new DNA conclusions

[unclemac]

Native American origins: When the DNA points two ways - LA Times

I think some of us here have been saying this for quite some time...the next decade or so should be pretty interesting as new and better research takes place.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[GatorBoy]

That's a very good article thank you for posting.
I actually have a hard time believing that there was no indigenous population of humans before one or even two major waves of migration I just have a feeling there were native people here for much longer than that and never really migrated here from much of anywhere.

 

[Charl]

Thanks for the article. The Australasian connection is very interesting, and the two studies differ in how they think that genetic contribution arrived in the New World. Here is a bit more on the Australasian aspect:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/science/tracing-routes-to-america-through-ancient-dna.html?_r=1

So, what of the Solutrean Hypothesis? Still alive, no doubt. But, what many here may not know is the degree to which the Solutrean Hypothesis has been appropriated by racist white supremacists. Here is an example of their warped thought. Pretty sad:

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1085526/

"One of the ideas that the liberal left desperately attempts to suppress is the concept that America was first discovered by White men. In other words, we were here first."

"White Folks were here in America for many thousands of years before the first Asian savage set foot here.America is not in Asia, no Asian is native to America.
It is totally obvious that the White Folks that were here in America were White, because the skull of a white person is obviously different from the skull of an Indian."

Brilliant analysis, Professor Moe, Larry, or is it Curly?

Hope I'm not insulting The Three Stooges.


Got news for these clowns.
Unfortunately for their fantasies of "we white people were here before the savages", the genetic disposition for white skin did not develop in Europeans until as recently as 8000 years ago. So, sorry, white supremacists Solutrean supporters, but if Europeans using Solutrean technology did land in Delmarva >20,000 years ago, they were dark skinned.


White skin spread to Europe just 8,000 years ago, study claims | Daily Mail Online

"The first Europeans looked dramatically different to many of the fair skinned populations that live there today.In fact, new research suggests Caucasians were a relatively recent addition to the area, arriving on the continent just 8,000 years ago.
They joined a much darker-skinned population who were the original migrants to Europe from Africa, arriving around 40,000 years ago."



What's wrong with this illustration?? Bald guy looks like my Uncle Pat from Dublin.....

The great thing about DNA research is that it's difficult to argue with objective information/results that can't reflect any underlying biases, agendas, motives. It is what it is. Kennewick Man's genetics were most closely related to Native Americans living today. So some physical evolution took place here, since the skull is indeed different. That alone is a fascinating finding, though even that is still disputed by the guy who studied the remains the most, I believe.

But this latest is more food for thought. A relation of two Amazonian tribes to Australian aborigines. As Spock would say, fascinating. Heck of a puzzle!

 

[RGINN]

I always had a problem with that Bering Strait migration theory. Probably a few brave souls got lost and came across that way, but I've never believed that was the sole source of populating the Americas. Could be we haven't found the evidence proving half my ancestors sprang up full grown on this continent or we've been misinterpreting the evidence we have. If you come across it, check out 'Red Earth, White Lies' by Vine Deloria. He challenges the theory that everybody came over from Asia about 10,000 years ago, and admittedly he puts forth a couple of ideas that are 'out there', but still a good read and persuasive argument that will make you wonder.

 

[unclemac]

That's a very good article thank you for posting.
I actually have a hard time believing that there was no indigenous population of humans before one or even two major waves of migration I just have a feeling there were native people here for much longer than that and never really migrated here from much of anywhere.

...and the whole thought that coastal peoples WOULD NOT have used seafaring technologies to transport themselves is pretty absurd too. How would you travel down a pristine coast of unlimited game and fish?....by foot along nonexistent paths and roads and bridges at 3 miles a day...or by canoe at 30 miles a day? Plus add to that that the ancient coast lines are long since flooded and wiped out.

The Pacific Islanders found every island fit for habitat in and ocean four times the size of Asia...using boats that most of us wouldn't chance taking out of a pond on a still day today.

There is a lot more to learn...

 

[unclemac]

"we white people were here before the savages",

...and even if it were true...and it's not....Europeans would have been "savages" at the time too...

 

[unclemac]

I always had a problem with that Bering Strait migration theory. Probably a few brave souls got lost and came across that way, but I've never believed that was the sole source of populating the Americas. Could be we haven't found the evidence proving half my ancestors sprang up full grown on this continent or we've been misinterpreting the evidence we have. If you come across it, check out 'Red Earth, White Lies' by Vine Deloria. He challenges the theory that everybody came over from Asia about 10,000 years ago, and admittedly he puts forth a couple of ideas that are 'out there', but still a good read and persuasive argument that will make you wonder.

I think, from my understanding it goes something like this...

These peoples living on the HUGE Bering strait "land bridge" (Beringia) which at its greatest extent covered an area as large as British Columbia and Alberta together, were isolated there for 5,00 years. Moving west AND east became necessary as the sea level rose. Look at how similar the peoples and technologies are in Alaska and Kamchatka.

We have that great resource on this site from that feller who collects over there. A lot of his stuff looks like what I find on the beaches in WA state.

 

[Charl]

Here's a good look at this surprising connection between Amazon tribes and Australasians. Short video with one of the study authors:

American History 201 | HMS

"“About 2 percent of the ancestry of Amazonians today comes from this Australasian lineage that’s not present in the same way elsewhere in the Americas,” said Reich.

However, that doesn’t establish how much of their ancestry comes from Population Y. If Population Y were 100 percent Australasian, that would indeed mean they contributed 2 percent of the DNA of today’s Amazonians. But if Population Y mixed with other groups such as the First Americans before they reached the Americas, the amount of DNA they contributed to today’s Amazonians could be much higher—up to 85 percent.


To answer that question, researchers would need to sample DNA from the remains of a person who belonged to Population Y. Such DNA hasn’t been obtained yet. One place to look might be in the skeletons of early Native Americans whose skulls some researchers say have Australasian features. The majority of these skeletons were found in Brazil."

I guess the peopling of the Americas just got a little more diverse. The aboregenies have been in Australia for at least 55,000 years, maybe 70,000. They have relatives in the Amazon. Some very old dates from the Amazon too. We don't hear about Paleo sites down there much, but I believe they show some really old dates.