Skulls show New World was settled twice: study

Skulls show New World was settled twice: study

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Two distinct groups from Asia settled in the New World and not one single migration as suggested by previous genetic studies, experts said Monday after comparing the skulls of early Americans. Paleoanthropologists from Brazil, Chile and Germany compared the skulls of several dozen Paleoamericans, dating back to the early days of migration 11,000 years ago, with the more recent remains of more than 300 Amerindians. "We found that the differences between Early and Late Native American groups match the predictions of a two-migration scenario far better than they do those of any other hypothesis," they said. "In other words, these differences are so large that it is highly improbable that the earliest inhabitants of the New World were the direct ancestors of recent Native American populations."

read More of it

The Scientific Paper on PLoS

Testing Evolutionary and Dispersion Scenarios for the Settlement of the New World

The whole paper is available for download as a pdf file too.


I had earlier posted another thread on an Ancient migration of Asians to the New world
Ancient DNA points to additional New World migration

I hope that the picture will be clearer and we will develop a more deep understanding on the migrations to the new world.

I want go add another interesting thing -
BBC's documentary - Ancient Voices - Hunt for the Ancient American

First Americans were Australian

To be exact, the documentary says that the first Americans in the new Word (North and South Americas were the aboriginals from Australasia.

would love to hear your comments on all the above.

Have a Nice Read!

The first Americans were descended from Australian aborigines, according to evidence in a new BBC documentary.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8b461ee2a41a.jpg[/atsimg]

news.bbc.co.uk...

Thanks for your well put together thread, never thought Columbus discovered America, why they are still teaching this in schools is beyond me, that is the schools that still teach American History.

reply to post by coredrill
Nice thread Coredrill...I'm so glad your back on the boards! This is something I'm really interested in and it provides a lot to get my teeth into.

I posted a thread the other day about scientists sometimes forget how their current knowledge is founded on the errors of their predecessors. History, in this sense, is a long series of corrected mistakes.

Not so long ago the 'out of Africa' hypothesis was based on one direction. Now we have the evidence to show how migration is a multi-directional phenomena. We were migrating in and out of Africa...

Why not the same correction to the 'in to America' hypothesis? At the very least, it seems one worth considering in the light of other migrational models being 'corrected' or updated.

The 'idea' that the Americas were settled more than once has been around at least a few years. There's genetic evidence that suggests Beringia was a two-way gatekeeper between America and Siberia. If it wasn't 'sleeping with the fishes' we might even be able to discover evidence of the settlements?

Between Topper, Monte Verdi and other Central Texas sites there appears to be an indication of earlier populations than the Clovis. There was also the bone carved with an image of a mammoth that dates to at least 14 000 years ago. Not to forget the Huyetlico (sp?!) site that seems to date some thousands of years before Clovis! I know the dates are far from accepted so far (Sam Vanlandringham's diatom dating), but it's still fascinating from an amateur perspective.

I can think of two other members who could add some interesting detail to your thread...Byrd and Johnny Canuck.

A lot of Mormons are going to be happy about this one, since the book of Mormon says there were two separate migrations to the New World. The timeline in this study doesn't match the book, though.

I don't want to turn this into a religous debate thread, being the wrong forum, but I thought it would be worth mentioning the point, since it is a fact many Mormons are going to interpret this favourably, despite the timeline issues.

11,000 years ago is a late group.
The Clovis culture was wide spread in the new world 13,500 to 13,000 years ago. (wide spread showing they had time to expand across a large area)

They don't have any skulls from the Clovis culture,

But they may have some that are intermarriage between the few surviving Clovis and these late groups.

This could account for differences from today as the genes from any Clovis culture survivors were diluted by the later arrivals

reply to post by Aquarius1


I think you'll find Columbus was the first "white guy" to discover America...

Nice thread coredrill!

According to the out-of-Africa theory (I think the most accepted one today, backed up by genetic evidence and material findings along the way), humans reached Australia around 60,000 years ago. This "date" is reached by following the coast of Asia all the way from Arabia to Indonesia (and then Australia), matching DNA patterns along the way and some climate simulations, which are the weakest point as they are not as accurate as the rest.

Now, to reach Australia one has to have reached Indochina (Malaysia, primarily) before. let's say, 2-3,000 years before the "venture" to Australia? That leaves a gap of almost 45,000 years to go from Malaysia (or central Siberia, where humans were found as early as 44-45,000 years ago. In this case the gap is smaller by 18-20,000 years but the distance is also smaller) to Beringia and then to America. the distance is not the main obstacle here, the climate is!

How much do we know of the last 2 ice ages? Do we know, for example, exactly how long they lasted? Do we know what parts were free of ice during the time between ice ages?

As for the first inhabitants of America being Australian Aborigines, until about 30,000 years ago, ALL humans on Earth were similar (dark skin, dark hair, tall, lean bodies, same facial features, more or less), diversions begun to appear around that time influenced by the long term inhabitation of certain climates and areas, initially "alien" to our species' origin. So, if the "spread" of the migration was fast enough, significant changes were not evolving, so to speak, due to lack of time to adapt (evolution rarely produces changes from one generation to the next, no?).

If you watch a BBC documentary, "The incredible human journey", you will see at least 2 instances where a face was reconstructed by the skull remains and the skull "produced" a negroid face in both cases (first Europeans and first Americans, if I recall correctly).

the main fuss about the colonization of America (both North and South) is the difficulty one faces to reach the damn place!! You need either the land bridge or ships capable of ocean travel - 20-40,000 years ago!! - not to mention you need to have an idea of where you are going! It is one thing to claim that Australia may have been reached by mistake, when it was about 100 miles away from Flores, and another thing to claim that the journey to America was made from Australia.