Humans in N. America Earlier Than Thought

[wyly]

I think that is fair. So what IS an scientifically acceptable source and do those sources suffer any sort of defects at all? How about Graham Hancock and his Antarctic theories for a white mother race. Does this count?

wowzer and I though CH was alone in the world, there are two of you!

So this notion completely destroys the idea of 'competing theories' then? One would think that scientific theory has a development before it is accepted as to be true for the purposes of developing further understanding using that theory.

Which is a good thing to state since it commits you to revising your position immediately when the use of mtDNA comes into question right? One would think that your rigorous defense of the utility of mtDNA would also compel you to rigorously explore ways in which this utility could be damaging.

Cite please. And don't use wikipedia. And list all competing theories too, for the purposes of being rigorously honest.

a basic lack of understanding on your part as a scientific theory is accepted to be true there cannot be a competing theory, it can only be displaced or altered by a proven strongly supported hypothesis which then becomes the new revised theory accepted to be true...

Cite please, a legitimate scientific cite. Don't use wikipedia and also provide any competing theories in your response.

there is no competing theory(as I explained there cannot be)...but just for you I'll make one up..."the first aboriginals lacking boat technology when faced with the enormous challenge of crossing open seas to the Australia continent, booked one way fares with Qantas airlines"-wyly's Book of Little known Archeological Facts...

the Wallace Line marks the region where faunal groups were prevented from migrating from asia to australia and australia to asia by deep sea waters...

Edited March 29, 2011 by wyly

[Michael Hardner]

Unless the science is subject where debate is actively surpressed like global warming.

Yes, the conspiracy theory is the impossible-to-disprove last gasp of evidence for bad ideas.

More than 90% of scientific papers can't be wrong, unless of course there is a conspiracy behind it.

[WIP]

The problem is they are still trying to prove an Asian migration - which is a way to prove the Bering Strait theory is still valid. It might be BUT the other indications - unearthing of artifacts from 40-60,000 years ago - suggest that the migration took place long before sea travel was available. There is a high probability that the migration took place right out of Africa via the Antarctic. As long as Archaeologists are stuck on the Bering Strait they will not look as earnestly as they should. After all with Pre-clovis culture(Evidence of human habitation before Clovis)showing up who knows what else they will find if they instead look for it the 60,000 year occupation. In all the sites found that have potential for a 60,000 year old occupation, it appears the migration is from the south. Check it out.

It's been said already, but a migration route across Antarctica is quite a stretch, since we would have to go back a long time to when the Antarctic was last ice-free. During brief periods of rapid warming that last melted the Arctic Ocean, the Antarctic still had ice sheets.

All the evidence from the thread-starter tells us is that archaeological evidence points to an earlier settlement than Clovis...over 2000 years before the Clovis arrowheads are found, if I recall. The archaeologist who found the site expressed a hypothesis on radio, that Clovis arrowheads were developed in central North America, and were not brought over from Asia.

From what I can gather on the subject of genetic evidence such as mtDNA, it is not cut and dried process to determine migration patterns by studying haplogroup genes. Aboriginal populations in the Americas have all five haplogroups of mitochondrial DNA, but that doesn't necessarily mean multiple migrations from all over the world, such as Europe and the Pacific Islands for example. Early migration patterns out of Africa are too complicated to tell us how every race got to their present locations today, or how much mixing of different racial groups occurred along the way.

I came across a science news article on this Brazilian research study on American origins awhile back. The authors favour the traditional model of the Beringia Land Bridge as the likely migration route, but don't rule out migration along the coasts. Since the full report is available free online, it's worth having a look at.

Ultimately, when and how the Americas were first settled is not the most crucial issue. The one thing we can be sure of is that when modern European explorers first arrived, there were already people living here. And we're still trying to deal with the fallout of exploration, invasion, settlement, and broken treaties to this day.

[TimG]

More than 90% of scientific papers can't be wrong, unless of course there is a conspiracy behind it.

Sure they can:

http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/20/a-researchers-claim-90-of-medical-research-is-wrong/?hpt=T2

Scientists are human. When money and peer recognition depends on them believing certain things they will change their beliefs. In fact, most people immediately recognize this problem if you give them research sponsered by a corporation. I find it strange that people naively assume that the same biases do not affect work which is sponsered by the governmnent.

Edited March 29, 2011 by TimG

[Shwa]

wowzer and I though CH was alone in the world, there are two of you!

No you misunderstood my post. What I would like you to do is refute Graham Hancock, that I linked from a wikipedia article, based on your understanding of science. If you lack the ability, just say so.

a basic lack of understanding on your part as a scientific theory is accepted to be true there cannot be a competing theory, it can only be displaced or altered by a proven strongly supported hypothesis which then becomes the new revised theory accepted to be true...

A Statistical Method for Empirical Testing of Competing Theories

Specifically, since the issue here is within the realm of Anthropology:

Using distance matrices to choose between competing theories and an application to the origin of modern humans

Hopefully the folks that put the above article together have enough credentials to convince you that there are indeed competing theories in science - especially so in anthropology. Competing models, hypothesis' and theories. But as a true scientist I expect you to do your own googling and not be settled in on any one thing from wikipedia or *gasp* "Science Direct."

there is no competing theory(as I explained there cannot be)...but just for you I'll make one up..."the first aboriginals lacking boat technology when faced with the enormous challenge of crossing open seas to the Australia continent, booked one way fares with Qantas airlines"-wyly's Book of Little known Archeological Facts...

the Wallace Line marks the region where faunal groups were prevented from migrating from asia to australia and australia to asia by deep sea waters...

Multiregional origin of modern humans

Whoops! This is wikipedia too. But since this isn't university, it is allowable.

[Michael Hardner]

Scientists are human. When money and peer recognition depends on them believing certain things they will change their beliefs. In fact, most people immediately recognize this problem if you give them research sponsered by a corporation. I find it strange that people naively assume that the same biases do not affect work which is sponsered by the governmnent.

1. These are not beliefs we're talking about - they're conclusions based on evidence.

2. Corporations fund studies too. If the truth is really there, why can't they fund a study to find otherwise ?

[wyly]

No you misunderstood my post. What I would like you to do is refute Graham Hancock, that I linked from a wikipedia article, based on your understanding of science. If you lack the ability, just say so.

A Statistical Method for Empirical Testing of Competing Theories

Specifically, since the issue here is within the realm of Anthropology:

Using distance matrices to choose between competing theories and an application to the origin of modern humans

Hopefully the folks that put the above article together have enough credentials to convince you that there are indeed competing theories in science - especially so in anthropology. Competing models, hypothesis' and theories. But as a true scientist I expect you to do your own googling and not be settled in on any one thing from wikipedia or *gasp* "Science Direct."

Multiregional origin of modern humans

Whoops! This is wikipedia too. But since this isn't university, it is allowable.

if you want silly debates about fantasy concepts you espouse go look up betsy in the religious section...

[Wild Bill]

No you misunderstood my post. What I would like you to do is refute Graham Hancock, that I linked from a wikipedia article, based on your understanding of science. If you lack the ability, just say so.

You give fair comment when you ask for cites but sometimes you cross the line and it appears you're trying to get your opponent to do your work for you.

Whatever, the issue here is the idea of a land bridge from the Antarctic only 50,000 years ago! Or whatever equally goofy number CR suggested.

When a reasonably scientific debate strays into Von Daniken territory it takes some nerve to demand that your opponents spend a lot of time and effort to play your game...

[Shwa]

When a reasonably scientific debate strays into Von Daniken territory it takes some nerve to demand that your opponents spend a lot of time and effort to play your game...

And of course you're right. But simply dismissing an argument because 'wikepedia' is cited or making a counter claim without citing evidence while requiring it from others opens up the rules a bit dunnit?

As IF - just because - someone says it is so, doesn't really count as any sort of authority now does it? So replying with an equal absurdity is fair game.

[Shwa]

if you want silly debates about fantasy concepts you espouse go look up betsy in the religious section...

If you want to wimp out because you lack the chops that is fine by me. But by doing so you admit that competing theories exist in science. As so amply proven.

If you wish to counter claim, bring it on. I have cited academic papers to make my point. Now make yours using equally valid sources. I mean, I have full access to JSTOR, will that be good enough for you?

[jacee]

Where do the red-haired giants of North America fit in this? Just curious.

Ancient Giants of North America Midwest Mound Builders

1888 In Minnesota, 1888, were discovered remains of seven skeletons 7 to 8 feet tall. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 29, 1888). 7 skeletons, placed in a sitting position, were uncovered from a burial mound near Clearwater, Minnesota. The highly unusual skulls double rows of teeth in both the upper and lower jaws. It was also noted that the foreheads were low and sloping, compared to "normal" human skulls.

1892  "Where Proctorville now stands was one day part of a well paved city, but I think the greatest part of it is now in the Ohio river. Only a few mounds, there; one of which was near the C. Wilgus mansion and contained a skeleton of a very large person, all double teeth, and sound, in a jaw bone that would go over the jaw with the flesh on, of a large man; The common burying ground was well filled with skeletons at a depth of about 6 feet. Part of the pavement was of boulder stone and part of wel preserved brick."  Ironton Register

[Shwa]

Where do the red-haired giants of North America fit in this? Just curious.

Likely refers to the creator myth of Red Horn which appears to be a widespread mythological cycle in protohistory and likely relates to several motifs found in mound builder or ancient Mississippian cultural contexts. However, several culture groups were known to annoint themselves, including their hair, with red ochre for ceremonial purposes. Red ochre has been found as grave offerings in cultures over a widespread area of North America and over a large time period.

1888 In Minnesota, 1888, were discovered remains of seven skeletons 7 to 8 feet tall. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 29, 1888). 7 skeletons, placed in a sitting position, were uncovered from a burial mound near Clearwater, Minnesota. The highly unusual skulls double rows of teeth in both the upper and lower jaws. It was also noted that the foreheads were low and sloping, compared to "normal" human skulls.

1892 "Where Proctorville now stands was one day part of a well paved city, but I think the greatest part of it is now in the Ohio river. Only a few mounds, there; one of which was near the C. Wilgus mansion and contained a skeleton of a very large person, all double teeth, and sound, in a jaw bone that would go over the jaw with the flesh on, of a large man; The common burying ground was well filled with skeletons at a depth of about 6 feet. Part of the pavement was of boulder stone and part of wel preserved brick." Ironton Register

Could refer to the Adena culture who occupied a midwest US territory from about 1000 BC to 100 BC and were likely some of the first mound builders in the Ohio Valley. There are Iroquoian myths about a race of giants with whom they fought. However, the recovered remains are likely the exception to the rule.

They could also refer to the Susquehannock, who were also noted to be somewhat 'tall' people.

[wyly]

Where do the red-haired giants of North America fit in this? Just curious.

Ancient Giants of North America Midwest Mound Builders

1888 In Minnesota, 1888, were discovered remains of seven skeletons 7 to 8 feet tall. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 29, 1888). 7 skeletons, placed in a sitting position, were uncovered from a burial mound near Clearwater, Minnesota. The highly unusual skulls double rows of teeth in both the upper and lower jaws. It was also noted that the foreheads were low and sloping, compared to "normal" human skulls.

1892 "Where Proctorville now stands was one day part of a well paved city, but I think the greatest part of it is now in the Ohio river. Only a few mounds, there; one of which was near the C. Wilgus mansion and contained a skeleton of a very large person, all double teeth, and sound, in a jaw bone that would go over the jaw with the flesh on, of a large man; The common burying ground was well filled with skeletons at a depth of about 6 feet. Part of the pavement was of boulder stone and part of wel preserved brick." Ironton Register

any reports from that long ago are highly suspect, the forensic ability at those times was not very good and many observational errors were made...however there are bits of truth, ancient people did have bigger jaw bones then today's, our smaller jaws are the result of more refined diets...dental abnormalities are common so mutations run in families, a family grave is likely to share abnormalities...red hair is not unique, it is found in virtually every ethnic group to some degree...and head shaping was practiced by several cultures, binding a piece of wood to an infants head would alter it's head shape permanently... Edited October 20, 2011 by wyly

[wyly]

CBC

This scientist was on Quirks & Quarks this week, and said he believes the earliest people arrived by boat from Asia.

This America truly is the New World, don't you think ?

this isn't new it was discussed decades ago...as a young archeology student 30yrs ago even I suggested they could have made the transition by boat, there locations in Asia/Australia that could have only been accessed by boat, a level of seaman ship that required a high technical ability as it would require crossing open seas...and these sailing excursions occurred at least 50K+ bp...so if they occurred then there is no reason to doubt they could not have occurred elsewhere...

[wyly]

When we were in the trees, those great apes had feet that looked like hands, as apes do today. When we came down onto the prairie grasslands, being able to walk more efficiently and eventually run faster than the lions became major survival characteristics. So our hips and our feet changed.

we were never fast enough to outrun lions or any other big predator, four legs are definitely quicker than two...the whole why we evolved into exclusive bipeds is still a wide open debate...there is even some evidence that supports the thought we were very much bipedal while still in the trees...

There IS NO evolutionary program in our genes to make us continually evolve towards some superior being! Mankind has evolved little or none over the last 50,000 years or more and unless something drastically changes it will not evolve any more over the next 50,000.

that's true if you follow Punctuated Equilibrium and I do...change can be relatively slow unless there is a major change that results in dramatic change...as for intelligence our ancient and historic ancestors were every bit as intelligent as we are...

[jacee]

any reports from that long ago are highly suspect, the forensic ability at those times was not very good and many observational errors were made...however there are bits of truth, ancient people did have bigger jaw bones then today's, our smaller jaws are the result of more refined diets...dental abnormalities are common so mutations run in families, a family grave is likely to share abnormalities...red hair is not unique, it is found in virtually every ethnic group to some degree...and head shaping was practiced by several cultures, binding a piece of wood to an infants head would alter it's head shape permanently...

Did you look at all the reports at the link, or search for your own?

It is odd that reports of such burials of very large skeletons are frequent in the 1800's but end about 1900, except for one. There are reports that the discoveries of these Caucasoid skeletons were suppressed, as US takeover of Indigenous lands proceeded, and also that info about the highly evolved Mound cultures was suppressed as settlers were brainwashed to believe that Indigenous cultures were 'primitive', racist propaganda used to justify their destruction.

[wyly]

I read a few articles awhile ago about the genetic research on Native American populations. What I recall is that there is substantial evidence of a Polynesian component in the populations in Central and South America, but not much in North America. This group that found it's way into Texas, and others like the group Kennewick Man belonged to, were likely very small in number, and were overwhelmed by sheer numbers once a passage way through the ice allowed overland travel through North America.

I'll back that...chicken bones found in S america dated to the 10century are genetically linked to Polynesian chickens, there is a S american plant found in Indonesia that arrived in the 10th century this strongly suggests a trans pacific migration of goods...there still is tribal group whose word for canoe is the same as the Polynesian word...the details of this are sketchy the archeologist in my basement is at work at the moment...there may be a Polynesian link to the Chumash tribe of California... Edited October 20, 2011 by wyly

[wyly]

Did you look at all the reports at the link, or search for your own?

It is odd that reports of such burials of very large skeletons are frequent in the 1800's but end about 1900, except for one. There are reports that the discoveries of these Caucasoid skeletons were suppressed, as US takeover of Indigenous lands proceeded, and also that info about the highly evolved Mound cultures was suppressed as settlers were brainwashed to believe that Indigenous cultures were 'primitive', racist propaganda used to justify their destruction.

I looked at the link it's amateurish..."expert" analysis of human remains from past centuries was very poor...I didn't use any links I've a past educational background in archeology and I keep informed about the latest research through the archeologist in my basement...

[Shwa]

Did you look at all the reports at the link, or search for your own?

It is odd that reports of such burials of very large skeletons are frequent in the 1800's but end about 1900, except for one. There are reports that the discoveries of these Caucasoid skeletons were suppressed, as US takeover of Indigenous lands proceeded, and also that info about the highly evolved Mound cultures was suppressed as settlers were brainwashed to believe that Indigenous cultures were 'primitive', racist propaganda used to justify their destruction.

What "caucasoid skeletons?"

[wyly]

What "caucasoid skeletons?"

that was the myth that surrounded "kennewick" man, that the native americans wanted study of the remains stopped because it would reveal the remains were that of a Caucasoid...

[ToadBrother]

that was the myth that surrounded "kennewick" man, that the native americans wanted study of the remains stopped because it would reveal the remains were that of a Caucasoid...

I think we have to be careful what we mean by "caucasoid". The best theory at the moment is that Kennewick Man is probably distantly related to an early circumpolar people of which one of the few surviving populations today may be the Ainu of Japan. They are somewhat "caucasoid" (well, there are not a lot of full-blood Ainu left), but at any rate I don't think, genetically, they are that closely related to, say, Western Europeans, and more likely closely related to some of the populations of New Guinea and Australia. In other words, Kennewick is probably a descendant of some of the very early groups to make to the Pacific basin of Asia.

[Shwa]

that was the myth that surrounded "kennewick" man, that the native americans wanted study of the remains stopped because it would reveal the remains were that of a Caucasoid...

Yeah, I read 'Bones' by Elaine Dewar. I thought there was some other Caucasoid bones hanging around somewhere that he was referencing outside of the New Age websites.

[wyly]

Yeah, I read 'Bones' by Elaine Dewar. I thought there was some other Caucasoid bones hanging around somewhere that he was referencing outside of the New Age websites.

that was my assumption that the caucasoid reference was to the "conspiracy" myths surrounding kennewick man...any other claims are sketchy at best...

I haven't read the book but I did read a review of Dewar and her book it wasn't to flattering, a lot of assumptions apparently on insufficient evidence...kennewick man remains were withdrawn from study so any conclusions are very speculative...my resident archeologist who has done forensic analysis of bones says identification from skeletal remains is very difficult there is considerable variation in individual morphology that can lead to incorrect identification...DNA is the most(only? ) reliable identifier and I'm not aware of any viable DNA retrieved from kennewick man...

an annoyance among archeologist is the top five archeology books are written by non-archeologists, probably more entertaining writing skills for the layman but tend to make irresponsible assumptions and conclusions...I get to read the actual limited edition archeology books and papers, dry reading but very informative...

Edited October 21, 2011 by wyly

[wyly]

I think we have to be careful what we mean by "caucasoid". The best theory at the moment is that Kennewick Man is probably distantly related to an early circumpolar people of which one of the few surviving populations today may be the Ainu of Japan. They are somewhat "caucasoid" (well, there are not a lot of full-blood Ainu left), but at any rate I don't think, genetically, they are that closely related to, say, Western Europeans, and more likely closely related to some of the populations of New Guinea and Australia. In other words, Kennewick is probably a descendant of some of the very early groups to make to the Pacific basin of Asia.

I looked up genetic studies of ainu, conclusions to date are they are asiatic/oriental no connection with caucasoid...and they are related to southern japanese, northern asians and tibetans...quite likely that there is some genetic connection with the natives of the americas...

[Shwa]

that was my assumption that the caucasoid reference was to the "conspiracy" myths surrounding kennewick man...any other claims are sketchy at best...

I haven't read the book but I did read a review of Dewar and her book it wasn't to flattering, a lot of assumptions apparently on insufficient evidence...kennewick man remains were withdrawn from study so any conclusions are very speculative...my resident archeologist who has done forensic analysis of bones says identification from skeletal remains is very difficult there is considerable variation in individual morphology that can lead to incorrect identification...DNA is the most(only? ) reliable identifier and I'm not aware of any viable DNA retrieved from kennewick man...

an annoyance among archeologist is the top five archeology books are written by non-archeologists, probably more entertaining writing skills for the layman but tend to make irresponsible assumptions and conclusions...I get to read the actual limited edition archeology books and papers, dry reading but very informative...

The focus on Dewar's book isn't Kennewick man though, that is a sort of back drop device for a critical review of the American archaeology establishment. Investigative journalism, not peer review. However, even the best archaeologists make a lot of assumptions on insufficient evidence, one of the points in Dewar's book. We can't blame them too much though, because everyone likes a story.