[wyly]

Nor does it claim that turks were present in this region that long ago either, they may have moved in many thousands of years later.

[Devrim]

Nor does it claim that turks were present in this region that long ago either, they may have moved in many thousands of years later.

But similarity of the culture, traditions and beliefs strengthen those claims. One of the theories is that Yakutia Turks (whose region is so close to America) migrated over a frozen bridge before it broke up.

[Social_Critic]

They weren't Turks. They were Chukchis.

Earlier in the conversation I saw a reference to Europeans moving to North America and turning into amerinds. That's baloney for two reasons:

1. The North American continent was covered with heavy duty glaciers so the problem goes beyond crossing the North Atlantic, it also involved sailing down the coast all the way to at least New York or thereabouts.

2. There's no sign whatsoever in the amerind DNA of European sourcing - all the links point towards Eastern Siberia.

I'd also like to remind you that, 13,000 years ago there was no such thing as a Viking, viking culture, viking horns, or viking anything. The population in Scandinavia is mostly R1a and R1b haplogroups, which doesn't make them particularly different from the rest of Europe, where these two large groups make up the bulk of the population, with a few exceptions such as the Sammi speakers.

Therefore I see no reason whatsoever to say the Amerinds came from Europe. The immigration waves evidently came via Beringia, as i said earlier by land or by boat. Early sites such as Monte Verde may be from very early settlers which failed to spread - it's clear that sometime around 12,000 years ago a group or groups came in with much better survival characteristics, or the weather had warmed up enough for them to spread like mice in a corn field.

[wyly]

But similarity of the culture, traditions and beliefs strengthen those claims. One of the theories is that Yakutia Turks (whose region is so close to America) migrated over a frozen bridge before it broke up.

Cultures of a similar type will have commonalities, hunter gatherers around the world share similar behaviors. Herding cultures, farming cultures will all have commonalities. A frozen bridge legend could refer to a frozen lake as well, many cultures have similar myths in regards to great floods. The Yakuts region isn't near to N America it's about 5K away, orientals had reached Japan 30K yrs ago by boat, they were much closer to the Aleutian island chain that provide the link to N America. And having a boat culture gave them a definite advantage in reaching N America. Turks were a herding culture America Indians were not. Turkish cultures are usually nomadic horse cultures, the American cultures were primarily hunter gathers, farmers and fishing cultures. So any cultures in the Americas even if similar developed independently from those in Asia.

DNA studies would indicate that the first Americans were isolated in the Beringia region for many thousands of years cut off from Asian populations before moving into the Americas. They have a distinct DNA found in no other Asian culture.

[wyly]

They weren't Turks. They were Chukchis.

Earlier in the conversation I saw a reference to Europeans moving to North America and turning into amerinds. That's baloney for two reasons:

1. The North American continent was covered with heavy duty glaciers so the problem goes beyond crossing the North Atlantic, it also involved sailing down the coast all the way to at least New York or thereabouts.

2. There's no sign whatsoever in the amerind DNA of European sourcing - all the links point towards Eastern Siberia.

I'd also like to remind you that, 13,000 years ago there was no such thing as a Viking, viking culture, viking horns, or viking anything. The population in Scandinavia is mostly R1a and R1b haplogroups, which doesn't make them particularly different from the rest of Europe, where these two large groups make up the bulk of the population, with a few exceptions such as the Sammi speakers.

Therefore I see no reason whatsoever to say the Amerinds came from Europe. The immigration waves evidently came via Beringia, as i said earlier by land or by boat. Early sites such as Monte Verde may be from very early settlers which failed to spread - it's clear that sometime around 12,000 years ago a group or groups came in with much better survival characteristics, or the weather had warmed up enough for them to spread like mice in a corn field.

there are archeologists looking for a euro connection, using a tool culture found in eastern north America to a similar one found in Europe forming the basis of their investigation, they have found nothing substantial to back up their suspicions. There's nothing wrong with looking for other possibilities but many people make definitive claims with very little or no evidence.

I don't agree that the first Americans had better survival characteristics than Northern European cultures, they were just i the right place at the right time to move into the americas. If recent DNA studies are correct there weren't separate waves of expansion into the Americas but only one, so Monte Verde didn't die out but is an indicator of the rapid occupation of the Americas, a very strong indicator of sea based cultures.

[Social_Critic]

Wyly, come on:

there are archeologists looking for a euro connection, using a tool culture found in eastern north America to a similar one found in Europe forming the basis of their investigation, they have found nothing substantial to back up their suspicions. There's nothing wrong with looking for other possibilities but many people make definitive claims with very little or no evidence.

There are archeologists looking for a connection between the Nazca lines and spacemen from Mars. I also know individuals who spend a lot of time looking for crashed spaceships in Nevada. I think they do some good, because they pick up trash and take it back to their garages. But you're going to have to show me a 15,000 year old Irishman buried in Boston, dressed in a green suit, before I pay attention to the "amerindians are from Europe" story.

I don't agree that the first Americans had better survival characteristics than Northern European cultures, they were just i the right place at the right time to move into the americas. If recent DNA studies are correct there weren't separate waves of expansion into the Americas but only one, so Monte Verde didn't die out but is an indicator of the rapid occupation of the Americas, a very strong indicator of sea based cultures.

I don't know what "recent DNA studies" you are discussing, but the latest I read was several pulses, although they may have come in from the same general site. The clue is in the language families, as well as some DNA markers. Regarding the Northern European cultures, 13,000 years ago there weren't any worth mentioning. The people who live in northern Europe share the same genetic markers with other Europeans, and the whole bunch came from Asia. The people who did cross into the Americas had evidently been living in a very cold climate for a long time, this is one reason why they were so disease free and why they got wiped out by European germs when America was "discovered" all over again.

[wyly]

Wyly, come on:

There are archeologists looking for a connection between the Nazca lines and spacemen from Mars. I also know individuals who spend a lot of time looking for crashed spaceships in Nevada. I think they do some good, because they pick up trash and take it back to their garages. But you're going to have to show me a 15,000 year old Irishman buried in Boston, dressed in a green suit, before I pay attention to the "amerindians are from Europe" story.

I didn't say I believed it, I'm highly skeptical but the idea is plausible and those doing the research are respectable archeologists if they were crackpot sleuths I wouldn't pay any attention to it at all. But they are getting the attention of other respected anthropologists and archeologists. The Idea is not as impossible as we would think, resistance to it lies in a common held belief these early people were not accomplished seamen they didn't have the technology, but we have no idea what technology they had. Open sea voyages were being accomplished at least 50K yrs ago in SE Asia and it appears now in the Pacific NW as well 15-20K yrs ago, so why not the N Atlantic . None of the evidence produced so far is verifiable as European origin and as far as I know there is no DNA link as yet. Personally I don't think anything will come of this.

I don't know what "recent DNA studies" you are discussing, but the latest I read was several pulses, although they may have come in from the same general site. The clue is in the language families, as well as some DNA markers. Regarding the Northern European cultures, 13,000 years ago there weren't any worth mentioning. The people who live in northern Europe share the same genetic markers with other Europeans, and the whole bunch came from Asia. The people who did cross into the Americas had evidently been living in a very cold climate for a long time, this is one reason why they were so disease free and why they got wiped out by European germs when America was "discovered" all over again.

and that's what my my understanding was as well, several waves of migration but then there was this http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=9101.

Paleolithic cultures were well established in Europe 20k yrs ago living in a bitter glacial climate equivalent to any found in the N Pacific.

Disease free? Europeans went through the same isolation process, at that time all cultures did, the world was sparsely populated by hunter gather groups, they were as healthy and strong as the first americans.

[Social_Critic]

Europeans were the most disease ridden people on earth after Africans and Asians. The guys who crossed over into the Americans stayed in a cold climate for a while, so they lost all those diseases. It has nothing to do with population density or jungle conditions, because the Maya and others were piled up into fairly large cities and they seem to have done ok until they cut all the trees down (check the Mel Gibson movie, it's pretty good).

Those pretty good archeologists you mention need to come up to standard. I don't see how anybody in their right mind can say the Amerinds came from Europe. I concede a couple of drunk Irishmen may have crossed over when they got confused on their way home, but they couldn't reproduce fast enough to offset being dead before they figured out how to get back.

[wyly]

Europeans were the most disease ridden people on earth after Africans and Asians. The guys who crossed over into the Americans stayed in a cold climate for a while, so they lost all those diseases. It has nothing to do with population density or jungle conditions, because the Maya and others were piled up into fairly large cities and they seem to have done ok until they cut all the trees down (check the Mel Gibson movie, it's pretty good).

infectious diseases are spread by people not climate, higher the population density the more infectious diseases spread. It has everything to do with population density there's an entire medical specialty devoted to it, Epidemiology. Outbreaks of Hemorrhagic fevers caused major depopulation of mesoamerica, this was not a euro disease. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987705001295 Dysentery, Influenza, Polio, Giardiasis, Chagas', Syphilis and many more were present in the americas before the europeans arrived. Some diseases are common to particular environments jungle/tropical than colder climates, but colder climates also have their diseases.

Those pretty good archeologists you mention need to come up to standard. I don't see how anybody in their right mind can say the Amerinds came from Europe. I concede a couple of drunk Irishmen may have crossed over when they got confused on their way home, but they couldn't reproduce fast enough to offset being dead before they figured out how to get back.

good scientists look outside the box, outside was is accepted beliefs( Darwin and Wallace) without doing so science and knowledge stagnate. Where would our knowledge of human evolution be if some scientists refused to accept that sapiens developed in Europe as everyone "in their right mind" knew was a fact and not in Africa. The evidence was the Piltdown man (Euro/England) was the first hominid no one in their right mind accepted the Taung child(South Africa).

The search for a N Atlantic crossing was good investigative science, DNA research will dictate whether they're onto something worth looking for or wasting their time.

[Social_Critic]

The same article you reference from UC davis refers to isolation of the Chukchi and Koryak populations in NE Siberia, which allowed the isolated mutation to evolve, and which gives them the hint that this population was the one where the amerinds originated. I have read of other studies where they reconcile the uniqueness of the amerind generic markers with the fact that they have distinct language families. I fuond a thesis on the NE Asian populations (Chuckchi et al ) here:

http://www.spri.cam.ac.uk/people/e.rockhill/mphil.pdf

This thesis describes their genetic affinity but also mentions they have significant differences in the languages they speak today. This of course doesn't mean their linguistic drift was so pronounced 13,000 years ago, when the adventure begins.

As I said, the genetic pool isolation is pretty much a given fact, and this is also the reason why scientists believe these guys were so disease free. Weather does lead to a serious reduction in the types of disease homo sapiens experiences, because the vectors and parasites are not suited to survive in the cold. This isolation period is what made the amerinds so susceptible to european borne diseases, and is the main reason why the Europeans were able to conquer the amerinds so easily - see Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel for a pretty decent book about this subject.

There are of course oddballs mixed into the picture, like Kennewick man, who seems to have been Ainu. But this one individual may have been an isolated case, and he may have been childless (or his children got killed, or got left behind in Japan).

[wyly]

The same article you reference from UC davis refers to isolation of the Chukchi and Koryak populations in NE Siberia, which allowed the isolated mutation to evolve, and which gives them the hint that this population was the one where the amerinds originated. I have read of other studies where they reconcile the uniqueness of the amerind generic markers with the fact that they have distinct language families. I fuond a thesis on the NE Asian populations (Chuckchi et al ) here:

http://www.spri.cam.ac.uk/people/e.rockhill/mphil.pdf

This thesis describes their genetic affinity but also mentions they have significant differences in the languages they speak today. This of course doesn't mean their linguistic drift was so pronounced 13,000 years ago, when the adventure begins.

interesting link, nice find

As I said, the genetic pool isolation is pretty much a given fact, and this is also the reason why scientists believe these guys were so disease free. Weather does lead to a serious reduction in the types of disease homo sapiens experiences, because the vectors and parasites are not suited to survive in the cold. This isolation period is what made the amerinds so susceptible to european borne diseases, and is the main reason why the Europeans were able to conquer the amerinds so easily - see Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel for a pretty decent book about this subject. .

they weren't I don't know where you get this from. Small isolated communities don't spread disease but disease is certianly present. Food and water borne disease are present still, Giardia is ever present in northern Canada, Trcinella infections is a common arctic ailment, be advised to boil that deceptively clean clear water in the northern climes. Influenza was spread by migrating birds, birds were an added staple of arctic summer diet.

again how would being "disease free" in the arctic protect these same people as they moved into southern regions? You're claiming they led disease free lives in the north so now they are immune to new tropical diseases they have never encountered? But then no immunity to European diseases they have never encountered, how does that work? Are you claiming native Americans are immune to syphilis? You're making obvious contradictory claims and contrary to evidence that they suffered a great deal from endemic diseases of the Americas and still do today.

There are of course oddballs mixed into the picture, like Kennewick man, who seems to have been Ainu. But this one individual may have been an isolated case, and he may have been childless (or his children got killed, or got left behind in Japan)

all the Ainu speculation over Kennewick is misplaced, he was an indigious american.

[Social_Critic]

I give up on Kennewick being Ainu, because my source is way out of date. Regarding disease and isolation in the Arctic, my source is Jared Diamond, the professor dude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond

After I read his books, I started digging into this, and I found quite a few papers and other material which I found pretty convincing - the isolation of the Chuckchi population in the Siberian Arctic prior to the transfer to the new world did the trick - it left them largely disease free. I'm not a doctor (my father was and we got a few of them types in the family), but the stuff rubs off, and sometimes I pick up stuff from family and friends without reading about it (I get lectured). I suggest you start with Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel if you haven't read it, and then go on from there. I bought a book at the Calgary School of Medicine (I was passing through, and I don't claim to know much about this), called "Darwin's Detectives", which has really good material about the drift of individual genetic patterns. Again, since I'm mostly an engineer who does business consulting, to me this is a hobby, so if you press me I'm going to punt it over to my sister.

[wyly]

I give up on Kennewick being Ainu, because my source is way out of date. Regarding disease and isolation in the Arctic, my source is Jared Diamond, the professor dude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond

After I read his books, I started digging into this, and I found quite a few papers and other material which I found pretty convincing - the isolation of the Chuckchi population in the Siberian Arctic prior to the transfer to the new world did the trick - it left them largely disease free. I'm not a doctor (my father was and we got a few of them types in the family), but the stuff rubs off, and sometimes I pick up stuff from family and friends without reading about it (I get lectured). I suggest you start with Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel if you haven't read it, and then go on from there. I bought a book at the Calgary School of Medicine (I was passing through, and I don't claim to know much about this), called "Darwin's Detectives", which has really good material about the drift of individual genetic patterns. Again, since I'm mostly an engineer who does business consulting, to me this is a hobby, so if you press me I'm going to punt it over to my sister.

you're in Calgary? cool, my copy of Guns Germs and Steel came from the U of C bookstore...my best buddy in Calgary is an Neurologist...my best archeology/anthropology source is my daughter an archeologist/historian...I'm a building contractor former archeology student, so it's a hobby for me as well now...here's a scary thought we could be neighbours!

[DudeWhoGetsIt]

So this thread is basically based on the conversation me and the Cree Noob had in Gorkiy.

What is the origin of the people who inhabited the American continent when Europeans showed up in the 15th century.

My position is that the inhabitents of the continent were migrants from a few sources coming in a few waves, originally Mongoloid people through Siberia, Supplemented later by various waves of other migrants perhaps Pelopenesians,Some Europeans, perhaps some Asians. I will later put up some evidence of this position, but before that I would like to hear from some smarties on this forum on their position, and obviously Cree Lady may put he evidence or position in afterwards.

I am facinated by ancient pre historical human migratory patterns. You can google some of this to confirm it, but I have found that:

South America was colonized 30,000 to 50,000 years ago by the same folks who colonized new zealand and australia. This has been confirmed through dna testing. The last remnants of this population lived in Tierra del Fuego as recently as 2005, but the population is now completely wiped out.

South America was visited by numerous waves of sea-farers from Asia. Read the book, 1421: The Year China Discovered America." The author lays out chapters full of evidence that the emperor of China at the time sent fleets of ships to the South American coast to set up colonies and spread confucionism. Additionally, there are legends of Chinese exploration of new lands in that region that date back to 600b.c. Backing up this theory of waves of exploration/colonization/migration, is more dna evidence of what amount to the mummies of royalty from one of the ancient cultures there, I forget which one. The dna of the mummies was south east asian, proving that not only did folks from SE Asia come to South American thousands of years ago, but they most likely came in and conquered local populations, setting up imperial dynasties for themselves thousands of years before europeans came along.

And finally, additional dna evidence and archealogical evidence suggests that proto-european hunter gatherers may have ventured along ice bridges and across the atlantic into the American Continent back during the last ice age, which began to receed about 10,000 bc.

[wyly]

I am facinated by ancient pre historical human migratory patterns. You can google some of this to confirm it, but I have found that:

South America was colonized 30,000 to 50,000 years ago by the same folks who colonized new zealand and australia. This has been confirmed through dna testing. The last remnants of this population lived in Tierra del Fuego as recently as 2005, but the population is now completely wiped out.

instead of Google how about legitimate archeological data. There is NO DNA link to New Zealand or Australians. An oversight oversight by your source, Australia was colonized by Aborigines and New Zealand by Polynesians two very distinct people. And the Maori's of New Zealand only arrived there about 1000 yrs ago. The author of your "book" Gavin Menzies has no historical education, he's not an archaeologist nor is he trained in DNA. He's an ex-navy submarine capt who makes shit up.

South America was visited by numerous waves of sea-farers from Asia. Read the book, 1421: The Year China Discovered America." The author lays out chapters full of evidence that the emperor of China at the time sent fleets of ships to the South American coast to set up colonies and spread confucionism. Additionally, there are legends of Chinese exploration of new lands in that region that date back to 600b.c. Backing up this theory of waves of exploration/colonization/migration, is more dna evidence of what amount to the mummies of royalty from one of the ancient cultures there, I forget which one. The dna of the mummies was south east asian, proving that not only did folks from SE Asia come to South American thousands of years ago, but they most likely came in and conquered local populations, setting up imperial dynasties for themselves thousands of years before europeans came along.

you read something in a book so it must be true? Why not check China's historical records, they were very meticulous at recording such events, they never came to the America's, no Chinese historian or archeologist will verify your "book". Of course your expert Gain Menzies has the convenient excuse the lack of records "they were lost" . There is only circumstantial evidence for very brief contact between Polynesians and S Americans about a 1000 yrs ago and no human DNA evidence.

And finally, additional dna evidence and archealogical evidence suggests that proto-european hunter gatherers may have ventured along ice bridges and across the atlantic into the American Continent back during the last ice age, which began to receed about 10,000 bc.

again absolutely bogus. You need to improve the sources of your reading material from pseudo-archeology to something legitimate.

[Fasces]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... na20120207

[Someneck]

This a little unscientific, ok a lot unscientific

First let's discount those American Christians who believe the earth is 6,000 years old and who we are now, is exactly how it was created.

I feel heads nodding which is a good start - it won't last

I have just driven from Central Washington State to Milwaukee and I was struck by the difference in physical appearance between the Mexicans (of distinctly un-spanish appearance), and the Indians of Idaho and Montana who are big

My countryman Mr Darwin said that evolution was a slow business, and so how, in 15k years, could the physical appearance of different native americans be so drastic ?

It just seems too short a time frame and points towards multi- migrations

I reckon it took a while for an African bushman to change into a Swede. Certainly more than 15k years.

[Smertios]

Since this thread has come back, anyway:

instead of Google how about legitimate archeological data. There is NO DNA link to New Zealand or Australians. An oversight oversight by your source, Australia was colonized by Aborigines and New Zealand by Polynesians two very distinct people. And the Maori's of New Zealand only arrived there about 1000 yrs ago. The author of your "book" Gavin Menzies has no historical education, he's not an archaeologist nor is he trained in DNA. He's an ex-navy submarine capt who makes shit up.

I live in a town called Lagoa Santa, in the state of Minas Gerais, in Brazil. I'm saying that, because my town is precisely the site where the oldest human fossil in this continent has been found. The fossil was found in 1975 and has been called Luzia (a homage to the famous Lucy fossil, found in Africa).

The skeleton is aged between 11400 and 16400 years. And it has been confirmed by both phenotypical and genetic analysis that it is closer to Australian Aborigines, Southeast Asians and Africans than to Amerindians. The original hypothesis (which is the one I learned in elementary school) was that Africans had somehow crossed the Atlantic at some point. Nowadays the most accepted theory is that the people (called Men from Lagoa Santa by the scientific community) crossed the Pacific, going from island to island — a much easier job than crossing the Atlantic. At some point, the old population was replaced by the descendants of the modern Amerindians, which crossed the Bering Strait, coming from mainland Asia,

Here is a reconstruction of the face of Luzia, based on the fossil found:


And here is the Wikipedia article on the fossil, in case you want to conduct a research of your own —Wikipedia is a great starting point for any amateur research—, later:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luzia_Woman

This is not some unscientific opinion based on information found on Google. This is the current academic consensus, based on the fossil found 37 years ago.

[Social_Critic]

Luzia is 11500 years old, well after the postulated migration via Beringia. nearby sites have skeletons which are not described in the article linked above. There's nothing to tell us she was anything other than an ugly immigrant from NE Asia. When they type her DNA, if they can, then we'll know better. Meanwhile, I will hold open the possibility that she's an oddball immigrant from Africa. I wouldn't bet on her being from Australia, by 11500 years ago Australians had lost their ability to navigate, and they never had much anyway.

[Smertios]

Luzia is 11500 years old, well after the postulated migration via Beringia. nearby sites have skeletons which are not described in the article linked above. There's nothing to tell us she was anything other than an ugly immigrant from NE Asia. When they type her DNA, if they can, then we'll know better. Meanwhile, I will hold open the possibility that she's an oddball immigrant from Africa. I wouldn't bet on her being from Australia, by 11500 years ago Australians had lost their ability to navigate, and they never had much anyway.

They have tested her mitochondrial DNA several times, from what I heard. Well, not hers, since her fossil is fully mineralized, but she is not the only specimen of the group found. Several geneticists from my university (UFMG) have been working on that research for decades now.

And the Bering crossing theory has been assumed to have taken place ~15,000 years ago. They wouldn't cross Central America and get to South America at least till 11,000-10,000 years ago, around the time when Luzia is theorized to have lived.