explained by the long separation of these populations. If it were true ancient Americans arrived in Europe after/during the last ice age, then they had many thousands of years to build a different immunity against diseases; in short, they became 'Europeans', immune against diseases their ancestors back in America did not develop immunty against.

[Abramelin]

Swede, what do you think of this site:

http://www.paabo.ca/uirala/index.html

[cormac mac airt]

But that could be explained by the long separation of these populations. If it were true ancient Americans arrived in Europe after/during the last ice age, then they had many thousands of years to build a different immunity against diseases; in short, they became 'Europeans', immune against diseases their ancestors back in America did not develop immunty against.

How would this work, considering that NA immigrated to the Americas towards the end of the last Ice Age and fall into any one of 5 mtDNA Haplogroups. Namely A, B, C, D or X2. Those haplogroups are not going to change over time into any of the other haplogroups that are currently in Europe, such as J, M, N, U or R. The latter of which are the parent groups for the former.

cormac

[Abramelin]

How would this work, considering that NA immigrated to the Americas towards the end of the last Ice Age and fall into any one of 5 mtDNA Haplogroups. Namely A, B, C, D or X2. Those haplogroups are not going to change over time into any of the other haplogroups that are currently in Europe, such as J, M, N, U or R. The latter of which are the parent groups for the former.

cormac

I don't know; you tell me...

The Clovis culture (sometimes referred to as the Llano culture[1]) is a prehistoric Paleo-Indian culture that first appears 11,500 RCYBP (radiocarbon years before present[2]), at the end of the last glacial period, characterized by the manufacture of "Clovis points" and distinctive bone and ivory tools. Archaeologists' most precise determinations at present suggest that this radiocarbon age is equal to roughly 13,500 to 13,000 calendar years ago.

http://en.wikipedia..../Clovis_culture

==

The site of Valdivia may have been populated since 12,000 11,800 B.C according to archaeological discoveries in Monte Verde[6] (less than 200 km south of Valdivia), which would place it about a thousand years before the Clovis culture in North America. This challenges the "Clovis First" model of Migration to the New World and it is possible that the first inhabitants of Valdivia and Chile travelled to America by watercraft and not across a land-bridge in the Bering Strait.

http://en.wikipedia....Valdivia,_Chile

In short: people arrived/inhabited north America long before the end of the last ice age. And I will bet you know of this Luzia/Lucia skeleton that points to even much earlier immigrations.

EDIT:

Her facial features include a narrow, oval cranium, projecting face and pronounced chin, leading Brazilian anthropologists to theorize that Luzia's predecessors traveled across the Bering Strait, perhaps following the coastline by boat, from northeast Asia, where her ancestors had lived for tens of thousands of years since human migrations from Africa. Dr. Walter Neves, anthropologist at the University of São Paulo, suggests that Luzia belonged to these people who began arriving in the New World as early as 15,000 years ago

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

http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter54/text-LagoaSanta/text-LagoaSanta.htm

Edited March 1, 2010 by Abramelin

[MARAB0D]

"The most ancient native population of Europe which we know is Finnish tribes"

Not only the Finnish tribes, also the Basques. And their ancestors occupied the Atlantic coast of Europe, from Iberia to the UK.

"But the most solid argument against the Americans ever crossing back to Old World is that since the Columbus' discovery we had intensive exchange of DISEASES with them, to which neither side had any immunity"

But that could be explained by the long separation of these populations. If it were true ancient Americans arrived in Europe after/during the last ice age, then they had many thousands of years to build a different immunity against diseases; in short, they became 'Europeans', immune against diseases their ancestors back in America did not develop immunty against.

Yes, Basques. These are the remainders of Iberian race, also indigenous people for Southern Europe. There were also Ligurians, from them we have no tribes left as they blended with the Celts and Italian tribes, but from the Iberians we still have Basques in the West and Georgians in the East, part of Georgia is still called "Iveria". I certainly meant only northern Europe, sorry.

On immunity I would not argue, as it is possible, what you say, that the later separation period was long enough to lose the immunity. It is similar to us recently stopping to vaccinate against Pox (black death), so in a few generations we would again become vulnerable to it - and the sources of it is still available, the old graveyards where the victims were buried. The only strange part is the mentioned sexually transferred diseases, as they sure originate from the New World and never existed in the Old World - so if the ancient contact took place, it is possible to insist it did not anyhow includ sexual relationships.

[Abramelin]

Yes, Basques. These are the remainders of Iberian race, also indigenous people for Southern Europe. There were also Ligurians, from them we have no tribes left as they blended with the Celts and Italian tribes, but from the Iberians we still have Basques in the West and Georgians in the East, part of Georgia is still called "Iveria". I certainly meant only northern Europe, sorry.

On immunity I would not argue, as it is possible, what you say, that the later separation period was long enough to lose the immunity. It is similar to us recently stopping to vaccinate against Pox (black death), so in a few generations we would again become vulnerable to it - and the sources of it is still available, the old graveyards where the victims were buried. The only strange part is the mentioned sexually transferred diseases, as they sure originate from the New World and never existed in the Old World - so if the ancient contact took place, it is possible to insist it did not anyhow includ sexual relationships.

No, the ancestors of the Basques lived in Spain, Portugal, France, and later migrated to Ireland and maybe Wales and western England.

Well, that;s what's geneticists claim.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

How would this work, considering that NA immigrated to the Americas towards the end of the last Ice Age and fall into any one of 5 mtDNA Haplogroups. Namely A, B, C, D or X2. Those haplogroups are not going to change over time into any of the other haplogroups that are currently in Europe, such as J, M, N, U or R. The latter of which are the parent groups for the former.

I don't know; you tell me...

Well Abramelin unless you can show it's possible for instance to be your own grandpa, contrary to the genetic evidence, then there's no reason to believe that members of Haplogroups A, B, C, D or X2 would convert back to the parent groups of J, M, N, U or R, which are major Old World groups.

In short: people arrived/inhabited north America long before the end of the last ice age.

Depends on what one means by "the end of the Ice age". Considering that the Last Glacial Maximum happened c.20,000 BP/18,000 BC and the most recent Ice Age ended sometime between 8000 and 10,000 BC, then any NA immigrating to the Americas a few thousand years before the end wouldn't constitute "long before the end" IMO. Particularly as the last Ice Age lasted for nearly 100,000 years.

The Luzia finds, while interesting, still indicate an event that happened near the end of the Ice Age. A few thousand years one way or the other isn't a significant change in timeframes, IMO. Now, if you were to show verifiable evidence of something happening BEFORE the Last Glacial Maximum, that would be both interesting and significant.

cormac

[Abramelin]

Well Abramelin unless you can show it's possible for instance to be your own grandpa, contrary to the genetic evidence, then there's no reason to believe that members of Haplogroups A, B, C, D or X2 would convert back to the parent groups of J, M, N, U or R, which are major Old World groups.

Depends on what one means by "the end of the Ice age". Considering that the Last Glacial Maximum happened c.20,000 BP/18,000 BC and the most recent Ice Age ended sometime between 8000 and 10,000 BC, then any NA immigrating to the Americas a few thousand years before the end wouldn't constitute "long before the end" IMO. Particularly as the last Ice Age lasted for nearly 100,000 years.

The Luzia finds, while interesting, still indicate an event that happened near the end of the Ice Age. A few thousand years one way or the other isn't a significant change in timeframes, IMO. Now, if you were to show verifiable evidence of something happening BEFORE the Last Glacial Maximum, that would be both interesting and significant.

cormac

You are forgetting about the Inter-Glacials, periods during Glacial periods where the ice sheets retreated temporarily.

Anyway, I am not going to argue with you about genetics because I don't know and understand enough about it.

But what do you think about the dates on these migration patterns, based on genetics?

One says 38,000 BCE (=40,000 BP), the other says 35,000 BP.

They are wrong?

[cormac mac airt]

You are forgetting about the Inter-Glacials, periods during Glacial periods where the ice sheets retreated temporarily.

No, the interglacials are irrelevant to the discussion. Particularly as the last interglacial was between c.130,000 and c.110,000 BP, long LONG before any migrations of peoples to the Americas.

But what do you think about the dates on these migration patterns, based on genetics?

They are wrong?

Based on the current mtDNA Phylogenetic Tree, I’d have to say yes, they're wrong. Here are the dates from the current tree as relates to mtDNA groups in America:

A2: 14,600 BP

B2: 14,600 BP

C1b: 14,500 BP

D1: 13,500 BP

C1a: 13,000 BP

X2a: 12,800 BP

Even allowing some latitude of say, a few thousand years, it still makes any claims of immigration before the LGM meaningless.

I can send you a copy of the Y Chromosome and mtDNA Phylogenetic trees if you want them.

cormac

[Abramelin]

No, the interglacials are irrelevant to the discussion. Particularly as the last interglacial was between c.130,000 and c.110,000 BP, long LONG before any migrations of peoples to the Americas.

Based on the current mtDNA Phylogenetic Tree, I'd have to say yes, they're wrong. Here are the dates from the current tree as relates to mtDNA groups in America:

A2: 14,600 BP

B2: 14,600 BP

C1b: 14,500 BP

D1: 13,500 BP

C1a: 13,000 BP

X2a: 12,800 BP

Even allowing some latitude of say, a few thousand years, it still makes any claims of immigration before the LGM meaningless.

I can send you a copy of the Y Chromosome and mtDNA Phylogenetic trees if you want them.

cormac

Yes, you are right about the interglacials of course. I actually meant the interstadials, shorter and faster fluctuations of the climate during a glacial period. Some links:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Interstadial

http://en.wikipedia....Oeschger_events

An intersting interstadial is the Göttweig interstadial:

Göttweig Interstadial

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2740038

IN EUROPE the Wurm I-II or Göttweig Interstadial,lasting from about 40,000 to about 29,000 B.C.,was a period of mild,but not hot,climate,like that of the present,and of favored spots like Palestine during Wurm I. It was a time of important racial and cultural change

http://dodona.proboa...int&thread=7795

http://www.jstor.org/pss/57609

But alas, I could not find an equivalent of this Göttweig Interstadial in North America; maybe because there wasn't, or maybe I just can't find the right name for it.

But it seems to be this interstadial in which people - according to the maps I posted - started migrating to the Americas for the first time.

===========

EDIT:

I don't know how recent the next findings/theory is, but here it is anyway:

One recent model for the peopling of North and South America is the "three wave" model, which proposes that the Americas were populated by three distinct waves of migrants moving into what is now Alaska via Siberia. This theory is based on the trio of linguistic groups that exist in the Americas: Amerind, Na-dene, and Eskimo-Aleut. The geneticists, Sandro L. Bonatto and Francisco M. Salzano have proffered another theory. By analysing mitochondrial DNA sequences of modern Native North and South Americans, these researchers believe they have found evidence which suggests a single migration to the New World, with linguistic differences developing later. Furthermore, they have extrapolated an estimated migration date of between 41,000-28,000 B.C.E., based on this genetic evidence. It is clear from these examples how complex and intricate genetic and linguistic analysis can be.

http://www.ucalgary....tions/one2.html

And this estimated migration date of between 41,000 - 28,000 BCE seems to coincide nicely with the Göttweig Interstadial.

(and, lol, in case I forget it, here's a Wikipage about the migrating haplo-hopla groups : LINK- makes my head spin...)

Edited March 2, 2010 by Abramelin

[lightly]

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.

[Swede]

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.

.

[cormac mac airt]

But it seems to be this interstadial in which people - according to the maps I posted - started migrating to the Americas for the first time.

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

[TikiToa]

Does curiosity and the desire to explore make sense?

People all over the world have crossed the oceans and migrated across the continents.

I totally agree with you Abramelin

The American Indians come off of Abrahams line believe it or not, they share the same blood with the New Zealand Maori peoples/ peoples of the Cloud, the Aborigine, Pacific Islands, all of asia to the middle east to Africa and around the World again to cairo, chile, mexico etc.... The Egyptians did not stop looking for the ancients who left Egypt with Moses and caught up with them a very long time ago. That is why we have government rule in almost every country on the face of the Earth. The ancients spread out all around the globe because the ancients knew the World wasn't flat eons before the so called new land discoverers/pirates.

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPIG75lcPk0

[MARAB0D]

No, the ancestors of the Basques lived in Spain, Portugal, France, and later migrated to Ireland and maybe Wales and western England.

Well, that;s what's geneticists claim.

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.