Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nth American Indian origins

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Shamus View Post
    We have a good remainder of the tribe here in Michigan,although their name has been massacred into "Chippewa":).
    Most things are massacred in 'the Mitt' when Don is out hunting so why not Ojibwe into Chippewa:))Gigawabamin Nagutch(see you later);)

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by dave lukins View Post
      Most things are massacred in 'the Mitt' when Don is out hunting so why not Ojibwe into Chippewa:))Gigawabamin Nagutch(see you later);)
      ;)
      "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." Thomas Jefferson

      Comment


      • #33


        OK. Back to Mihais' question. I poked around some more on the "Solutrean Hypothesis" & found that a bunch of what I "knew" has been superseded. I thought it was kind of , uh, well, a little, uh, romantic when I was at the university, but apparently some new sites in the East have been found, & one of those is along an ancient (now inland) shoreline in Virginia where well-matching fishing tools have been found. There are also many more small-tool finds, including some obviously made from the fullers of the bigger ones & the major orientation has changed from trying to match Clovis tools & clovis site dates with European tools & dates to working on the notion that if Solutrean type tech appeared in America it was pre-Clovis.

        In addition MDNA sampling, at least according to happy Solutrean enthusiasts, suggests that a form of an allele otherwise seen only in Europe is present in Amerind populations. The overall prevalence of this critter, since it's only about 3% over all Amerind samples, isn't as important as the distribution, which shows the largest frequency, up to 25% in the population, in samples from the Eastern Woodlands region. Golly.

        Pari's question: There is indeed what appears to be New Age cultural interference with DNA sampling, & this comes not only from Native American groups but also from the politically correct among non-Indians. In one legal brief a plaintiff trying to stop DNA sampling of a frozen guy's remains (in pretty good shape for a dude who turned out to have been dead for more than 8000yrs), said, essentially, "Our religious beliefs hold that our people have held exclusive occupation of this region since the beginning of the world, so scientific testing with the design of determining the origins of this man, our ancestor, expresses contempt for our religion." Or words to that effect.

        So now I guess I'd better start reading a bunch of stuff. Of course, I realize that this ice-age Atlantic crossing stuff happened, if it happened at all, thousands of years before my little pet Black Sea flood scenario, but I still like that idea, & this Solutrean stuff is beginning to look kinda cool. Why not? When I was a kid my textbooks mentioned pre-Columbian Scandinavian visits to our shores as a tenuous possibility, & those visits are pretty much established facts now, with their own archaeological sites.

        Prof

        Comment


        • #34
          Okay Prof, since I have a huge amount of Indian DNA in my heritage, you have me very curious about this situation....so I've been googling.

          I'm not sure if I'm starting in the right place, so I will provide a link I've been reading, and you let me know if I'm close or not.

          RootsWeb: GENEALOGY-DNA-L Re: [DNA] N. America's 1st Migrants Were Few, Study Says

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Julie View Post
            Okay Prof, since I have a huge amount of Indian DNA in my heritage, you have me very curious about this situation....so I've been googling.

            I'm not sure if I'm starting in the right place, so I will provide a link I've been reading, and you let me know if I'm close or not.

            RootsWeb: GENEALOGY-DNA-L Re: [DNA] N. America's 1st Migrants Were Few, Study Says
            Ms. Julie:

            The discussion there reminds me a little of the E-mail from the English Weather Center unautherized downloads. That is, it's written in English, but since it's mostly scientific specialist peer (@ least @ some level) correspondence I understand about 1/2 of it.

            Trouble is, I just don't know enough about genetics. Guess I need to bump my background knowledge significantly. Ah, well, that's what being retired is supposed to be all about. So, I'll keep poking around in tool technology, which is something I do understand, for fun & info, but go after basic inheritance in my copious free time. That's the sort of thing the post ArpaNet Net was supposed to be all about, itself.

            Here's to your putative halibut-huntin' ice-floe-ridin' bifacial-fullered-point-pressure-flakin' frog-originatin' ancestors (or, given that we're talkin' MDNA, ancestrixes ).

            Prof

            Comment


            • #36
              Oh. The gracious & powerful thread fairy (revered be his name) entitled this thread "Nth American Indian Origins" but if anyone knows anything about possible exogenous maritime migration to South & MesoAmerica, by all means shout it out, genetic tags & all. Not to mention SA->Polynesia migration. Everyone was migrating everywhere all the time, I suspect, on foot & afloat.

              Prof

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Julie View Post
                Okay Prof, since I have a huge amount of Indian DNA in my heritage, you have me very curious about this situation....so I've been googling.

                I'm not sure if I'm starting in the right place, so I will provide a link I've been reading, and you let me know if I'm close or not.

                RootsWeb: GENEALOGY-DNA-L Re: [DNA] N. America's 1st Migrants Were Few, Study Says
                Let,me guess,you descend from some Cherokee chief.
                Those who know don't speak
                He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                Comment


                • #38
                  Prof,the Black Sea area remains important.On a side note our own scholars tend to give a frack about it.After all,we might be one of the oldest populations in Europe,but who cares.Now the next question about your Indians,did you find anything about the period when the presumed Europeans(mind you,not modern Indo-Europeans)mixed with the rest.
                  3% means that:a.the Solutrean were few(makes sense,their population base was small from the start,same as with the Scandinavians 1000 years ago)
                  b.a lil' genocide happened
                  Those who know don't speak
                  He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                    Prof,the Black Sea area remains important.On a side note our own scholars tend to give a frack about it.After all,we might be one of the oldest populations in Europe,but who cares.Now the next question about your Indians,did you find anything about the period when the presumed Europeans(mind you,not modern Indo-Europeans)mixed with the rest.
                    3% means that:a.the Solutrean were few(makes sense,their population base was small from the start,same as with the Scandinavians 1000 years ago)
                    b.a lil' genocide happened
                    Mihais:

                    A problem with the social sciences (or, better, & without any intention of belittlement, the "pseudosciences") is an inherent inferiority complex. I'm not talking sociology here, which is an incoherent mess. I'm talking about prehistoric anthropology (both cultural & physical, & there I include modern Medicine), structural linguistics, archaeology & paleontology. Groupthink in those fields is very nervous about its access to the Scientific Method as compared with the access, oh, say, physics or chemistry has. Nobody's yelling that out, but the feeling is there.

                    Because of the nature of the subject matter & paucity of available data, most of the work, & good work, too, has lent itself better to 18th & 19th century-style descriptive science, but that sort of venue is passe & insufficiently rigorous, so we feel bad & try to come up with solutions to that deficit. They can be funny.

                    Research in clinical Medicine, for example, can be hilarious. This is, because it has to be, very squishy science. We don't acknowledge that squishiness, though. In order to avoid the use of reason in the process (a factor inimical to classic rigid experimental science prior to the "hypothesis/testing/repetition/support/theory" algorithm being finished, after which it's fine), supportive repetition is the order of the day, even when it's stupid.

                    A team tosses 114 rocks into the air & observes that they all, except for a few that land on a table, fall back down. (R=.93,P=<0.001 ) A couple of months later another journal publishes a paper on a team that tossed oranges instead. An eminently publishable piece since the lofted objects are different. Similar results. Discussion ruminates on the "Table Effect", which now enters the lexicon.

                    What I'm saying is that while thinking doesn't completely come to a halt after a squishy hypothesis is supported, available citations become more important than critical thinking, because those make it look more like Real Science.

                    So: Prehistoric central European population spread & linguistic divergence aren't scientifically interesting topics because there aren't enough lit cites, & there aren't enough lit cites because the subject isn't scientifically interesting, etc., in a circle.

                    As for your points:

                    a) Yep. Just a few, undoubtedly, if they came. But if that MDNA evidence is real then enough did come to influence the overall Amerind genotype. If so, it's interesting that the highest marker concentration was concentrated in the geographical region where this Solutrean business was supposed to be going on. And remember, the currently best thought of "theory" has a single migration of ~50-70 individuals across the Bering Strait accounting for all Amerinds.

                    b) No need for genocide. As a matter of fact, there really isn't any need to know the reason for the low overall percentage or the skewed distribution. Just confirmation that the marker is real, is really there & if the distribution is real.

                    Prof

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Prof View Post
                      Mihais:

                      a) Yep. Just a few, undoubtedly, if they came. But if that MDNA evidence is real then enough did come to influence the overall Amerind genotype. If so, it's interesting that the highest marker concentration was concentrated in the geographical region where this Solutrean business was supposed to be going on. And remember, the currently best thought of "theory" has a single migration of ~50-70 individuals across the Bering Strait accounting for all Amerinds.

                      b) No need for genocide. As a matter of fact, there really isn't any need to know the reason for the low overall percentage or the skewed distribution. Just confirmation that the marker is real, is really there & if the distribution is real.
                      Prof
                      Doc,IIRC from my genetics courses,you need at least 200-250 individuals to have a genetically viable population,or in something like 25-30 generations the population is wiped out due to interbreeding.So the 50-70 smells like fish.

                      I was reading an article(only paper but maybe I'll find something online and in English)about the Phoenician markers in Tunisia(found in ~20% of the population)and the authors had concluded that's due to either low initial numbers or due to Roman salting Carthage.Now I confessed how I came to suggest the (presumed)killing.
                      But I agree with you.The fact that it exist is significant enough.

                      p.s Yes,there are pseudosciences(in case my GF reads this).
                      Those who know don't speak
                      He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                        Let,me guess,you descend from some Cherokee chief.
                        On the money. How did you know? My grandmother was full-blooded Cherokee on my father's side as well as my mother's side. So, between the two's I acquired alot. Black hair, dark skin. :)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Yummy. 'Course, anything made out of girl...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Prof View Post
                            Yummy. 'Course, anything made out of girl...
                            Yup...:)) Okay, Prof, I've been doing lots-o-reading on this, and I'm confused. Do you think entry was made from Alaska, or from the Eastern Seaboard?

                            I know yall have discussed the Siberia-Alaska Ice-free corridor, but I have read where older Clovis artifacts have been found on the eastern seaboard.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Julie View Post
                              Yup...:)) Okay, Prof, I've been doing lots-o-reading on this, and I'm confused. Do you think entry was made from Alaska, or from the Eastern Seaboard?

                              I know yall have discussed the Siberia-Alaska Ice-free corridor, but I have read where older Clovis artifacts have been found on the eastern seaboard.
                              Ms. Julie:

                              The currently favored single small-group migration idea seems too unlikely (I'm being polite) to be true.

                              Personally I have a hunch, & that's all it is, that there were multiple migration routes & that migrations occurred over thousands of years . The most common route was probably transsiberian into Alaska, because at various times there was always, for many thousands of years, either plain old pedestrian access or a narrow strait. I also suspect now that an E->W North Atlantic route was at least available (most likely limited to the ice age in question) & that this "Solutrean Solution" is better than a coin flip. I might feel better about that when I get the genetics down better. I also suspect that there is likely to have been a Maritime route to South & Central America, also probably E->W, fairly late, sometime just a little before 6000BCE, but also some evidence for a W->E Maritime route as well.

                              Turns out a) that the Eastern "Clovis" (New Mexico town for which the original site was named in the '30s) sites are now more common & appear to be older than the Western sites & b) The Eastern ones could probably be more accurately described as "Pre-Clovis", that is, ancestral. That particular culture more likely migrated inland from E-> W than the other way around. All of that fits with European types getting here first from across the North Atlantic, spreading West, after a while bumping into successive waves of Siberian types spreading Southeast.

                              What fun! Everybody heads for America from everywhere! Party time! Mammoth & extinct fish on the barbie.

                              Prof
                              Last edited by Prof; 18 Jan 10,, 02:12. Reason: addition

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Well, I found this very interesting and I'm going to post it. This excavation site is about 60 miles from where I live:

                                Since 1998, archaeologists at a site in Allendale County have been making discoveries that have the potential to rewrite the history - or more precisely, the prehistory - of our state.

                                The Topper site, named for a local resident who first found ancient artifacts at this location that borders the eastern shore of the Savannah River, has been the subject of major media attention because of the unearthing of evidence that human habitation in North America predates traditional estimates.

                                One of the staple beliefs of paleoamerican research - the term "paleo" is derived from the Greek word for "ancient" - holds that the first Americans appeared no earlier than 13,000 years ago; these early humans, it is thought, originated in Northeast Asia and crossed over to our continent after the last Ice Age.

                                Labeled the Clovis culture by scientists because the first evidence of these ancestors of the indigenous people of North America was found in the 1930s near present-day Clovis, N.M., these prehistoric humans were noted for their creation of distinctly shaped stone spear points used in the hunting of bison and mastodon and other early mammals.

                                The Topper site offers rich evidence of Clovis occupation in the Central Savannah River Area; in fact, the team responsible for excavating the site, members of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, think that they have discovered at Topper an early quarry used by the Clovis people to gather the materials - in this case, a type of rock known as chert - for fashioning their stone tools.

                                Just its identification as a Clovis site would have been enough to make Topper an archaeological location of intense scientific interest, but a decision made by Dr. Albert Goodyear, the founder and director of the Allendale Paleoindian Expedition, to dig deeper than is generally the case at most such sites led to hypotheses that have made headlines.

                                In 2004, Goodyear and his team dug four meters below the surface and found artifacts in a layer of burnt plant remains that were subsequently tested via radiocarbon dating. The finding that this charcoal deposit is as old as 50,000 years may lend credence to the theory that human habitation on this continent dates much, much earlier than anyone supposed. Goodyear himself asserts that "Topper is the oldest radiocarbon-dated site in North America."

                                The verdict is still out, however, as to whether this evidence alone contradicts the long-held belief that early humans first arrived in America from Asia 13,000 years ago.

                                Many scientists argue that there is still not sufficient proof - incontrovertible material evidence - to support that contention.

                                Still, this pre-Clovis claim is tantalizing - and the search for further proof is under way, thanks to the ongoing work of the S.C. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology at USC. Excavation continues unabated, with the active encouragement of the Clariant Corporation, which owns 2,000 acres in Allendale County, including the Topper site.

                                This Swiss-based company not only decided to provide camping facilities for the staff of the Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey but also made a significant financial contribution to the construction of a pavilion that shelters some of the most critical area of excavation - a viewing deck was added at this spot for the convenience of visitors in 2007.

                                Anyone can take part in this history-making effort to rewrite our state's prehistorical past.

                                Each summer, members of the public can join the "expedition" and participate in the dig by paying a largely tax-deductible fee; in return, they get to "work" the site and learn more about excavation techniques and artifact identification. For more information, visit TOPPER SITE- ALLENDALE-EXPEDITION REGISTRATION.

                                Dr. Mack is a Carolina Trustee Professor at USC Aiken.

                                Local site rewrites history of early humans in America | Aiken Standard | Aiken, SC

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X