Alternate theory of inhabitation of North America disproved

There has long been a debate among scholars about the origins of the first inhabitants of North America. The most widely accepted theory is that sometime before 14,000 years ago, humans migrated from Siberia to Alaska by means of a "land bridge" that spanned the Bering Strait. However, in the 1990s, a small but vocal group of researchers proposed that North America was first settled by Upper Paleolithic people from Europe, who moved from east to west through Greenland via a glacial "ice bridge." Now, researchers at the University of Missouri, working with colleagues the Cleveland Museum of Natural History and elsewhere, have definitively disproved the ice bridge theory.

Alternate theory of inhabitation of North America disproved

It's been a while since I last heard of someone confident enough to proclaim a cherished, long taught, anthropological theory "definitively" disproved. A professor of anthropology at Michigan University of Missouri* and dean of the College of Arts and Science is the subject of this declaration:

"We know, however, that Solutrean culture began around 22,000 to 17,000 years ago, which is later than North American dates pointed to by ice bridge theorists as proof that Solutrean people populated North America. That includes the date from the Cinmar mastodon."

So according to the data gathered the whole 'land-bridge' idea was probably not valid? It still seems like their dancing around acknowledging, that early mankind may not have been the cave-dwelling, survivalist dimwit after all... more likely the Americas had been visited by multiple distinct cultures, long ago.

originally posted by: Maxmars

There has long been a debate among scholars about the origins of the first inhabitants of North America. The most widely accepted theory is that sometime before 14,000 years ago, humans migrated from Siberia to Alaska by means of a "land bridge" that spanned the Bering Strait. However, in the 1990s, a small but vocal group of researchers proposed that North America was first settled by Upper Paleolithic people from Europe, who moved from east to west through Greenland via a glacial "ice bridge." Now, researchers at the University of Missouri, working with colleagues the Cleveland Museum of Natural History and elsewhere, have definitively disproved the ice bridge theory.

Alternate theory of inhabitation of North America disproved

It's been a while since I last heard of someone confident enough to proclaim a cherished, long taught, anthropological theory "disproved. A professor of anthropology at Michigan University and dean of the College of Arts and Science is the subject of this declaration:

"We know, however, that Solutrean culture began around 22,000 to 17,000 years ago, which is later than North American dates pointed to by ice bridge theorists as proof that Solutrean people populated North America. That includes the date from the Cinmar mastodon."

So according to the data gathered the whole 'land-bridge' idea was probably not valid? It still seems like their dancing around acknowledging, that early mankind may not have been the cave-dwelling, survivalist dimwit after all... more likely the Americas had been visited by multiple distinct long, long ago.

The Solutrean theory has been out for a while now.

And there have been many artifacts in Virginia that are much older than Clovis. The land bridge theory was just a theory.

They are even starting to question Out of Africa, because much older bones have been found. The finding that Europeans have Neanderthal ancestry is really throwing them for a loop because it destroyed their paradigm.

I have 2.9% Neanderthal, geneticists say that Asian have higher percentages. Right now they are still saying that Neanderthal is extinct, yet according to their own definition a species is not extinct if it has descendents. Neanderthal is not extinct, merely hybrid.

With all of that water from the oceans piled up into miles of ice in the North it would not be hard to imagine the ocean currents and swells were much different . It's not hard to imagine that even low teck man could build reed boats and have caught a ocean current to have moved about much different then today .I think Robert Shock wants to look into the waters surrounding Easter Island for rock that is not present on the surface . Who knows maybe he will find ancient structure reclaimed by the melted ice sheets .

Turkey seems to hold a key to fixing many of the dates and give us a good picture as to what man was capable of back then .Why they buried that site is something that might just give us answers to questions that have not been asked as yet .

Although I do not agree with the land bridge theory being the only way that humans got to America, I have to say that this does not prove that it didn't happen that way. What it does say as the conclusions made that we got here this way were not valid. I think some may have come over that way, but the people in South America probably wouldn't have gone up from Africa then back around and down all the way to the lower end of South America.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Although I do not agree with the land bridge theory being the only way that humans got to America, I have to say that this does not prove that it didn't happen that way. What it does say as the conclusions made that we got here this way were not valid. I think some may have come over that way, but the people in South America probably wouldn't have gone up from Africa then back around and down all the way to the lower end of South America.

I say it was Pangaea. I know that theory is very hotly debated, but if you look at the globe, it makes sense.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I definitely agree about the neanderthal. They are not extinct, my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents were probably Neanderthals. Neanderthals are still alive in many of us.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: rickymouse
Although I do not agree with the land bridge theory being the only way that humans got to America, I have to say that this does not prove that it didn't happen that way. What it does say as the conclusions made that we got here this way were not valid. I think some may have come over that way, but the people in South America probably wouldn't have gone up from Africa then back around and down all the way to the lower end of South America.

I say it was Pangaea. I know that theory is very hotly debated, but if you look at the globe, it makes sense.

I know they had ships that could have crossed the ocean over three thousand years ago because of the ancient writings. We were very intelligent beings even back then. The world didn't get flat till the Spanish people decided it was flat and forced their view on everyone else.

I must say that the history of early man/civilization probably captivates my imagination more than any other topic. I actually prefer not having all the answers, gives it a romantic feel. Not sure knowing all the answers does anyone any good. I'd rather keep the mystery.

a reply to: WarminIndy
Going by that logic, t-rex is not extinct either, it's just now a hybrid. The chicken

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: WarminIndy
Going by that logic, t-rex is not extinct either, it's just now a hybrid. The chicken

Probably so.

Saber tooth cats got smaller, didn't they?

The Dire Wolf, he's fairly small today. My little Border Terrier is a wolf, ok not a wolf like they say but he's still wolf inside.

The land-bridge from Greenland theory was never a "cherished Anthropological theory." It was out of the mainstream from the moment it was introduced. Genetics alone proves the Siberian route. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean there wasn't some "contact" across the oceans from a very long time ago, and even trade. Every time someone finds a belt buckle, a bead, or a "similarity" doesn't disprove any of this. All it means is that a few people found their way ashore. Some may have been assimilated. Some may have been killed. Some may even have found their way home again.

It's the same issue with Columbus. People just fall over themselves with delight pointing out that "Columbus wasn't first!" as if they were saying something meaningful. They aren't. The fact is that before Columbus Europe as a whole did not know about the Americas, and after Columbus, it did. It became recognized by the body politic, not just via a few foggy legends. And, of course, mayhem ensued.

So the Bearing Land Bridge theory stands, and it says people migrated to the Americas IN NUMBERS by that route. Once again, if a few Polynesians made it to South America, great, but the largest migration was via Siberia BECAUSE the ocean level was lower because the ice age sucked up the water, leaving a vast plain for the migrants to simply walk the 60 miles across.

This gets political very quickly because we have been asked to believe that the Native Americans were first, once again, and that they are "natives." But they are not "natives." In fact, given how long Cro Magnon has been in Europe, they are relatively recent arrivals to the American continents and their status as "natives" is completely bogus. They simply got here a few thousand years before the Europeans. That's not "tens of thousands" of years prior or "hundreds of thousands" of years prior. It's what 12,13, maybe 15 thousand years prior. And the fact is, NONE of them are more distantly related than about fiftieth cousin to anyone from Europe.

They (Native Americans) came out of Africa just like everyone else. And if you want to dispute THAT, go right ahead. Find me the bones. Find me the tools. Find me the genetics. Or find me the aliens. But you know what? You have precious little to show for any alternative.

So what's the point? That these minor differences don't mean much in the greater scheme of things, and people blow them up way out of proportion to force a difference that pretty much isn't there.

a reply to: schuyler


There is one very good way to tell if Out of Africa is evident or not, Duffy Null Allele.

That is how they determine if someone is African or European.

NCBI article found that in their sample of 54 African American men, they all had the Duffy Antigen.

From Wikipedia Ancestry Informative Marker

As one example, the Duffy Null allele (FY*0) has a frequency of almost 100% of Sub-Saharan Africans, but occurs very infrequently in populations outside of this region. A person having this gene is thus more likely to have Sub-Saharan African ancestors.

Another NCBI article

The frequency of the Duffy phenotypes varies in different populations. The Duffy null phenotype, Fy(a-b-), is rare among Caucasian and Asian populations, whereas it is the most common phenotype in Blacks, occurring in over two-thirds of the Black population. The racial variation in the distribution of Duffy antigens is a result of a positive selection pressure—the absence of Duffy antigens on RBCs makes the RBCs more resistant to invasion by a malarial parasite.

SNPedia

rs2814778 is within the DARC gene, which encodes the Duffy blood group antigen [PMID 7663520]. This SNP shows an almost perfectly fixed difference in frequency between Europeans and those with African ancestry. (One exception appears to be a certain population of Czech gypsies, and certain non-Ashkenazi Jewish populations.) Additionally the Namibian San samples of the CEPH-HGDP are, uncharacteristically for Africans, all AA homozygotes for this SNP. The rs2814778 (G) allele is associated with African populations, while rs2814778 (A) is associated with European populations and southwestern Native American populations.

Huntington Like Diseases

Three of them carried the African marker Duffy null. All four families carried with the mutation the same haplotype most frequent in African populations; Amerindian alleles D9D1120*9 and Diego A; or Kell allele K were absent. HDL2 in Venezuela had a low, but higher relative frequency (2.6%) than that in other Caucasoid populations. It should be searched first in choreic patients not having HTT mutations. The most likely remote ethnic origin for all detected families was African.

So what happened? The mutation is not present in Southwest American Indians, but in Brazilian. However, Malaria has been found in European countries, but Europeans do not have the antigen to protect them from Malaria.

Did Europeans lose it since coming out of Africa? Did the Native Americans, who are believed to be Asian, lose it as well because of lack of necessity?

That would be reverse evolution, I would think.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: WarminIndy
Going by that logic, t-rex is not extinct either, it's just now a hybrid. The chicken

Are you calling T-Rex a chicken? I hope for your sake there aren't any real ones cloned that read what you said

A Bridge Too Far

According to the source article, the University of Missouri researchers are claiming the evidence doesn't support the "Solutrean ice bridge theory" -- the theory that Solutrean foragers where able to reach North America from Europe via an ice bridge.

They are not claiming to have disproved the "land bridge theory", which proposes that early migrants to North America were able to reach it via a land bridge from Asia.

a reply to: Maxmars

I been watching America Unearthed for a while, following all the historical accounts, specially the Holy grail' I love it,

But in America is a group of self proclaimed historians and experts that if you follow the money trail and the funders you will know that is also more groups in the nation that do not want the status of history to change and do anything to get rid of modern facts about what may have been and what it really happens.

Could it be political?, religious? or a combination of both, but something I am sure of it, is more about the history of the Americans that is been kept underground.

originally posted by: WarminIndy


The Solutrean theory has been out for a while now.

Technically, its the Soluturean Hypothesis. There hasn't been nearly enough data to push it into the realm of theory so it was never quite "in" soothsayer its been out for awhile is a bit misleading.

And there have been many artifacts in Virginia that are much older than Clovis.

Clovis First has been discarded for some time now. Its readily acknowledged in Anthropology that Clovis were not the first people in the Americas and that humans have been here well over 20KA with hints in SA up to 40KA at sites like Monte Verde. There is absolutely no doubt that people have been here far longer than antiquated middle school textbooks taught many of us. No matter what though, sites like Cactus Hill in Virginia show evidence of humans going back approximately 17KA. Monte Verde is dated to approx. 15KA. There are footprints in central Mexico dated tentatively dated to 40KA as well as other sites that are possibly in the 30-40KA range.

The land bridge theory was just a theory.

I'm curious, what precisely do you mean "just a theory"? For the Solutrean Hypothesis to work, its been postulated that they came cross the Atlantic in boats skirting the ice pack. The ice sheets were extensive enough that any land at the latitude in question on the Atlantic side of NA was fairly entrenched in ice. Greenland for example, was covered in 65% more ice than it is today during the LGM. 2/3 of that covered the shelf while the final 1/3 occupied what is today ice free land. The only viable way of crossing was in boats.

Unless you're referring to Berringia. In which case then no. There is so much evidence of humans crossing from Siberia into NA that there is absolutely no question about the reality of it. Not only did they cross into NA but there were groups that crossed back and forth for centuries, likely millennia, following herds of megafauna as the herds migrated back and forth just as mammals and birds do today.

They are even starting to question Out of Africa, because much older bones have been found.

Who is questioning OOA and which bones were found where to throw it into question?

The finding that Europeans have Neanderthal ancestry is really throwing them for a loop because it destroyed their paradigm.

How so? Physical evidence has indicated hybridization between Neanderthal and HSS since the late 80's. Scsnte Paabo has been working on proving this since the early 90's. the final nail in the coffin was the Neandrrhal Genome Project at Max Planck Imstitute and the decoding of their genome. It was the final proof needed to coroborate years and years of research and physical data. It was hardly a paradigm altering event and hasn't thrown anyone for a loop that I'm aware of.

Any anthropologists I have studied under, worked with or corresponded with agree with my assessment that this is a very exciting time to be looking into our recent past as newer and higher quality finds are located compounded with newer technology that gives us more accurate answers and insight into our work. Hardly a paradigm shaking outlook!

I have 2.9% Neanderthal, geneticists say that Asian have higher percentages.

Not really. The average percentages are the same for Europeans and Asians. 1-4%.

Indigenous populations of Australia, New Guinea and surrounding Micronesian populations show similar percentages of Denisovan DNA Indicating they managed to cross the Wallace Line, further evidenced by the lower percentages of Denisovan in mainland Asians.

Right now they are still saying that Neanderthal is extinct, yet according to their own definition a species is not extinct if it has descendents. Neanderthal is not extinct, merely hybrid.

What is meant by saying Neanderthal is extinct is that they have ceased to exist as a seperate, identifiable and independent species or sub species. By your reasoning,Denisovan, Heidelbergensis, Erectus and several others are also not extinct as their genes persist in us today as well. There are no pocket groups exhibiting pure genetics of any other archaic hominids thus they are considered extinct. There is no question that one of the reasons their genomes persist today is a result of hybridization but demonstrating 4% or less of the genes hardly indicates that any of these forebearers survive today. Th inclusion of these genes is a big factor in differentiating between Homo Sapiens and Hoo Sapiens Sapiens. The only unadulterated genetics surviving today are Homo Sapiens genetics in sub Saharan Khoi-San people who have not had the opportunity to meet up with and breed with archaic hominids as is exhibited in Europe, Asia and Australia.

a reply to: Maxmars

Considering that they have found remains MUCH older than the Amerind peoples, of all races, in the Americas, it is a virtual certainty that the old Siberian land bridge theory isn't the only way in which people came to this continent, or even the earliest way. I suspect there was a lot more sea traffic than is accepted, and that people came from all over the place long before the earliest Indian predecessors arrived. If people could cross the Pacific in boats like Kon Tiki, why could they not have done it way back when? No reason at all, that I can see!

Claiming to have "dis-proven" the other theory, though, seems a bit arrogant to me! They have so little from that far back, to make such a claim is to give far too much weight to guesswork, no matter how educated the guesses in said work might be.

a reply to: peter vlar

Peter Vlar

I am sure that you are aware now of the theory of multiple waves of migration into the Americas.

Neanderthal DNA apparently had an introgression back into African, where it had not originated, and now another theory is proposed that some individuals with Neanderthal DNA went back to Africa.

Neanderthal DNA in Khoisan

Some of those genes may be traceable to modern Eurasians making whoopee with Neanderthals. Apparently some Eurasians migrated to eastern Africa 3,000 years ago, in what New Scientist calls “humanity’s unexpected U-turn.” Their descendants later migrated south. This latest report doesn’t mean that all or even most sub-Saharan Africans have Neanderthal ancestry, nor does it alter the fact that humans can be roughly divided into geographical groups (or races, to use the politically incorrect term). But clearly the human family tree is more gnarled and bushlike than was supposed only a few years ago. Modern humans apparently mated not only with Neanderthals but with another group of distant cousins, the mysterious Denisovans. And the various breeds of hominid got around, sometimes retracing the steps of their ancestors.

Are we still calling them a species of human that didn't arise from primate, but AMH, or now BMH, did come from primates from Africa? Then the primate humans mated with non-primate humans?

Linked article

The two studies add detail to a growing consensus that modern human ancestors did more than bump elbows and eventually replace the Neanderthals that preceded them out of Africa. They mated with them around 50,000 years ago — a series of as many as 300 encounters that has left a 1% to 3% Neanderthal footprint on the genome of anatomically modern Europeans and Asians, the researchers said.

How did they arrive at the number 300?

The slightly larger Neanderthal footprint among East Asians is not easily explained without a second "pulse" of gene transfer after they parted from Europeans, Akey's study suggests. “It’s a two-night-stand theory now,” Akey said.

Then it would stand to reason that if all NA were from Asia, then there should be a significant higher percentage of Neanderthal in them, because NA populations were endogamous and bottle necked.

Bones found in Tianyuan Cave in China

Ancient DNA has revealed that humans living some 40,000 years ago in the area near Beijing were likely related to many present-day Asians and Native Americans.

You are giving a very narrow time frame for migrations and settlements of people groups. I find it unlikely that it takes humans a billion years to even get to human, and yet once they become human, that's when they migrate? Could they not have evolved in transit?

One thing that I question is this, if any individual needs the modifications to survive any ecosystem, then how did they survive in areas that they needed the modification for? As it is evident that Neanderthal was adapted already to their cold environment, then the adaptation must have happened in transit or Neanderthal arose independently fully modified for their environment.

Humans with morphology similar to present-day humans appear in the fossil record across Eurasia between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago.

Does this mean that Asians come from morphologically similar humans...or are they descended from humans? Neanderthal is human, regardless of where it comes from. To say that Neanderthal and Denisovan are somehow "different humans" is fairly arrogant on the part of BMH.

I am sorry, but the term "present-day humans" is offensive to me.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

Peter Vlar

I am sure that you are aware now of the theory of multiple waves of migration into the Americas.

Of course. How else would you get separate groups of people prior to Clovis? Clovis was a distinct migration into the Americas and there were several prior to that. There were also people who lived on Berringia and never bothered coming into NA as the climate there wasn't that bad at the time and there was vast game and plant life to sustain themselves on.

Neanderthal DNA apparently had an introgression back into African, where it had not originated, and now another theory is proposed that some individuals with Neanderthal DNA went back to Africa.

The genetics shows this to be true. Approximately 6-7KA there was a back migration from Europe into Africa introducing some Neanderthal genetics into the indigenous populations. These people also had a higher percentage of Neanderthal DNA than we do today. Otzi the "iceman" for example showed a 5.5% Neanderthal DNA The only people who are unaffected would be Khoi-San though there are a small number of Khoi-San who have shown small degrees of Neanderthal genetics. it's far more likely that this is a result of ingression of genes from other Africans than from contact with archaic hominids though. It's gene flow not hybridization.

Some of those genes may be traceable to modern Eurasians making whoopee with Neanderthals. Apparently some Eurasians migrated to eastern Africa 3,000 years ago, in what New Scientist calls “humanity’s unexpected U-turn.” Their descendants later migrated south. This latest report doesn’t mean that all or even most sub-Saharan Africans have Neanderthal ancestry, nor does it alter the fact that humans can be roughly divided into geographical groups (or races, to use the politically incorrect term). But clearly the human family tree is more gnarled and bushlike than was supposed only a few years ago. Modern humans apparently mated not only with Neanderthals but with another group of distant cousins, the mysterious Denisovans. And the various breeds of hominid got around, sometimes retracing the steps of their ancestors.

Are we still calling them a species of human that didn't arise from primate, but AMH, or now BMH, did come from primates from Africa? Then the primate humans mated with non-primate humans?

I'm not sure what you're getting at as no species of humans was ever considered to not be a primate. There is no such thing as a "non primate human".

Linked article

The two studies add detail to a growing consensus that modern human ancestors did more than bump elbows and eventually replace the Neanderthals that preceded them out of Africa. They mated with them around 50,000 years ago — a series of as many as 300 encounters that has left a 1% to 3% Neanderthal footprint on the genome of anatomically modern Europeans and Asians, the researchers said.

How did they arrive at the number 300?

I don't know where the number 300 is derived from, it seems like a rather arbitrary number and I haven't read nor am I familiar with, the paper citing this number. If I had to guess I would have to say it was based on some sort of statistical algorithm but I have no idea to be honest.

The slightly larger Neanderthal footprint among East Asians is not easily explained without a second "pulse" of gene transfer after they parted from Europeans, Akey's study suggests. “It’s a two-night-stand theory now,” Akey said.

Then it would stand to reason that if all NA were from Asia, then there should be a significant higher percentage of Neanderthal in them, because NA populations were endogamous and bottle necked.

There was no genetic bottleneck of aboriginal americans nor were they historically endogamous. And they do have a slightly higher % of both Neanderthal and Denisovan genetics. Mostly as a result of 13KA of geographic isolation from the rest of the world. This isn't the same thing as a genetic bottleneck though. A good example of a genetic bottleneck occurred after the Toba even 70KA where the entire worldwide population of humans was reduced to only a few thousand breeding individuals at most and possibly as low as a few hundred.

Ancient DNA has revealed that humans living some 40,000 years ago in the area near Beijing were likely related to many present-day Asians and Native Americans.

You are giving a very narrow time frame for migrations and settlements of people groups. I find it unlikely that it takes humans a billion years to even get to human, and yet once they become human, that's when they migrate? Could they not have evolved in transit?

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything even resembling that. If it takes thousands of years to spread across the globe, and these people left Africa shortly after a massive near extinction/bottleneck event then the genes will certainly be in flux and these people will be adapting on the fly. It's a classic example of punctuated equilibrium as people adapted to their environments post Africa. Or are you trying to say that humans didn't evolve in Africa? All of the evidence currently known is overwhelmingly indicating that early hominids quite certainly evolved in Africa. If you disagree with that, please share the information which makes you believe otherwise. The bottom line though is that there have been multiple migrations OOA. H. Erectus left nearly 2 MA ago as shown by H. Georgicus in the Ukraine at 1.8 MA. Homo Heidelbergensis left Africa long ago giving rise to Neanderthal and Denisovan. H. Antecessor befor them... its a huge list of archaic hominids who adapted to their ecological niches from south Africa to Britain to Siberia to New Guinea. You're making it appear as though Anthropologists think its a much simpler and different time frame than it really is.

Also, it didn't take billions of years for the evolution of humans. Seven or 8 million years if going back to the common ancestor shared with other apes, 15 million years if you want to go back to common ancestor with Asian lineages like Orangutan. If you want to go back to the first vertebrates that's only half a billion years.

One thing that I question is this, if any individual needs the modifications to survive any ecosystem, then how did they survive in areas that they needed the modification for? As it is evident that Neanderthal was adapted already to their cold environment, then the adaptation must have happened in transit or Neanderthal arose independently fully modified for their environment.

Neanderthal and Denisovan arose from populations of H. Heidelbergensis in Europe and Asia. They also developed clothing approx. 170KA

a reply to: peter vlar

Humans with morphology similar to present-day humans appear in the fossil record across Eurasia between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago.

Does this mean that Asians come from morphologically similar humans...or are they descended from humans?

Huh?!?! Asians ARE humans. They come from the same stock as Europeans originally did, the Homo Sapiens who left Africa after the Toba event

Neanderthal is human, regardless of where it comes from. To say that Neanderthal and Denisovan are somehow "different humans" is fairly arrogant on the part of BMH.

Arrogant? No. Accurate? Yes. If they were not different, we wouldn't be able to discern their DNA as a separate genetic structure within our own. We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between H. Sapiens, Neanderthal and Denisovan. Each is very distinct and each had evolved from Heidelbergensis in different areas. Neanderthal in Europe and western Asia, Denisovan in Eastern Europe and Asia and Sapiens in Africa.

I am sorry, but the term "present-day humans" is offensive to me.

Why and what would be less offensive to you? are we not humans? do we not live in the present day? are we not genetically different than H. Sapiens from 70 or 100KA? Are we H. Sapiens or H. Sapiens Sapiens? There is absolutely nothing there to be offended by in my opinion.