Alternate theory of inhabitation of North America disproved

a reply to: peter vlar

How do you determine the racial identity of modern humans?

DNA aside, how is race determined, anthropologically? Say you were presented the skeletal remains of a person and you had to quickly determine its race, because the person might have been murdered, what is the method of determining that?

a reply to: WarminIndy

From the cranio-facial features alone-

◾Mouth: Whites tends to have smaller teeth, often with significant crowding and impacted third molars, and frequently exhibiting an overbite. Blacks rarely have crowding and the upper teeth often project outwards due to the angled shape of the maxilla. American Indians have well spaced teeth but often exhibit sclerosed dentition—when calcium deposits build up inside the tooth, thinning the root canal—leaving teeth loose within the mandible and easily cracked.

◾The palate and palatine suture: The hard palate is the bony structure at the top of the mouth bordered by the upper teeth. In American Indians, the palate is elliptical, with the ‘U’ shape angling in at the back teeth. In blacks, the palate is hyperbolic—a perfect ‘U’ shape with straight lines. And in whites, the palate is parabolic with the ends of the ‘U’ flaring outwards. The transverse palatine suture that horizontally transects the palate also varies by race: It is straight in American Indians, curved in blacks, and a jagged line in whites.



◾Incisors: The shape of the incisors is the most important indicator of race in the teeth. In American Indians (and East Asians, both of Mongoloid ancestry), the incisors are shovel-shaped, named because the inner surface is scooped or curved. Black and whites both have blade-form incisors where the tooth has a flat profile.

◾The nose: The nose provides multiple race indicators. In whites, the nasal aperture is long and narrow, with a high bridge and a sharp nasal sill (the lower edge of the nasal aperture projects sharply outwards). In blacks, the nasal aperture is short and wide with a low bridge and a guttered or trough-like nasal sill. In American Indians, the nasal aperture is medium-sized with both a medium bridge and nasal sill.



◾The mastoid process: The shape of the mastoid process differs between the races. In blacks, the bony projection is wide, in whites it is narrow and pointed, and in American Indians, a secondary smaller projection forms on the back surface of the mastoid process.




Certainly there are some grey areas when dealing with individuals of mixed ancestry so it's not always a cut and dry or quick assessment. Sometimes facial reconstruction is necessary to give more insight but by and large, you can get a pretty good idea from a visual assessment. Some additional cranial features-

cranium

1. Visual examination of the Caucasian cranium
◦A cranial vault that ranges from long, narrow and low, to short, broad and high
◦ A rounded contour of the cranial vault (anterior view)
◦ Mild to moderate prominence of the superciliary (brow) ridges
◦ An external occipital protuberance that is conical or hooked
◦ Extensive cranial sutures
◦ Large mastoid processes
◦ A straight (orthognathous) face
◦ A sharp lower lateral orbit margin (on the zygomatic bone)
◦ A narrow and high bridge of the nose
◦ Depressed nasofrontal sutures
◦ A prominent nasal spine
◦ Sharp lower margin of the nasal spine
◦ Deep canine fossae
◦ A pronounced chin
◦ Carabelli's Cusps (on the mesiolingual surface of maxilliary molars)

2. Visual examination of the Mongoloid cranium
◦ A flattened and broad facial skeleton
◦ Large prominent and angular zygomatic bones
◦ A relatively short, wide and high vault
◦ A flat glabella.
◦ Absent or slight brow ridges
◦ Simple cranial sutures
◦ Minimal nasofrontal suture depression
◦ Broad and flat root of the nose (wide interorbital distance)
◦ Dull lower nasal margin
◦ Short nasal spine
◦ Absent canine fossae
◦ Shovel-shaped upper incisor teeth
◦ Short and wide palate and dental arcades

3. Visual examination of the Negroid cranium
◦A long and narrow cranial vault
◦Bregmatic depression
◦Rounded forehead (anterior and lateral views)
◦Dense ivory texture to the cranial vault bone
◦ Wide interorbital distance
◦Wide, rounded nasal aperture
◦ Little or no depression of the nasofrontal suture
◦Marked prognathism (anterior protrusion of the jaws)

4. Visual examination of the Australoid cranium
◦Long, narrow (dolichocephaly) and low cranial vault
◦ Keeled frontal contour of the cranial vault (gabling)
◦Zygomatic arches visible from above (phaenozygy)
◦Moderate to marked prominence of glabella and superciliary (brow) ridges
◦Well marked temporal lines
◦Moderate to large mastoid processes
◦Occipital bunning
◦Transverse occipital torus
◦Absent external occipital protuberance
◦Rectangular orbital cavities
◦Rounded orbital margin on the zygomatic bones
◦Short, depressed and concave nasal aperture
◦Blunt nasal spine
◦Guttering of lower nasal margin
◦Moderate subnasal prognathism
◦Edge to edge bite
◦Marked dental attrition
◦Large and deep palate
◦Possible antemortem avulsion of an upper incisor tooth
◦Non-obtrusive chin

5. Visual examination of the Polynesian cranium
◦High vault profile
◦Presence of a rocker jaw (curved inferior border and absent antegonial angle)
◦Long broad ramus of the mandible
◦Vertical facial profile (orthognasism)
◦Minimal dentoalveolar prognathism
◦Prominent chin
◦Pentagonal shape when viewed from above or behind
◦Prominent parietal bosses
◦Keeling of the vault at the sagittal suture
◦Bitemporal narrowing of the vault
◦Visible zygomatic arches from above (phaenozygy)
◦Flattened lateral surfaces of the temporal fossae and the malar bones
◦Absent canine fossae
◦Large upper facial height
◦Reduced gonial angle (mandible)

ispub.com...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

www.academia.edu...

www.uab.edu...

a reply to: peter vlar

And what did you guys base your finding on for skeletal remains of "archaic" humans?

I know all of this already, I was just asking you to verify before I make my point. As previous interpretations of "archaic" humans are dependent on skull shapes, and skull shapes are different according to racial make up and identity, then why say they were simply different species?

OK, so finger joints and other things cause you to determine it. But then again, there are slight variation is modern humans. As Darwin said in his book On the Origin of Species..... no matter how slight the variation makes a new and modified form.

As you and I are slightly varied from each other, I am a female and you are male, I am very short and you are probably normal height, then we are different forms from each other, hence modified.

Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us. But the number and diversity of inheritable deviations of structure, both those of slight and those of considerable physiological importance, is endless. Charles Darwin. On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Kindle Locations 242-244).

Both slight and considerable. I think it stands to reason that because I am very short and have white skin, that I am significantly diverse from,let's say a Watusi man. I do not have the same elongated features.

But this was caused either by natural selection or breeding. We cannot rule out selective breeding as a cause for human variation. That is not saying I or he is better than the other, only that given the slight modifications, we are diverse. And this is proven in the skeletal structure.

If we were to apply the same criteria to human beings as animals, then the same scientific definition and examination should apply, and this was the old paradigm

In the skeletons of the several breeds, the development of the bones of the face in length and breadth and curvature differs enormously. The shape, as well as the breadth and length of the ramus of the lower jaw, varies in a highly remarkable manner. The number of the caudal and sacral vertebrae vary; as does the number of the ribs, together with their relative breadth and the presence of processes. The size and shape of the apertures in the sternum are highly variable; so is the degree of divergence and relative size of the two arms of the furcula. The proportional width of the gape of mouth, the proportional length of the eyelids, of the orifice of the nostrils, of the tongue (not always in strict correlation with the length of beak),

Charles Darwin. On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Kindle Locations 363-365).

I don't really know how much you still trust Darwin, but the point is, it has been taught that natural selection leads to new and modified forms, that even he says "no matter how slight". You are a new and modified form of your parents, even though you share features of both of them, you do not share all features of one individual parent. You have slight variations.

So if these "archaic" humans were new and modified and yet we descend from them because of selective breeding, but it is known that endogamous populations, the variation is quite less.

I do trust that some waves of migration of Asians came through the Siberian bridge, but it does not account for why many NA also show ancient markers with European and European share ancient DNA with NA.

That is not saying that any group is more better or special. But if there is enough slight variations between you and I, then we must be diverse varieties.

But you guys miss a big part of it, breeding that leads to new and modified forms. A person doesn't just evolve into two people, it takes a conscious act for that new and modified form to be born. And we know that this can happen in 6 generations when some genetic information is lost, because we can only have so much information at the chromosomal level. We do not carry all the DNA information from all of our ancestors, and through recombination, you and your siblings actually have differing percentages of certain DNA information.

And if it can happen in 6 generations, it doesn't take billions of years.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

And what did you guys base your finding on for skeletal remains of "archaic" humans?

I know all of this already, I was just asking you to verify before I make my point. As previous interpretations of "archaic" humans are dependent on skull shapes, and skull shapes are different according to racial make up and identity, then why say they were simply different species?

First off, cranial morphology is not the only defining factor differentiating archaic hominids. There are many differences between H. Habit is, Erectus, Antecessor, Heidelbergensis, Neanderthal, Denisovan and Sapeins Sapiens. There are many differences between H. Sapiens and H. Sapiens Sapiens. So no, Interptetations of archaic hominids are not based solely on cranial morphology.

OK, so finger joints and other things cause you to determine it. But then again, there are slight variation is modern humans. As Darwin said in his book On the Origin of Species..... no matter how slight the variation makes a new and modified form.

How about we skip the dance and cut to the chase. What point are you trying to get at. I would prefer not to read between the lines and make assumptions unnecessarily.

As you and I are slightly varied from each other, I am a female and you are male, I am very short and you are probably normal height, then we are different forms from each other, hence modified.

No, not modified. Its called sexual dimorphism.

Both slight and considerable. I think it stands to reason that because I am very short and have white skin, that I am significantly diverse from,let's say a Watusi man. I do not have the same elongated features.

Watusi is a dance. Do you mean the Tutsi who are mostly of Bantu descent?the Tutsi had controlled Rwanda and Burundi since the Bronze Age and aside from gene flow between the Tutsi and Hutu, they've been exposed to far less genetic ingression than people in the ME or Europe for example so it would stand to reason that you would have a great many genetic and morphological differences than they exhibit. That variation doesn't mean you don't have a distinct genetic heritage though.

But this was caused either by natural selection or breeding. We cannot rule out selective breeding as a cause for human variation. That is not saying I or he is better than the other, only that given the slight modifications, we are diverse. And this is proven in the skeletal structure.

And none of that points to selective breeding. It is fsr more indicative of adaptation to environmental niches over 1000's of years of living in the same environment. Unless you can point to some sort of evidence for selective breeding that is.

If we were to apply the same criteria to human beings as animals, then the same scientific definition and examination should apply, and this was the old paradigm

In the skeletons of the several breeds, the development of the bones of the face in length and breadth and curvature differs enormously. The shape, as well as the breadth and length of the ramus of the lower jaw, varies in a highly remarkable manner. The number of the caudal and sacral vertebrae vary; as does the number of the ribs, together with their relative breadth and the presence of processes. The size and shape of the apertures in the sternum are highly variable; so is the degree of divergence and relative size of the two arms of the furcula. The proportional width of the gape of mouth, the proportional length of the eyelids, of the orifice of the nostrils, of the tongue (not always in strict correlation with the length of beak),

I'm not trying to imply your point is entirely moot but given advances in science, we have far more tools available to us, particularly over the last 2 decades, that visual assesments are not the only method used to make assesments. They are a part if it certainly but corroboration between methodologies gives a much clearer picture of the reality of things. This whole line of reasoning comes off as a denial of evolution by denying science in favor of "modification".

Charles Darwin. On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Kindle Locations 363-365).

I don't really know how much you still trust Darwin, but the point is, it has been taught that natural selection leads to new and modified forms, that even he says "no matter how slight". You are a new and modified form of your parents, even though you share features of both of them, you do not share all features of one individual parent. You have slight variations.

As important as Darwin's work is to modern evo,until ary biology, its over 150 years old. There's been a lot of knowledge and information in the last cetury and a half that adds to and brings new perspective. What we know today compared to what Darwin postulated is 2 different worlds. The whole argument comes off to me, as over simplified based on picking a couple of quotes that seem to jive with where you want this to go. Perhaps I'm wrong though.

So if these "archaic" humans were new and modified and yet we descend from them because of selective breeding, but it is known that endogamous populations, the variation is quite less.

And exactly who and where were these endogenous populations? And what is your evidence of selective breeding? Yu make it sound like the history of humanity is analogous to modern csttle and hog farming. In that context then H. Erectus would be the equivalent of a heritage breed pig with superior genetics to those bred for size and the speed they reach maturity.

I do trust that some waves of migration of Asians came through the Siberian bridge, but it does not account for why many NA also show ancient markers with European and European share ancient DNA with NA.

I would hope so as the evidence is completely undeniable. The

That is not saying that any group is more better or special. But if there is enough slight variations between you and I, then we must be diverse varieties.

So are you saying that homo Erectus is just a mislabeled human?

But you guys miss a big part of it, breeding that leads to new and modified forms. A person doesn't just evolve into two people, it takes a conscious act for that new and modified form to be born.

How so?

And we know that this can happen in 6 generations when some genetic information is lost, because we can only have so much information at the chromosomal level.

And we know this how?

We do not carry all the DNA information from all of our ancestors,

We actually do carry and contain genetic information from our forebearers. There's a difference between expressing a gene and carrying a gene.

and through recombination, you and your siblings actually have differing percentages of certain DNA information.

Not seeing what this has to do with putting the Solutrean Hypothesis to rest.

And if it can happen in 6 generations, it doesn't take billions of years.

You're the only one repeating that line about billions of years. I've never stated that and in fact have refuted it.

a reply to: peter vlar

Evidence for Selective Breeding?

Slavery in the Caribbean, slavery in the US, slavery in South America. It is well-known that selective breeding was very well practiced.

Selective breeding is also when you choose to create children with your wife, that you may have consciously or unconsciously chose to breed with her. I am sure you didn't choose her simply because you were in a fish bowl (endogamous). We have to keep it scientific, so using the word breeding is not out of place.

Genotype leads to phenotype.

Watusi is another name for Tutsi. You should know this. Maybe you don't like the term, but they have been alternatively called that for a long time.

Just from last November, Solutrean Hypothesis

But while 4 out of 5 pan-American mtDNA clades are apparently derived from Asia, the earliest pan-American lithic tradition is not, according to Oppenheimer, Bradley and Stanford (2014). It is derived from the fifth, low-frequency lineage, namely mtDNA X2, which is restricted to North America

And I have to quote short passages, there is not enough room to put in bigger ones. Even you do this at at times.

The two ancient DNA samples pose the strongest challenge and provide the germs of the strongest alternative to the Solutrean hypothesis. These samples are Mal’ta (24,000 YBP) and Anzick (11,500 YBP). As Fig. 1 (from Raghavan et al. 2013) and Fig. 3 (from Rasmussen et al. 2014) (see below) show, Mal’ta and Anzick show a very similar pattern of shared genetic drift with other human populations. Anzick (right) is just more divergent from Old World populations than Mal’ta (left), which displays medium-strong affinities with Northern Europeans.

Who were northern Europeans? Could it be those from Doggerland?

A somewhat weaker Amerindian signal is showed by Paleolithic central (Kostenki), Mesolithic southeastern (La Brana) and modern northern Europeans. Importantly, Mal’ta DNA, while located within the putative geographic source area for Amerindians, does not show any East Eurasian influence whatsoever, to the dismay of mainstream science. But it does not belong to mtDNA hg X either. Its mtDNA falls under hg U, which is a likely signature of Upper Paleolithic West Eurasians and it is not found among Amerindians. It’s rather closely related to Amerindian hg B, which, as Oppenheimer, Bradley and Stanford agree, has East Eurasian affinities.

This appears to be an anomaly.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
DNA aside, how is race determined, anthropologically?

The whole notion of "race" is kind of antiquated these days. Relying of physical characteristics was one way folks like the Nazis tried to divide people up into categories so that a hierarchy could be determined. Who is inferior and who is superior. It never really worked out that well.

And deep at the bottom of a lot of theories about who "discovered" America is the even more antiquated notion of property and ethnic claim to a particular region. The Solutrean hypothesis always had a kind of vague racist stink about it, because at its core what it was trying to do was say that if "white" Europeans were the first people to inhabit North America, then the Native Americans from Asia were johnny-come-lately interlopers and the Europeans were right to push them out and kill them and reclaim their land. Which of course is foolish.

Nobody has any claim to territory because of ethnicity or race. Stronger tribes conquer weaker tribes and if the weaker tribe isn't wiped out, they are assimilated. That's the history of human conflict. We like to try to justify it in all kinds of ways, but there's really no justification needed. We fight and kill and mate, just like any other animal.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: WarminIndy
DNA aside, how is race determined, anthropologically?

The whole notion of "race" is kind of antiquated these days. Relying of physical characteristics was one way folks like the Nazis tried to divide people up into categories so that a hierarchy could be determined. Who is inferior and who is superior. It never really worked out that well.

And deep at the bottom of a lot of theories about who "discovered" America is the even more antiquated notion of property and ethnic claim to a particular region. The Solutrean hypothesis always had a kind of vague racist stink about it, because at its core what it was trying to do was say that if "white" Europeans were the first people to inhabit North America, then the Native Americans from Asia were johnny-come-lately interlopers and the Europeans were right to push them out and kill them and reclaim their land. Which of course is foolish.

Nobody has any claim to territory because of ethnicity or race. Stronger tribes conquer weaker tribes and if the weaker tribe isn't wiped out, they are assimilated. That's the history of human conflict. We like to try to justify it in all kinds of ways, but there's really no justification needed. We fight and kill and mate, just like any other animal.

Your criticism of proving racial identity through identification of skull shapes might be warranted if it were for political or racial discrimination.

However, you might not realize that Peter Vlar is a scientist who worked on the Australopithecus hypothesis. Peter Vlar verified that the scientific method of identification is solely for identity purposes. This conversation has nothing to do with determining who is better or worse, only that in forensics and anthropology, that is how they determine it.

If you want to dismiss my points as being racist, I mentioned nothing about racial superiority. In anthropology and forensics, that is still used in identification.

I am sorry if you thought I was trying to promote racism, quite the contrary, my position is that all humans should be considered humans, no matter how archaic their skeletons are.

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 "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.

Hi Maxmars,
Thanks for posting,

This particular paper does absoluelty nothing to "disprove" anything. It is nothing more than a critique of one artifact(the cinmar point) and its provenence.
It makes no arguments about the theory itself or the multiple threads of evidence showing some sort of connection between the old and new worlds.
I strongly suggest to anyone interested in this period of time to read Stanford & Bradley's "Across Atlantic Ice", even if you dont hold to the theory, it has a lot of obscure information on pre clovis/ clovis, solutreans and the eastern beringian cultures, mesa and sluiceway(which in my opinion are immigrants from south america).

The Cinmar point is not the only laurel leaf point to have been found on the eastern seaboard, so its provenance doesnt really affect the rest of the evidence.
And like most emergant theories, the detractors will nit pick the smallest bit of evidence and proclaim

." 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.

, while not addressing any of the real evidence.
If anybody has read my posts on this subject, they know I think Stanford and Bradley have it backwards, Native Americans influenced the solutreans and not the other way around. Its the best way to reconcile all of the evidence.
Evidence such as, Solutrean culture has no antecedant in western europe. The previous culture had a completley differnt material culture. The solutreans appear on the atlantic coast of southern france/northern spain, and then spread north and west into the med basin.
There are no antecedant lithic traditions in europe from which solutrean could have been born from.
If the dating of the Cinmar point and associated mammoth skull are correct, they pre date the emergence of the laurel leaf pattern in europe by several thousand years.
Both clovis and solutreans practiced bas relief carving, they both made use of square ground cloths, oriented in a specific fashion, for their tents. And by the way a solutrean tent and a native american tee pee are identical in construction technique.
Both cultures use a method of fastening a point to a spear, ivory or bone foreshafts, that isnt used by any other contemporary cultures.

a reply to: Maxmars

I have always found the idea of the land-bridge rather hard to digest. Glad to see some progress in one of the most persistent mystery of Man's history!

S&F!

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

Evidence for Selective Breeding?

Slavery in the Caribbean, slavery in the US, slavery in South America. It is well-known that selective breeding was very well practiced.

There's no argument that slaves were chattel and viewed no differently than any other livestock on a farm or plantation and thus were bred in similar ways as hogs and cattle with an eye towards obtaining specific physical attributes for field slaves and a different set of desired characteristics for house slaves.

All of this is a matter of context however and is in no way evidence for selective breeding in relation to various adaptations being equated to a program of selective breeding as you allude to. For what you postulate in this particular thesis to hold water, there would have to have been a particular group controlling who breeds with whom, when, how and for which characteristics. The closest analogy aside from your apt one of slavery in the Western Hemisphere would be 1930's Germany. Without a controlled populace, as with slavery, what you allude to isn't a terribly realistic outcome. For such a breeding program to take place over 100's of thousands of years would be a conspiracy so vast that it would dwarf all others that even get a passing mention on ATS

Selective breeding is also when you choose to create children with your wife, that you may have consciously or unconsciously chose to breed with her. I am sure you didn't choose her simply because you were in a fish bowl (endogamous). We have to keep it scientific, so using the word breeding is not out of place.

Don't worry, I didn't bat an eye at the constant reference to breeding lol Nothing offensive to me at all and the context is well within what we are discussing so it's all good from my POV. Though again, I will dispute the selective nature of it. If we were talking China and the one child policy where 1st born females are killed or abandoned then I would agree with you. In my case I think its more hormones than selection for attributes. Genetic lineage was an afterthought, though it certainly worked out to my daughters benefit to have more PhD's in the family than I can shake a stick at!

Genotype leads to phenotype.

not always. Your genes carry the instructions for the growth and development of your body. However, your phenotype is influenced during embryonic development and throughout your life by environmental factors. Environmental factors are many and varied and include diet, climate, illness and stress. How much your genotype contributes to the phenotype is called ‘phenotypic plasticity’. If environmental factors have a strong influence, the phenotypic plasticity is high. If genotype can be used to reliably predict phenotype, the phenotypic plasticity is low.

Watusi is another name for Tutsi. You should know this. Maybe you don't like the term, but they have been alternatively called that for a long time.

I was trying to be slightly humerous be referring to the dance. I need to get better about conveying sarcasm in print. Sorry...

Just from last November, Solutrean Hypothesis

But while 4 out of 5 pan-American mtDNA clades are apparently derived from Asia, the earliest pan-American lithic tradition is not, according to Oppenheimer, Bradley and Stanford (2014). It is derived from the fifth, low-frequency lineage, namely mtDNA X2, which is restricted to North America

And I have to quote short passages, there is not enough room to put in bigger ones. Even you do this at at times.

don't worry... I'm not on the attack today, I totally understand the need for conserving space. Especially when referring to some of my lengthier posts where I realized long after the fact that some info had been cut off because I went over my allotted space.

This appears to be an anomaly.

I agree, it does have the appearance of an anomaly and for posterities sake, I'm combining all of the above into this reply as it is all part of the same question...which if I may be so bold as to interpret, appears to be "If native americans ancestors crossed into the Americas via Berringia from Siberia, why is there such a high level of European genetics"? If I'm wrong here, please correct me and I will do my best to come back and address the issue again. It is however fortuitous that my reply was delayed and a recent thread on ATS where the source article actually answers this conundrum. It gives specific attention to Kennewick Man who was recently had his DNA sequenced which indicated a more European appearance than would have been thought for someone in North America at the time he passed away.

Another genetic puzzle has been the fact that most modern Europeans have certain DNA sequences that are similar to those of some American Indians but different from those of most Asians, including natives of Siberia. How can this be, since American Indians are supposedly descended from Asians who migrated across the Bering land bridge from Siberia to Alaska about 14,000 years ago? Were there ancient seafarers in the Atlantic? Or is it simply from mating between European settlers and American Indians after Columbus? Neither, as it happens.

Modern DNA could not resolve these issues, but ancient DNA provides answers. Eske Willerslev’s research group at the University of Copenhagen, working with Russian scientists, read the genomes of two bits of human remains found near Lake Baikal in Siberia; one of these individuals lived 24,000 years ago, the other 17,000.

Both had genes similar to modern Europeans and modern American Indians but distinct from modern Siberians or other East Asians. As the researchers say in a paper published early last year in Nature, this implies that a population of hunter-gatherers lived in northern Eurasia in the last ice age and partly gave rise to the first Americans in the East and to Europeans in the West, before they themselves died out in Siberia and were replaced by immigrants from elsewhere in Asia.

This may help to explain the enigma known as Kennewick Man, a 9,000-year-old skeleton from Washington state, which seems to have features more like those of a modern European than of a modern American Indian. The earliest inhabitants of the Americas seem to have been distant cousins of Europeans, connected through Siberia, with their genes later diluted by other Asians migrating through Alaska.

As this example shows, one of the common themes of research on ancient DNA is that the mixing of native and immigrant populations happened much more often than previously suspected. The new research allows us to identify the many different elements of that complex history. It is like watching a cake being reverse-engineered into flour, sugar, eggs, milk and its other ingredients. The familiar textbook notion that, for most of human existence, people native to one region developed in isolation from those native to a different region no longer makes sense.

www.wsj.com...

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Your criticism of proving racial identity through identification of skull shapes might be warranted if it were for political or racial discrimination.

However, you might not realize that Peter Vlar is a scientist who worked on the Australopithecus hypothesis. Peter Vlar verified that the scientific method of identification is solely for identity purposes. This conversation has nothing to do with determining who is better or worse, only that in forensics and anthropology, that is how they determine it.

One of the things that seems to irk a lot of people is the constant need for organized categorization, especially so in Anthropology. This is one of the things we do when analyzing remains, categorize them based on morphological features as well as the timeline within which these features occur. It's helpful when looking at the bigger picture. For example, Homo Georgicus shares morphological features with both African and the extant Asian variations of Homo Erectus. H. Georgicus is classified as H. Erectus and it also has some features that are slightly different than their African predecessors and some that are different than those found in Indonesia for example. knowing the time frame and charting the morphological differences allows us to get a different view back in time of migration patterns and various adaptations as populations moved across the globe.
And just a clarification, the work I did was primarily focused on cohabitation of modern humans and Neanderthal populations in the Levantine Valley which is modern Day northern Israel up into central Lebanon and far western Syria. Not a dig on you at all because I'm impressed that you remembered that I had done work with archaic human populations at all.

anyway... please look at the article I linked in the previous post and let me know your thoughts.

a reply to: punkinworks10

I'm inclined to agree with you based on the available timelines, that if there was a cross cultural influence, it was from the North American side of the pond influencing the Solutreans. I'm still not 100% sold on it but there's enough there to compel me to keep looking at the picture. Hell, if Neanderthal could sail to islands of the Horn of Africa, that were 150 miles away and well over the horizon line meaning they weren't seeing the islands from the mainland then there's no reason to dismiss North Americans being able to follow the pack ice across to Europe. We have certainly had a knack for adventure since the dawn of self awareness and I don't see early North Americans to be dullards compared to their predecessors.

Hi Peter,

Hell, if Neanderthal could sail to islands of the Horn of Africa, that were 150 miles away and well over the horizon line meaning they weren't seeing the islands from the mainland then there's no reason to dismiss North Americans being able to follow the pack ice across to Europe.

Hold that thought, Ive got something to add, but i just got ito office.
Ill be back later.

From memory this is an excellent documentary that I watched some time back on the subject. Certainly the native American Indian's were not the first people in North America. It is logical that ocean currents would have been a determining factor in the origins of the first people who settled in North America. I find it to be a fascinating topic.