Thanks for sharing, I study a bit about human migrations...
With the conclusions I've always figured the Bering straights as an entry point of migration as opposed to the Atlantic side.

Actually all the new study really does is prove that only the Asian contribution survived.
And that thrifty pie chart map totally confirms my view that we have been looking at migrations into NA , and wrongly so, one movement in a linear west to east way.
The way I read the distribution is that the first people from Asia to enter NA were the ancestors of the evenks,EV on the map and eggplants color,they came into the new world and made it all the way down to SA and across Na to the east coast eventually. They were here fairly early and it was an isolated population of them that was trapped in beringia, for several thousand years. That population in turn ,after the ice cleared from the way south and east this newly diverged population moved both south and east. These new populations, blue, formed the basis of the next wave of people moving into the new world via the inland corridor. Those that moved back west into Asia became the stereotype north eastern Asian, Han Chinese.
The Orange peoples were the descendants of the earliest peoples in south east asia,and were a sea fairing proper that settle in all along the east coast of Asia, and were ancestral to the polynesians and were the the people who explored the kelp highway of east and west coasts of the pacific.
To be continued

Originally posted by WatchRider

Well, it doesn't explain how the European practice of burying spearheads into the ground spread to the America's (something supporting the Atlantic Migration theory).

Why is considered a European only issue? Please explain

Nor does it explain away the Asiatic tribal history of European's arriving prior to Columbus either.

Because that wasn't the point of the study, so yes it didn't do that nor did it provide a recipe for Thai style fish in red curry, lol

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by WatchRider

Well, it doesn't explain how the European practice of burying spearheads into the ground spread to the America's (something supporting the Atlantic Migration theory).

Why is considered a European only issue? Please explain

Nor does it explain away the Asiatic tribal history of European's arriving prior to Columbus either.

Because that wasn't the point of the study, so yes it didn't do that nor did it provide a recipe for Thai style fish in red curry, lol

In a large stone mortar&pestal grind up a quantity of fresh whole small shrimp, shells heads
r,legs and all into a really smelly gooey paste. Add equal quantities of corriander and cummin, then some lemon, grass( to keep the mosquitoes away),garlic, galangal, a heaping handfull of dried thai chillies and grin into the shrimp paste . Then to a hot pan with some oil and fry some onions till they carmelize, then add the paste and fry a couple of minutes then add some coconut milk kafir lime juice and Thai basil cook a couple minutes then add and the sauce is done.
All the while this is going on grill or fry a random fresh whole fish, keep the head on,so that the spirit may move on. When done pour on the sauce and serve with a fragrant jasmine rice.

it still does not explain the Clovis points and tools that are not found in Asia or Alaska.

what happened???
The Clovis came in some way without leaving a trail behind. that is not normally seen in any migration
stress of migration might have caused regression from a higher skilled technique like pressure flaking to the cruder flint knapping but not the other way around

How does the Clovis people start making Clovis points with a highly skilled technique out of the blue in they came from a Asian flint knapping culture ???ETs maybe.

but the later groups left a trail

The Clovis people used pressure flaking to make there points, This was common in Europe
and the later groups used cruder flint knapping that was common in Asia.

And there is no transition sites where both techniques were being used at the same time.

the DNA means nothing until these other questions can be answered as they have a real lack of a large numbers of Clovis sources to run DNA on

Originally posted by ANNED
The Clovis came in some way without leaving a trail behind. that is not normally seen in any migration

Let's not forget that there were no people called "Clovis". It is an artificial appellation used to organise users of a particular stone tool industry. There were people here before Clovis, and people here since. The same people could have developed the technique, then abandoned it. DNA is more of an absolute manner of tracking migration than toolmaking. Lovely tools, though.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by ANNED
The Clovis came in some way without leaving a trail behind. that is not normally seen in any migration

Let's not forget that there were no people called "Clovis". It is an artificial appellation used to organise users of a particular stone tool industry. There were people here before Clovis, and people here since. The same people could have developed the technique, then abandoned it. DNA is more of an absolute manner of tracking migration than toolmaking. Lovely tools, though.

Yeah one speculation is that a single individual or family created the 'clovis points' which then spread to their descendents - who abandoned the points thousands of years later for easier to make ones later on, perhaps the Folsom points.