Genome analysis pins down arrival and spread of first Americans

a reply to: punkinworks10

I think if one reads the entire report, you'll find that they are at least being honest in that it's not terribly conclusive as yet and that more samples need to be looked at to get a more broad perspective and additional data. It's certainly a good starting point, but I'm fully in agreement with you that there are sites from the top of North America to the tip of Patagonia that have wide ranging dates far older than 23KA and there is other recent data that I feel contradicts this as well. I find it hard to buy hook line and sinker that there were groups migrating back and forth as they followed the herds, as well as living on Beringea, for thousands of years yet there was only ONE migration wave into the Americas? I'm as inclined to believe that as I am that there was only one migration wave out of Africa. Data be damned, it seems entirely contradictory to human behavior and other migration patterns throughout history as well. Like I said, this is a good starting point but that's all it is IMO... step one. I think that the more samples are tested and cross referenced and the farther back in time geologically with these samples, the more comprehensive of a picture we will get. I fully believe that we're going to see dates accepted at least twice as old as 23KA if not older. Granted, it's just my personal opinion and the data isn't there yet, there are sites that indicate a far older date than a lot of people are prepared to accept currently. Time will tell.

There were humans in the American Continents, a long time, prior to the Asia/Siberian migration.

A recently published article.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/07/australian-aborigines-were-first-americans-asian-invaders-killed-them-2-2723534.html

Eventually this Out of Africa theory will be disproved, and it will be shown that Early Homo Erectus was actually the direct Grandaddy of all Homo Sapiens, and Homo Sapiens developed automonously from the original Homo Erectus, in many parts of our Planet, at various degrees of "Development". Then of course mixed breeds/tribes etc etc, thru migration, conquest etc . (thats my theory anyway...not that it means anything .

Interestingly, Only the Australian early man, and the South American tribes, use the "Woomera" throwing stick, which attaches to the end of a thin spear, to vastly increase its travel and power.........oh and the boomerang....both unique and technical inventions. (I did read that the Egyptians used a sort of boomerang too...interesting that)

originally posted by: starswift
Loved your response.
Performance art in it's own right.

I do what I can from time to time! I'm just glad you took it as such because after re-reading my reply, it came off kind of dickish and that really wasn't my intent

I could hook you up but...
; )

But...??? give a guy a break and at least support some of your claims, that's all I'm asking.

I'm not engaging in debate, I just have stories that need to be told.
Sometimes the audience is indifferent or hostile.
Too far outside their experience and comfort zone.
I get it. As long as they have a few manners, as you do.

I don't think it's a matter of being outside of comfort zones at all. It's a matter of wanting to get to the bottom of something and knowing the truth of it. Typically, when someone makes claims of this nature, i.e. I met a Neanderthal once, people want something to support that level of supposition beyond "trust me...it's confirmed by science and I'm sure there is something online if you want to look for it but there's nothing in it for me so you're on your own" I'm paraphrasing you but I think you get the gist of it. It's going to come off as a bit disingenuous when someone makes a claim like that and states right up front that they have no interest in supporting that claim. There's not much point in making it if you're uninterested in the due diligence involved and you've got to expect a little hostility at that point.
I'm more than willing to entertain the notion if you're willing to support the claim as opposed to telling other people to piss off and look it up themselves. Just my 2 cents.

At least you challenged the Neanderthal, which at least shows you are critically engaged.
A requirement of a good audience.

What else would there be for me to challenge? The Neanderthal claim was front and center of your post and was the thing that caught my attention hence my asking for my information and supporting data and/or citations to support said claims.

She was aware she had a large amount of Neanderthal genes if the bumper sticker "Neanderthals, they are among us still" was any indication. She had married into a Native American population but where her ancestors came from she did not say.

So did she make a claim of being Neanderthal or is it just your impression based on morphological similarities and a bumper sticker?

The morphological expression unlike any I had ever seen in any modern populations, and I have traveled a lot.
What her ancestry was and tracing back where and through what geographic domains would be enlightening, no doubt.

If the supposition is true, then most certainly so. HN are my favorite archaic human population and their interactions with HSS 50-60KA is an area of keen interest for me so any new information that can help shed light on those interactions is something I am especially interested in looking at. Though one can't really make an argument based on morphology alone. There are many people with little or within the average for shared genomics(1-4%) that it could be argues look very much as if they could be comprised of a high percentage of HN genetics yet they are fully as human as I am.

The mechanism for perpetuating isolated gene pools within large modern populations would be amazing.

Absolutely, hence me inquiring as to what there was to support your assertions. It wasn't a personal attack.

When I see a mystery, I let it be, the reason certain events unfold in your life is due to trust and because the great spirit wanted you to.

I guess that's the difference between you and I. I see a mystery, I want to know the how and why behind it.

And can I be wrong, no doubt.

I think it's fair to say we all can be wrong about any number of things.

But I wonder, does posting on ATS qualify as scientific debates, amongst various pseudonyms and acronyms?

I think that depends on the forum one is posting in. In this instance, I would say yes, it does qualify. You never know who's on the other side of that screen and there are a number of professionals that post here as well as very astute and extremely well read and researched amateurs, who I would stack up against any number of professionals.

originally posted by: gort51
There were humans in the American Continents, a long time, prior to the Asia/Siberian migration.

There really isn't any evidence of an alternative route into the Americas other than Beringea and despite the solid date attested to in the OP's article, I think the date of human occupation of the Americas is still pretty open at this point and as Punkinworks mentions as well, there are several dates in the 30-40 KA range and others possibly older still, that are being researched currently. The archaeological evidence certainly seems to indicate a date older than 23 KA so I suppose it all depends on what you want to call " a long time prior to..." as that is a rather subjective time frame.

A recently published article.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Your first article is more or less saying exactly what the OP article states with a little bit of spin. There is a definite mix of East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, including Papuans, Solomon Islanders and Southeast Asian hunter gatherers. That's not the same thing though as Aboriginal Australians colonizing the Americas.

beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/07/australian-aborigines-were-first-americans-asian-invaders-killed-them-2-2723534.html

This article is almost entirely speculative and at 16 years old, lacks a lot of new genetic data that makes it extremely anachronistic. It's no more accurate than it would be to still call Kennewick Man a European now that his genome has been studied and he is definitively native American yet still has some Caucasian/European Morphological features. Morphology, while interesting and a decent starting point, is now known to be sometimes misleading.

Eventually this Out of Africa theory will be disproved, and it will be shown that Early Homo Erectus was actually the direct Grandaddy of all Homo Sapiens,

But that's exactly what the science already says, that Homo Erectus was the predecessor of Homo Sapiens Sapien via H. Heidelbergensis. H. Erectus kept relatively the same morphologically, same sized brain etc... in East Asia but in Africa, Europe and West Asia/Eurasia eventually evolved into Heidelbergensis which had a brain relatively within the same averages for HSS. Within their various ecological niches they evolved into the European Neanderthal and Eurasian Denisovan/Homo Altaiensis and in East Africa, Homo Sapiens Idaltu which is who we(HSS) emerged from roughly 200 KA

and Homo Sapiens developed automonously from the original Homo Erectus, in many parts of our Planet, at various degrees of "Development". Then of course mixed breeds/tribes etc etc, thru migration, conquest etc . (thats my theory anyway...not that it means anything

.

As I noted above, H. Erectus, in its own way, did in fact evolve into regional variations. Just not directly into HSS. The genetics were obviously close enough between the "cousin" species that we were able to breed and share genetics with, the European and Eurasian relatives. As far as HSS though, OOA still holds based on genetic profiling and the fossil record.

Interestingly, Only the Australian early man, and the South American tribes, use the "Woomera" throwing stick, which attaches to the end of a thin spear, to vastly increase its travel and power

Not at all true actually. The "woomera" is just an Atlatl, which has been used all over the world by HSS for 10's of thousands of years. Since at least the upper paleolithic and most definitely since the Solutrean and with the best stratified remains found being from the Magdalenian.

.........oh and the boomerang....both unique and technical inventions. (I did read that the Egyptians used a sort of boomerang too...interesting that)

Not as unique as you might think. There are European boomerangs dating back as old as, if not older than, the atlatl. There is a 30 KA boomerang for example found in the Carpathian Mountains of Poland. Others have been found in the Netherlands and yes, Egypt as well. Tutankhamen for example, had a whole collection of both the straight variety used in hunting and the curved returning boomerangs. I believe it was the Navajo who developed a returning boomerang as well in the Americas. But like the Atlatl, they too are found across the globe.

I love it when discoveries challenge beliefs.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Does this mean Columbus didnt discover America?

I have a different perspective.
I have interacted with a number of unknowns so of course I have a great story that I want to tell.
Some I have not mentioned for 30 years to protect the source.

Why, because It would allow someone to make a name for themselves, at the expense of my information.
In the case of the woman, if she wanted to draw attention to herself she could have gone in for testing.
Likely the info would have been inconclusive as unlikely a pure strain, so some muddled analysis might follow.

If I sent you to her house she would be offended and it would be an invasion of her privacy and I would turn a friend and an interesting experience into an enemy and an uncomfortable memory.

The reason I have some of my experience is it is probably a trust relationship.

It's easy to break a trust, not so easy to maintain,
I would love to do the same thing you are considering but now you know why I am not.

Online people are not always who they represent themselves to be,
You have no bio, your semi anonymous, this is not a science forum and we have not established a trust relationship.
So there are a few more reasons.
I have tried contacting researches before but for off the map kind of stuff there are very few who will touch the stuff and most do not allow for anonymous contact, which is really their loss although it helps to filter out a lot of hoaxes.

I saw ATS as a way to tell some of my stories anonymously as I could not find a publishing platform that would allow be to retain artistic control, my intellectual property, and my privacy. ATS doe non of that by at least I can use a pseudonym and not have to maintain my own site.

I'm really just putting this stuff on the public record so that in 100 years the seed ideas will have matured, and perhaps the science, and mental frame. And if there are further discoveries researches will have a limited historical record of sightings they can refer to.

a reply to: peter vlar

Peter V,

 I did not know that throwing sticks were used in Paleolithic Europe, 

 But that doesn't surprise me, it is literally one of the most basic hunting weapons, a stick.

    As far the atlatl goes, I find its distribution most interesting, it's found in the Americas from nearly the beginning , and in Europe from the solutreans, how about that.

Yet, it seems to absent across the rest of Eurasia at the time, and only makes it into Australia 5 k years ago, which brings an interesting connection.

 

Such was the case with the Tarairiu, a Tapuya tribe of migratory foragers and raiders inhabiting the forested mountains and highland savannahs of Rio Grande do Norte in mid-17th-century Brazil. Anthropologist Harald Prins offers the following description: “The atlatl, as used by these Tarairiu warriors, was unique in shape. About 88 cm (35 inches) long and 3 to 4.5 cm (1½ inches) wide, this spear thrower was a tapering piece of wood carved of brown hard-wood. Well-polished, it was shaped with a semi-circular outer half and had a deep groove hollowed out to receive the end of the javelin, which could be engaged by a horizontal wooden peg or spur lashed with a cotton thread to the proximal and narrower end of the throwing board, where a few scarlet parrot feathers were tied for decoration. [Their] darts or javelins… were probably made of a two-meter long wooden cane with a stone or long and serrated hard-wood point, sometimes tipped with poison. Equipped with their uniquely grooved atlatl, they could hurl their long darts from a great distance with accuracy, speed, and such deadly force that these easily pierced through the protective armor of the Portuguese or any other enemy

en.m.wikipedia.org...



 The construction of the Tarairiu spear thrower and their spears is extremely similar to that of the aboriginal people.

 The fact that the spear thrower shows up so late in Australia, is an interesting fact. 

 So, maybe what the geneticists say is is evidence for australasians in SA , may be evidence of Native Americans in Australasia.

 We must remember that both studies reached a conclusion that these isolated SA tribes were similar in genetic structure to the australasians, but not particularly related to them.

a reply to: peter vlar

Thanks Peter for that information, interesting....So my theory IS correct then .

Thanks Punkinworks 10, good info.

Tho I wish you people would'nt refer to the "throwing stick" as an "Atlatl".

It is a WOOMERA, as the Australian Native culture and existence, is many 10 of 1000s of years older than Aztec South Americans, please use the word of the Original creators of the weapon.....well one of the words, there are 500 original languages in Australia.

Interesting the European connection, just adds more weight to the argument that the Australian native has a direct European probable Neanderthal heritage....among its origins.

Yes Peter, some information is 16 years old, but that doesnt mean you throw it all out.

Einstein's Theories are near 100 years old, and some still stand today.

You know the Aust. native never used the Bow and Arrow, but just 100 miles away the Papua New Guinea people used the Bow and arrow....as did the American Native.

This to me, suggests there wasnt a lot of interaction between the tribes of North and South, and the Aust. native predates by a long period, all of Africa modern man, all of European modern man and all of Asia.....

Some theories do postulate that Modern Homo actually DID develop in Australia and spread from there...of course over the years going backwards and forwards from one area to the next and back again, because of climate change, mixing with other Proto sapiens etc, things we have seen ourselves in Modern Mans movements even in only the past 500 years.

You should come to Australia Peter and expand your Neanderthal research .......you may be a pioneer discoverer of something.....

Australia is always a source of wonder for Europeans.....you guys have no Idea how big and desolate this Continent is.
( The North Americans understand tho)

originally posted by: gort51
a reply to: peter vlar

Thanks Peter for that information, interesting....So my theory IS correct then

.

Any time. though your hypothesis is only correct up to a point. While HE is in fact a "grand daddy" to HSS, OOA is still, based on both archaeological and genetic data, the most accurate model right now. There was no regional evolution for Homo Sapiens Sapiens. They evolved in Africa and then dispersed throughout the globe. On the way some various populations successfully bred with preexisting archaic populations they met along they way i.e. HN and HA/Denisovan but the original populations did in fact evolve independently in Africa prior to dispersing throughout the globe.

Tho I wish you people would'nt refer to the "throwing stick" as an "Atlatl".

It is a WOOMERA, as the Australian Native culture and existence, is many 10 of 1000s of years older than Aztec South Americans, please use the word of the Original creators of the weapon.....well one of the words, there are 500 original languages in Australia.

While it may be called a Woomera by the Aboriginal Australians, it is a modified Atlatl nonetheless. An Atlatl is just an appropriated name which has been universalized, for any type of throwing stick giving more leverage to a spear throwing arm which in turn gives it greater power than even a compound bow. To clarify, it's been in Europe for tens of thousands of years being used by upper paleolithic humans and in the Americas since nearly the beginning of human populations in the Western Hemisphere. But it only made its way into the Australian repertoire 5000 or so years back so they really aren't the originators of this weapon.

Interesting the European connection, just adds more weight to the argument that the Australian native has a direct European probable Neanderthal heritage....among its origins.

Based on genomic evidence, quite the contrary. The Australian genetics tell a rather unique story though. They are in fact, directly descended from the first population of African humans to leave the continent and explore the rest of the world some 60-70 KA. Those people did stop and meet up with some Neanderthal on the way across the Middle East so their DNA is in the mix, but there isn't a European connection as humans had yet to make it into Europe prior to 40 or 50 thousand years ago. Later on before heading south, it would appear another little meet up with the Denisovans while in SE Asia, again sharing a little DNA and this is a drastic oversimplification of things to be clear so Australo-melaniesians are a bit of a hodge podge of several groups genetically but mostly African HSS with some admixture.

Yes Peter, some information is 16 years old, but that doesnt mean you throw it all out.

No, the age of information doesn't require throwing out the baby with the bath water. in this instance though, new data, including the complete sequencing of both the Human and the Neanderthal genomes was a game changer that invalidates these hypothesis.

Einstein's Theories are near 100 years old, and some still stand today.

That's because repeated testing over the last century has continued to validate relativity.

This to me, suggests there wasnt a lot of interaction between the tribes of North and South, and the Aust. native predates by a long period, all of Africa modern man, all of European modern man and all of Asia.....

Some theories do postulate that Modern Homo actually DID develop in Australia and spread from there...of course over the years going backwards and forwards from one area to the next and back again, because of climate change, mixing with other Proto sapiens etc, things we have seen ourselves in Modern Mans movements even in only the past 500 years.

You should come to Australia Peter and expand your Neanderthal research

.......you may be a pioneer discoverer of something.....

I'd love to make my way over there, if just to visit some of the amazing sites left by the original inhabitants of your beautiful land. Maybe during one of my winters as the NE US can get a little cold and it's summer for you guys so I could do with a switchup! If I make it over, I'll let you know and we can meet up for a beer somewhere.

a reply to: punkinworks10

Some more interesting avenues to look into for sure. Just another great example of how the more we learn, the less we actually know and that the harder we look, the more our past gets much bushier and less of a straight forward cladestic tree.

a reply to: gort51

Early homo erectus came from Africa. I don't see how that could possibly disprove OOA. Thus far all evidence points to OOA. Every species that colonized Europe and/or Asia originally came from Africa (based on the fossils). Many folks seem quite desperate to disprove OOA, but it's the only theory with objective evidence, and I do get quite suspicious as to why people are so offended by the idea that their ancient ancestors came from Africa. I've never seen any valid reasoning that they evolved somewhere else first. Each hominid species' earliest fossils can be traced to Africa, except maybe Denisovans, and the only evidence we have of them is some teeth and a few fragments.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: gort51

Early homo erectus came from Africa. I don't see how that could possibly disprove OOA. Thus far all evidence points to OOA. Every species that colonized Europe and/or Asia originally came from Africa (based on the fossils). Many folks seem quite desperate to disprove OOA, but it's the only theory with objective evidence, and I do get quite suspicious as to why people are so offended by the idea that their ancient ancestors came from Africa. I've never seen any valid reasoning that they evolved somewhere else first. Each hominid species' earliest fossils can be traced to Africa, except maybe Denisovans, and the only evidence we have of them is some teeth and a few fragments.

That's so trippy, Africa is just a geographical construct, our ancestors had to come from somewhere it's just a matter of chance that East or South Africa (the new hot spot) was the starting point and most of us living have genetic strands from every continent unless one is an extreme isolate and even then their descendants will pick up those strands..