First Americans were Australian - according to BBC
seanmcdo...@yahoo.com
The first Americans were descended from Australian aborigines,
according to evidence in a new BBC documentary.
The skulls suggest faces like those of Australian aborigines
The programme, Ancient Voices, shows that the dimensions of prehistoric
skulls found in Brazil match those of the aboriginal peoples of
Australia and Melanesia. Other evidence suggests that these first
Americans were later massacred by invaders from Asia.
Until now, native Americans were believed to have descended from Asian
ancestors who arrived over a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and
then migrated across the whole of north and south America. The land
bridge was formed 11,000 years ago during the ice age, when sea level
dropped.
However, the new evidence shows that these people did not arrive in an
empty wilderness. Stone tools and charcoal from the site in Brazil show
evidence of human habitation as long ago as 50,000 years.
The site is at Serra Da Capivara in remote northeast Brazil. This area
is now inhabited by the descendants of European settlers and African
slaves who arrived just 500 years ago.
But cave paintings found here provided the first clue to the existence
of a much older people.
Images of giant armadillos, which died out before the last ice age,
show the artists who drew them lived before even the natives who
greeted the Europeans.
These Asian people have facial features described as mongoloid.
However, skulls dug from a depth equivalent to 9,000 to 12,000 years
ago are very different.
Walter Neves, an archaeologist from the University of Sao Paolo, has
taken extensive skull measurements from dozens of skulls, including the
oldest, a young woman who has been named Lucia.
"The measurements show that Lucia was anything but mongoloid," he says.
The next step was to reconstruct a face from Lucia's skull. First, a
CAT scan of the skull was done, to allow an accurate working model to
be made.
Then a forensic artist, Richard Neave from the University of
Manchester, UK, created a face for Lucia. The result was surprising:
"It has all the features of a negroid face," says Dr Neave.
The skull dimensions and facial features match most closely the native
people of Australia and Melanesia. These people date back to about
60,000 years, and were themselves descended from the first humans, who
left Africa about 100,000 years ago.
But how could the early Australians have travelled more than 13,500
kilometres (8,450 miles) at that time? The answer comes from more cave
paintings, this time from the Kimberley, a region at the northern tip
of Western Australia.
Here, Grahame Walsh, an expert on Australian rock art, found the oldest
painting of a boat anywhere in the world. The style of the art means it
is at least 17,000 years old, but it could be up to 50,000 years old.
And the crucial detail is the high prow of the boat. This would have
been unnecessary for boats used in calm, inland waters. The design
suggests it was used on the open ocean.
Fantastic voyage
Archaeologists speculate that such an incredible sea voyage, from
Australia to Brazil, would not have been undertaken knowingly but by
accident.
Just three years ago, five African fishermen were caught in a storm and
a few weeks later were washed up on the shores of South America. Two of
the fishermen died, but three made it alive.
But if the first Americans had drifted from Australia, where are their
descendants now? Again, the skulls suggest an answer.
The shape of the skulls changes between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago from
being exclusively negroid to exclusively mongoloid. Combined with rock
art evidence of increasing violence at this time, it appears that the
mongoloid people from the north invaded and wiped out the original
Americans.
The only evidence of any survivors comes from Terra del Fuego, the
islands at the remotest southern tip of South America.
The pre-European Fuegeans, who lived stone age-style lives until this
century, show hybrid skull features which could have resulted from
intermarrying between mongoloid and negroid peoples. Their rituals and
traditions also bear some resemblance to the ancient rock art in
Brazil.
The identity of the first Americans is an emotive and controversial
question. But the evidence from Brazil, and a handful of people who
still live at the very tip of South America, suggests that the Americas
have been home to a greater diversity of humans than previously thought
- and for much longer.
John Vreeland
seanmcdonald2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm
>
[snip]
How delightfully fanciful. ANd fact-free, too!
Using such techniques I may be able to demonstrate that the British are
originally from Syria.
Ron O
SNIP:
All the molecular papers that I've seen support Asian influence and not
a single Australoid mitochondrial sequence seems to have survived if
they were infact here first. The guesses that I've seen have as many
as 3 Asian migrations into the Americas with the Inuit (eskimo)
mitochondrial types being the last wave.
There is evidence that Australoids were spread out in asia and even
made it to Japan, so part of the problem may be that the maternal types
of the original Australoid immigrants into America were also found in
the later waves of Asian invaders. This would mean that the
Australoids that made it to Australia either lost those maternal types
or never had them due to founder effects.
Just looking at the surviving native population there is no evidence
that even if the Australoids were here first that they had a high
enough population to influence the phenotype of the new invaders.
Anything is possible, they may not have survived the ice age, they may
have been susceptable to diseases brought by the newcomers, they may
never have gotten to America, or whatever. The most notable thing is
that they didn't leave much if any evidence of their existence in the
Americans that were discovered by Europeans.
If the 50,000 year estimate is correct, you think that humans with a
30,000 year head start would have left some trace in the population of
Asians that came after them. There should have been two continents
full of them.
Ron Okimoto
Douglas Clark
Australians.
--
Douglas Clark, Bath, Somerset, England ....
http://www.dgdclynx.plus.com
<seanmcdo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114613455....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Richard Forrest
Nah.
If it were Australians, there'd be a trail of discarded Fosters cans
from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego...
RF
VoiceOfReason
Whodawhatawaita hold on a sec! The features of a negroid face, and
that indicates it came from Australia??? FYI: Africa is a lot closer.
Couldn't they have been African?
> The skull dimensions and facial features match most closely the
native
> people of Australia and Melanesia. These people date back to about
> 60,000 years, and were themselves descended from the first humans,
who
> left Africa about 100,000 years ago.
>
> But how could the early Australians have travelled more than 13,500
> kilometres (8,450 miles) at that time? The answer comes from more
cave
> paintings, this time from the Kimberley, a region at the northern tip
> of Western Australia.
>
> Here, Grahame Walsh, an expert on Australian rock art, found the
oldest
> painting of a boat anywhere in the world. The style of the art means
it
> is at least 17,000 years old, but it could be up to 50,000 years old.
>
> And the crucial detail is the high prow of the boat. This would have
> been unnecessary for boats used in calm, inland waters. The design
> suggests it was used on the open ocean.
>
> Fantastic voyage
>
> Archaeologists speculate that such an incredible sea voyage, from
> Australia to Brazil, would not have been undertaken knowingly but by
> accident.
Dunno about that. Polynesians ventured to Hawaii and Easter Island.
> Just three years ago, five African fishermen were caught in a storm
and
> a few weeks later were washed up on the shores of South America. Two
of
> the fishermen died, but three made it alive.
See - they could have been African. Humpf.
IMO, they need to support/confirm/falsify this with some DNA evidence.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
>
> Nah.
> If it were Australians, there'd be a trail of discarded Fosters cans
> from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego...
>
> RF
>
I can think of two reasons why this is not necessarily so:
1. They brought what they had supposed would be a two-year supply, but
ran out after two weeks.
2. They discovered that American hops were inferior and decided that
settling in this hemisphere would be a waste of both time and effort.
--
"The pope should lift the ban on condoms immediately in order to err on
the side of life."
Catholics for Free Choice
AC
Ron O <poke...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Just looking at the surviving native population there is no evidence
> that even if the Australoids were here first that they had a high
> enough population to influence the phenotype of the new invaders.
> Anything is possible, they may not have survived the ice age, they may
> have been susceptable to diseases brought by the newcomers, they may
> never have gotten to America, or whatever. The most notable thing is
> that they didn't leave much if any evidence of their existence in the
> Americans that were discovered by Europeans.
It's still early on, but I suspect that you are right. These earlier
colonizers don't seem to have come in large numbers, and if they were around
when the Clovis peoples came I think it's quite possible that they were
subsumed or wiped out.
>
> If the 50,000 year estimate is correct, you think that humans with a
> 30,000 year head start would have left some trace in the population of
> Asians that came after them. There should have been two continents
> full of them.
One would think so, and that's probably the most puzzling part about this
new layer of colonization. Due to the low number of verified sites and some
of the political difficulties being thrown up, answers are hard to come by.
If I remember correctly, the Clovis peoples had been hanging around eastern
Siberia and Berengia for some time before the Laurentide Ice Sheet had
melted sufficiently to allow them access to the rest of the Americas. So I
suppose that the founder populations would have been quite large, and would
have been able to sustain themselves very well before and during the main
push into the Americas.
Anybody that managed to enter the Americas at the height of the last Ice Age
would have had to have done so by skirting along the coast and accessing
ice-free co-oridors. I know that there have been some confirmed (I believe
they've found an area in the Queen Charlotte Islands that was ice-free
during the last Ice Age), but I doubt that these would have been large
enough to sustain even a moderately large population, so these earlier
colonizers would have only come in a trickle compared to the Clovis peoples.
This is a subject that I no damn little about, but I'm curious. What was
the environment in North America like during the last Ice Age?
Ken Shackleton
If the original peoples were wiped out by the newcomers 12kya or so,
and there was no significant interbreeding between invaders and the
original immigrants, there may be no surviving mitochondrial or
Y-chromosomal DNA to find from the original population.
VoiceOfReason
There's some stuff I've read recently concerning the Clovis people in
N. America that suggested that Clovis "technology" may have developed
in the Southeast US and spread across the continent from there. They
didn't suggest that was the direction of migration though. AFAIK,
that's just at the level of a "could be" without adequate supporting
evidence.
> Anybody that managed to enter the Americas at the height of the last
Ice Age
> would have had to have done so by skirting along the coast and
accessing
> ice-free co-oridors. I know that there have been some confirmed (I
believe
> they've found an area in the Queen Charlotte Islands that was
ice-free
> during the last Ice Age), but I doubt that these would have been
large
> enough to sustain even a moderately large population, so these
earlier
> colonizers would have only come in a trickle compared to the Clovis
peoples.
It's been suggested that the frozen coast could have been a significant
migration route - at least significant enough to get the populating of
N. America started in a significant way. Finds in Viginia suggest
occupation as early as 18,000 years ago; other finds in Pennsylvania
and Florida suggest pre-Clovis occupation even earlier. (IIRC, there
are other sites out West with additional evidence?)
> This is a subject that I no damn little about, but I'm curious. What
was
> the environment in North America like during the last Ice Age?
Freakin' cold!
Actually, at least in the East, glaciers came as far south as New York
- Ohio - Illinois. Land near the glaciers would have been tundra-like
and dry, with forests further south. The Chesapeake Bay was dry land,
with the Susquehanna River running through the middle of it. There was
probably a BIG circular lake at the mouth of the Chesapeake where the
meteor hit ~35 million years ago. The coast extended further out onto
the continental shelf.
Steve the Sauropodman
rich hammett
>> Manchester, UK, created a face for Lucia. The result was surprising:
>> "It has all the features of a negroid face," says Dr Neave.
> Whodawhatawaita hold on a sec! The features of a negroid face, and
> that indicates it came from Australia??? FYI: Africa is a lot closer.
> Couldn't they have been African?
Is there such a thing as "negroid" that distinguishes
African and Australian skulls (together) from other humans?
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
Floyd L. Davidson
>Ron O <poke...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> If the 50,000 year estimate is correct, you think that humans with a
>> 30,000 year head start would have left some trace in the population of
>> Asians that came after them. There should have been two continents
>> full of them.
>
>One would think so, and that's probably the most puzzling part about this
>new layer of colonization. Due to the low number of verified sites and some
>of the political difficulties being thrown up, answers are hard to come by.
>
>If I remember correctly, the Clovis peoples had been hanging around eastern
>Siberia and Berengia for some time before the Laurentide Ice Sheet had
>melted sufficiently to allow them access to the rest of the Americas. So I
There are no Clovis technology cultures known in Siberia or what
was Beringia. Moreover, the various Paleo-Indian artifacts that
have been found in Alaska (as opposed to Paleo-Eskimo, which is
unique to Alaska but was clearly based on Small Tools Technology
that existed in Asia several thousand years prior to being in
Alaska) do not appear to have migrated from Asia to Alaska
either!
Similar Paleo artifacts in Siberia appear to have been a
(back???) migration from Alaska to Siberia. The idea that it
is necessarily a back migration is based only on the fact that
to date there are older artifacts in Siberia than in Alaska and
that causes the presumption that Alaska was populated by
migration from Siberia. But there is no continuum of technology
to demonstrate it, and it would appear just as reasonable that
Alaska was populated by migration northwards from farther south
in North America prior to the development of Clovis technology.
The one, Paleo-India appears to have later met the other, Small
Tools Tradition, in Alaska and they developed into two distinctly
different cultures, Indian and Eskimo.
>suppose that the founder populations would have been quite large, and would
>have been able to sustain themselves very well before and during the main
>push into the Americas.
>
>Anybody that managed to enter the Americas at the height of the last Ice Age
>would have had to have done so by skirting along the coast and accessing
>ice-free co-oridors. I know that there have been some confirmed (I believe
>they've found an area in the Queen Charlotte Islands that was ice-free
>during the last Ice Age), but I doubt that these would have been large
>enough to sustain even a moderately large population, so these earlier
>colonizers would have only come in a trickle compared to the Clovis peoples.
There is no evidence of "Clovis peoples" migrating into NA in
the first place. The technology appears to have originated in
NA.
>This is a subject that I no damn little about, but I'm curious. What was
>the environment in North America like during the last Ice Age?
It would have been sub-Arctic. The same would have been true
all around the earth at that latitude, with of course variations
just as today that depend on warmth from ocean currents and jet
streams. The prime difference would have been that some
locations may have gotten, or not, such warming influences
exactly the opposite of what they do today. I'm not really up
on that, but as far as I know the two major examples would be
the North Atlantic Current (warming Norway, for example) and the
jet stream that pumps warm air into Alaska from the South
Pacific, keeping it warmer than Canada or Siberia. I'm not sure
what Norway was like, but much of Alaska was not totally covered
by glaciers.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@barrow.com
VoiceOfReason
Found a reference for N. America at the end of the last Ice Age from
18k to 5k years ago: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/new_na.html
VoiceOfReason
rich hammett wrote:
> In talk.origins VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> sanoi,
hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> > seanmcdonald2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm
> [snip]
> >> Then a forensic artist, Richard Neave from the University of
> >> Manchester, UK, created a face for Lucia. The result was
surprising:
> >> "It has all the features of a negroid face," says Dr Neave.
>
> > Whodawhatawaita hold on a sec! The features of a negroid face,
and
> > that indicates it came from Australia??? FYI: Africa is a lot
closer.
> > Couldn't they have been African?
>
> Is there such a thing as "negroid" that distinguishes
> African and Australian skulls (together) from other humans?
I think negroid can be distinguished from caucasoid or (mongoloid?) but
dunno about Aborigine from anyone else.
VoiceOfReason
Hmmm (ponder, ponder) you've got a point there. I also remember large
stone faces unearthed in Central America that showed what seemed
obvious (to me) African faces. Dunno whatever happened on that route.
Possibly it was infrequent or "accidental" contacts.
floyd
rich hammett wrote:
> In talk.origins VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> sanoi,
hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> > seanmcdonald2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm
> [snip]
> >> Then a forensic artist, Richard Neave from the University of
> >> Manchester, UK, created a face for Lucia. The result was
surprising:
> >> "It has all the features of a negroid face," says Dr Neave.
>
> > Whodawhatawaita hold on a sec! The features of a negroid face,
and
> > that indicates it came from Australia??? FYI: Africa is a lot
closer.
> > Couldn't they have been African?
>
> Is there such a thing as "negroid" that distinguishes
> African and Australian skulls (together) from other humans?
>
> rich
> --
Most decidedly not. Genetically, the Australians cluster within the
South and Southeast Asians. "Negroid" is an almost completely
meaningless term, as far as phylogeny is concerned, since it is defined
almost entirely on the basis of skin colour, which is extremely labile
(and of course not visible in bone in any case).
Further, the clusters of osteological features that forensic
anthropologists use to assign "racial" categories are drawn from modern
samples, where ancestral afiliation is known. There is no reason to
assume that the modern trait clusters used to estimate probable
"racial" affiliation in modern skeletal material have any deep history,
and several reasons to suspect that they may not. I personally doubt
that the sample population of known ancestral affiliation has *any*
relevance to ancient material. (This is the "Kennewick Man was a white
guy" problem once again.) There is no reason to assume that the
clusters of traits that are statistically associated with ancestral
groups today are reliable estimators of ancestral affiliations of the
Pleistocene, so any report that makes that assumption is automatically
suspect, IMO.
I'm exceedingly skeptical of this entire report. It makes some very
extrordinary claims from minimal evidence, conflicting with all other
known data, and using taxa that have almost universally been recognised
as seriously flawed.
floyd
seanmcdonald2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm
>
> The first Americans were descended from Australian aborigines,
> according to evidence in a new BBC documentary.
>
> These Asian people have facial features described as mongoloid.
> However, skulls dug from a depth equivalent to 9,000 to 12,000 years
> ago are very different.
Why should we expect the people of 9-12KYA to look like the people of
today?
[snip]
> Just three years ago, five African fishermen were caught in a storm
and
> a few weeks later were washed up on the shores of South America. Two
of
> the fishermen died, but three made it alive.
>
> But if the first Americans had drifted from Australia, where are
their
> descendants now? Again, the skulls suggest an answer.
I think the notion of five guys getting blown off course and
shipwrecked might also provide an answer.
"Where are the descendents of the five *men* who were shipwrecked?"
Call me overly picky, but I sincerely doubt that the surviving
fishermen would have founded a population.
Steve Schaffner
>
> I think the notion of five guys getting blown off course and
> shipwrecked might also provide an answer.
>
> "Where are the descendents of the five *men* who were shipwrecked?"
> Call me overly picky, but I sincerely doubt that the surviving
> fishermen would have founded a population.
You just have diploidist prejudices.
--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
Ken Shackleton
Although.....perhaps there could be testable DNA within the bones that
are suspected to be of more ancient "negroid" immigrants.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> > Just looking at the surviving native population there is no
evidence
> > that even if the Australoids were here first that they had a high
> > enough population to influence the phenotype of the new invaders.
> > Anything is possible, they may not have survived the ice age, they
may
> > have been susceptable to diseases brought by the newcomers, they
may
> > never have gotten to America, or whatever. The most notable thing
is
> > that they didn't leave much if any evidence of their existence in
the
> > Americans that were discovered by Europeans.
>
> It's still early on, but I suspect that you are right. These earlier
> colonizers don't seem to have come in large numbers, and if they were
around
> when the Clovis peoples came I think it's quite possible that they
were
> subsumed or wiped out.
Whatever happened to parsimony?
> > If the 50,000 year estimate is correct, you think that humans with
a
> > 30,000 year head start would have left some trace in the population
of
> > Asians that came after them. There should have been two continents
> > full of them.
>
> One would think so, and that's probably the most puzzling part about
this
> new layer of colonization. Due to the low number of verified sites
and some
> of the political difficulties being thrown up, answers are hard to
come by.
>
> If I remember correctly, the Clovis peoples had been hanging around
eastern
> Siberia and Berengia for some time before the Laurentide Ice Sheet
had
> melted sufficiently to allow them access to the rest of the Americas.
Err . . . No. There are no Clovis sites in Siberia or
Alaska.
VoiceOfReason
One would think (or hope anyway).
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> "Where are the descendents of the five *men* who were shipwrecked?"
> Call me overly picky, but I sincerely doubt that the surviving
> fishermen would have founded a population.
Maybe they were the ancestors of Sean MacDonald; he seems
like a jerkoff anyway.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> All the molecular papers that I've seen support Asian influence
The papers do. The data behind the papers do not. I mean,
one need only look as far as ABO group. HTH
Pip R. Lagenta
wrote:
Syriasly!
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
man_in_...@yahoo.com
faces, long noses prognathism, and dolichocephaly aren't
mongoloid features.
Datum: This "prehistoric genocide" claim is unparsimonious,
untestable, and these claims of "man's innate aggression"
were discredited in the 70s.
Datum: War is generally a case of resources. Population
growth was slow and steady until the rise of complex
societies.
Inference: In New Zealand, racists claim another race was
there before the Maori. In South Africa, racists claim
whites were there before blacks. Ditto for Rhodesia before
it was renamed Zimbabwe and Mugabe kicked the whites out.
Even in North America, the "mound builders" were originally
thought to be an ancient white race killed off by Indians.
Needless to say, none of these are true.
Conclusion: It's more logical, more parsimonious, that
Indians are descended from the people who created those
50,000-year-old tools, and actually any other conclusion is
probably ideologically motivated.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
with "Indians weren't first" is kinda silly considering
there are no Clovis sites in Siberia, entire blood groups
most common in the Pacific Rim and Central Asia completely
absent in North America, and the "mongoloid" features
Indians have consist of things like absence of brow ridges,
even though brow ridges only occur in a minority of males of
any race.
There is no Clovis technology in Siberia or Alaska.
This is why modern Indians couldn't be from Siberia. Modern
Indians have more tropical features: Long arms and legs,
dolichocephaly, and so on.
>From what I've seen geologically, the only reason anyone
concludes the west was less cold than the east is because
archaeologists need the west to be habitable for humans in
order to maintain the idea that Indians crossed the Bering
Strait.
The bottom line: I consider evolution to have far more
evidence behind it -- I've always said it was to biology
what thermodynamics is to physics; without it, everything
falls apart -- than I do the Bering Strait migration.
Tom McDonald
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
>
>>Nah.
>>If it were Australians, there'd be a trail of discarded Fosters cans
>>from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego...
>>
>>RF
>>
>
>
> I can think of two reasons why this is not necessarily so:
>
> 1. They brought what they had supposed would be a two-year supply, but
> ran out after two weeks.
I thought a two-year supply *was* a two-week supply?
>
> 2. They discovered that American hops were inferior and decided that
> settling in this hemisphere would be a waste of both time and effort.
No, I think they stayed. It is evidence that evolution is not
progressive.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
John Vreeland
Lake, perhaps, but not circular. It would have been filled in by
riverine sediments.
Florida was twice as large and dry and scrubby, with lots of sink holes
to provide water for thirsty prey and predator, and to focus fossils
for curious paleontologists. Most of them are submerged beneath the
water of the Gulf now. The fossils, I mean.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> > Although.....perhaps there could be testable DNA within the bones
> that
> > are suspected to be of more ancient "negroid" immigrants.
>
> One would think (or hope anyway).
Actually, most of the opposition to NAGPRA comes from
people who sell artifacts, as well as from white supremacist
groups and the usual "nutty professor seeking tenure"
variety.
FWIW, there were human remains collected in the 19th century
in the Smithsonian's basement when NAGPRA passed. These
boxes hadn't even been opened yet.
Dale
news:1114613455....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm
>
> The first Americans were descended from Australian aborigines,
> according to evidence in a new BBC documentary.
>
> The skulls suggest faces like those of Australian aborigines
> The programme, Ancient Voices, shows that the dimensions of prehistoric
> skulls found in Brazil match those of the aboriginal peoples of
> Australia and Melanesia. Other evidence suggests that these first
> Americans were later massacred by invaders from Asia.
I'll have to remember that next time some mechista tells me everything from
Texas to California belongs to Aztlan.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm
> >
> > The first Americans were descended from Australian aborigines,
> > according to evidence in a new BBC documentary.
> >
> > The skulls suggest faces like those of Australian aborigines
> > The programme, Ancient Voices, shows that the dimensions of
prehistoric
> > skulls found in Brazil match those of the aboriginal peoples of
> > Australia and Melanesia. Other evidence suggests that these first
> > Americans were later massacred by invaders from Asia.
>
> I'll have to remember that next time some mechista tells me
everything from
> Texas to California belongs to Aztlan.
Both are idiots. I prefer to tell the Aztlanistas that the
Aztecs were from southern Mexico, though. You know, reply to
their lies with truth?
BTW, I've heard the Aztlanistas even claim parts of Oklahoma
and the Pacific Northwest.
Dale
news:1114664984.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Well, I could do that, I suppose. I mean, what do they think the Tonkawa,
Karankawa, Apache, Lipan, Coahuiltecan, Comanche, Kiowa, Havasupai, Zuni,
Navaho, etc., etc., etc. were, chopped liver?
> BTW, I've heard the Aztlanistas even claim parts of Oklahoma
> and the Pacific Northwest.
Why not? As long as you're already talking about Grosser Deutchland... er...
I mean, well, you know what I mean.
Mike P
> <man_in_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1114664984.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Dale wrote:
>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm
>>>>
>>>>The first Americans were descended from Australian aborigines,
>>>>according to evidence in a new BBC documentary.
>>>>
>>>>The skulls suggest faces like those of Australian aborigines
>>>>The programme, Ancient Voices, shows that the dimensions of
>>
>>prehistoric
>>
>>>>skulls found in Brazil match those of the aboriginal peoples of
>>>>Australia and Melanesia. Other evidence suggests that these first
>>>>Americans were later massacred by invaders from Asia.
>>>
>>>I'll have to remember that next time some mechista tells me
>>
>>everything from
>>
>>>Texas to California belongs to Aztlan.
>>
>>Both are idiots. I prefer to tell the Aztlanistas that the
>>Aztecs were from southern Mexico, though. You know, reply to
>>their lies with truth?
>
>
> Well, I could do that, I suppose. I mean, what do they think the Tonkawa,
> Karankawa, Apache, Lipan, Coahuiltecan, Comanche, Kiowa, Havasupai, Zuni,
> Navaho, etc., etc., etc. were, chopped liver?
WERE??????? You want to try that again.
Mike
publius2k
alt.native:
There does seem to be lots of evidence that the mexica/azteca migrated
from the north, what is now utah, as is documented in this exhibit at
the Wisconsin State Historical Society:
http://144.92.121.201/whsexhibit/
1804 Humboldt Map
This map depicts the same three migration points [as noted on the
famous 1847 Disturnell map], plus a fourth, more northern one,
pointing to Teguayo or the Salt Lake region as the point of departure
of ancient Mexican Indians. Humboldt purportedly made his observations
based on ancient pre-Columbian codices.
http://144.92.121.201/whsexhibit/humboldt.php
oral traditions:
Armando Solorzano, University of Utah professor from Mexico speaks of
being greeted by the chief of the Utes, informing him that he is in
Aztec country.
Maestra Angelberta Cobb: Hailing from Puebla, Mexico, she stands in
front of a sculpture of Quetzalcoatl in San Jose, Calif, as she
reveals the story of being able to understand Hopi elders in her own
native Nahuatl language.
from:
San Ce Tojuan: We are One -- Nosotros Somos Uno Documentary Film
Bill
Ron,
Thank you for a serious and thoughtful answer. A rare commodity on
Usenet newsgroups.
Bill
<ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
[ . . .]
>
>Nah.
>If it were Australians, there'd be a trail of discarded Fosters cans
>from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego...
>
>RF
No way mate, it would have been Victoria Bitters or Tooheys. Fosters
did grab the market till late in the 20th Century.
pale...@hotmail.com
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm
>
> The first Americans were descended from Australian aborigines,
> according to evidence in a new BBC documentary.
>
>
> The skulls suggest faces like those of Australian aborigines
> The programme, Ancient Voices, shows that the dimensions of
prehistoric
> skulls found in Brazil match those of the aboriginal peoples of
> Australia and Melanesia. Other evidence suggests that these first
> Americans were later massacred by invaders from Asia.
>
>From the scientifically illiterate people at BBC:
"The land bridge was formed 11,000 years ago during the ice age, when
sea level dropped."
>From the real scientists:
"The terrestrial connection between the continents was lost roughly
11,000 years ago...... "
http://tinyurl.com/b2x2y
http://instaar.colorado.edu/QGISL/bering_land_bridge/blb_overview.html
Also...
http://whyfiles.org/061polar/anthro.html
"The first Americans walked to the New World across a land bridge that
joined Asia and North America between 70,000 and 11,000 years ago."
The incompetents at BBC, who do not know the difference between
"formed" and "lost" or are at least not educated enough to edit out a
mistake of this magnitude are not competent enough to judge between
facts and fantasies on the peopling of the Americas issue.
Ken Shackleton
I believe that NAGPRA is an example of good legislation that has been
applied poorly. I believe that if museums or individuals are in
possession of human remains that have a demonstrated cultural
affiliation with a modern population of First Nations Peoples, then
those remains should be repatriated. The key is that the affiliation
MUST BE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED. Simply finding bones on land presently
occupied by a particular tribe is not sufficient to prove affiliation.
The problem I have is when a significant scientific find [such as
Kennewick Man] comes along that has no clear affiliation with any
modern population, First Nations or otherwise; it is simply older than
circa 1492 [in this case much older], and is handed over to the first
group to claim an affiliation, and they bury or otherwise destroy
portions of it. That is a much greater crime than trampling someone's
feelings [which is what it boiled down to].
I would not want someone digging up my grandfather's bones and putting
them in a museum [well...ask me first]....but if someone found some
bones of my Scottish ancestors that were more than 500 years old and
wanted to conduct scientific study.....please do, the knowledge gained
is worth it.
I also believe that the scientists would do well to involve native
peoples whenever [and wherever] they are digging up remains, no matter
how old they turn out to be.
AC
There's a deeper political issue. There is a lot of political and cultural
stock being put into "First" Nations. It's the means by which the
descendants of pre-Columbian peoples are finding common cause in pursuit of
justice and recognition. To suddenly start digging up remains that do not
appear to be affiliated with any known group of native peoples is sure to
create some enormous shockwaves. I've seen it the other way as well, with
some non-natives running around saying "See, the white man was here first!"
and other such nonsense.
When these remains are reburied or destroyed, we lose a piece of the puzzle
of our own origins. It's simply wrong, no matter how politically charged
such discoveries may be. The native peoples and their supporters who
advocate the removal of these remains from the hands of scientists are,
whether they intend it or not, destroying their own real history in favor of
myths.
>
> I would not want someone digging up my grandfather's bones and putting
> them in a museum [well...ask me first]....but if someone found some
> bones of my Scottish ancestors that were more than 500 years old and
> wanted to conduct scientific study.....please do, the knowledge gained
> is worth it.
The only reason I might protest with my grandfather's bones (if he had any,
he was cremated) is my family's objections. I personally would have none,
and plan on having my body donated to scientific research (if they want it,
that is). I'm dead, I don't care, but I do realize that some people,
through beliefs and traditions, put a great deal of stock in bodies, and I
agree that we should do what we can to accomodate them where reasonable.
>
> I also believe that the scientists would do well to involve native
> peoples whenever [and wherever] they are digging up remains, no matter
> how old they turn out to be.
Well Kennewick Man was an accidental discovery, so it doesn't quite fit
there.
Floyd L. Davidson
>I believe that NAGPRA is an example of good legislation that has been
>applied poorly. I believe that if museums or individuals are in
>possession of human remains that have a demonstrated cultural
>affiliation with a modern population of First Nations Peoples, then
>those remains should be repatriated. The key is that the affiliation
>MUST BE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED. Simply finding bones on land presently
>occupied by a particular tribe is not sufficient to prove affiliation.
An absurdly over emphasized requirement meant only to destroy
the actual value of NAGPRA.
"CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED" is of course a matter of opinion. There
are *many* opinions... but the one which counts the most is the
opinion of the people who believe the remains are indeed their
ancestors. That is true *even if* they are not examples of White
Westernized America.
>The problem I have is when a significant scientific find [such as
>Kennewick Man] comes along that has no clear affiliation with any
No clear affiliation *in your opinion*. You of course know
about opinion, and why your's stinks; right?
The fact is that your opinion, or mine, has no bearing on who is
or is not an ancestor of Kennewick Man, as one example.
Clearly there *is evidence* that the remains could indeed be
affiliated with modern populations *and* those people are of the
opinion that it is. That should have been enough, because
*clearly* the damage that NAGPRA intends to avoid *will* be
inflicted if that affiliation is denied. Citing legal
technicalities as a reason does *not* make it less of an
affront.
>modern population, First Nations or otherwise; it is simply older than
>circa 1492 [in this case much older], and is handed over to the first
>group to claim an affiliation, and they bury or otherwise destroy
>portions of it. That is a much greater crime than trampling someone's
>feelings [which is what it boiled down to].
Your opinion, again, stinks. It is culture centric and does not
allow for any other opinion to be valid.
>I would not want someone digging up my grandfather's bones and putting
>them in a museum [well...ask me first]....but if someone found some
>bones of my Scottish ancestors that were more than 500 years old and
>wanted to conduct scientific study.....please do, the knowledge gained
>is worth it.
I am sorry that your culture is so insensitive, both about other
cultures but even about your own ancestors. Other cultures do
not suffer that flaw; you might want to study them to learn a
more sophisticated, and civilized, value system.
>I also believe that the scientists would do well to involve native
>peoples whenever [and wherever] they are digging up remains, no matter
>how old they turn out to be.
That has happened here in Barrow. The elders informed the
scientists that ancient bodies are *no different* than modern
bodies. They must be treated with exactly the same respect.
They were autopsied, and interred in the local cemetery.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/html/dear_young_girl.html
We took her to the Public Health Service hospital and
reported to the community on the success. The Elders
requested either immediate reburial or immediate scientific
study followed by reburial. No placing of the little girl
"on hold," rather she was to be treated as a member of the
community. The National Science Foundation's Office of
Polar Programs immediately agreed to fund the analysis, and
an autopsy was conducted followed by reburial in only about
a week.
It has just been announced that the Smithsonian is about to
repatriate a significant volume of artifacts to the people of
Barrow too. It will be interesting to see how it will be
handled locally, but we can expect something very similar.
Neither the "little girl", who was the first evidence of Thule
Eskimo people found at Barrow, nor some of the artifacts from
the Smithsonian, which are Birnirk people, are provable to be
direct ancestors of modern Inupiat Eskimos. But to suggest
they do not fall under the authority of Inupiat elders is
simply absurd.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@barrow.com
willre...@yahoo.com
The genetic marker, I think it is M130, that is found along the
shoreline migration route from Africa to Australia is also found,
sparsely, in the new world. This was the first migration out of Africa
and most of the people carrying this marker are the identified as
Australian Aborigines.
In the book _Human Evolutionary Genetics_ where this is mentioned,
Jobling, Hurles and Tyler-Smith don't speculate on the New World
occurances of this marker but it is intriguing.
What this could have to do with "hybrid skull features which could have
resulted from
> intermarrying between mongoloid and negroid peoples." is less clear.
Is anyone still confusing Australian Aborigines and Negros?
Will in New Haven
--
willre...@yahoo.com
> In talk.origins VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> sanoi,
hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> >> Manchester, UK, created a face for Lucia. The result was
surprising:
> >> "It has all the features of a negroid face," says Dr Neave.
>
and
> > that indicates it came from Australia??? FYI: Africa is a lot
closer.
> > Couldn't they have been African?
>
> African and Australian skulls (together) from other humans?
>
> rich
No.
Will in New Haven
--
> -to reply, it's hot not warm
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
> / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
> \ than the pride that divides
> / when a colorful rag is unfurled."
AC
actually am interested in reading some literature on the topic of the early
human migrations, and the evidence for them via genetic markers and
archaeology. What are some good (and reasonably recent) references on the
subject?
willre...@yahoo.com
> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >I believe that NAGPRA is an example of good legislation that has
been
> >applied poorly. I believe that if museums or individuals are in
> >possession of human remains that have a demonstrated cultural
> >affiliation with a modern population of First Nations Peoples, then
> >those remains should be repatriated. The key is that the affiliation
> >MUST BE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED. Simply finding bones on land presently
> >occupied by a particular tribe is not sufficient to prove
affiliation.
>
> An absurdly over emphasized requirement meant only to destroy
> the actual value of NAGPRA.
>
> "CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED" is of course a matter of opinion. There
> are *many* opinions... but the one which counts the most is the
> opinion of the people who believe the remains are indeed their
> ancestors. That is true *even if* they are not examples of White
> Westernized America.
And so people have a right to an opinion according to what they
BELIEVE? That is such nonsense that I can't believe you typed it with a
straight face.
> >The problem I have is when a significant scientific find [such as
> >Kennewick Man] comes along that has no clear affiliation with any
>
> No clear affiliation *in your opinion*. You of course know
> about opinion, and why your's stinks; right?
>
> The fact is that your opinion, or mine, has no bearing on who is
> or is not an ancestor of Kennewick Man, as one example.
>
> Clearly there *is evidence* that the remains could indeed be
> affiliated with modern populations *and* those people are of the
> opinion that it is. That should have been enough, because
> *clearly* the damage that NAGPRA intends to avoid *will* be
> inflicted if that affiliation is denied. Citing legal
> technicalities as a reason does *not* make it less of an
> affront.
If they really were of that opinion, they would not mind seeing the
evidence examined.
>
> >modern population, First Nations or otherwise; it is simply older
than
> >circa 1492 [in this case much older], and is handed over to the
first
> >group to claim an affiliation, and they bury or otherwise destroy
> >portions of it. That is a much greater crime than trampling
someone's
> >feelings [which is what it boiled down to].
>
> Your opinion, again, stinks. It is culture centric and does not
> allow for any other opinion to be valid.
No ones opinions are valid. Facts are valid.
>
> >I would not want someone digging up my grandfather's bones and
putting
> >them in a museum [well...ask me first]....but if someone found some
> >bones of my Scottish ancestors that were more than 500 years old and
> >wanted to conduct scientific study.....please do, the knowledge
gained
> >is worth it.
>
> I am sorry that your culture is so insensitive, both about other
> cultures but even about your own ancestors. Other cultures do
> not suffer that flaw; you might want to study them to learn a
> more sophisticated, and civilized, value system.
I am sorry that your culture is so damn silly.
Will in New Haven
--
>
willre...@yahoo.com
_Human Evolutionary Genetics_ Jobling, Hurles and Tyler-Smith
Garland Science Publishing 2004
Disclaimer 1: I market the damn book
Disclaimer 2: There is a very good popular book that covers much of the
same ground and I would tell you what it was if I could remember it.
HEG has a great deal of very technical material in the first few
chapters and it is intended as a textbook. The book I can't remember
was easier for me to read. However, I DID read HEG and enjoyed much of
it.
Will in New Haven
Ken Shackleton
So...Floyd;
The opinion that Kennewick Man cannot be affiliated with ANY modern
population is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the scientific
community. Also...are you seriously suggesting that your ancestors did
not move around and stayed in one location for thousands of years? If
humanity does one thing well....it is that we move around a lot.
I agree that the people that conduct these studies need to be sensitive
to the local cultures where remains are found. Most remains and burial
goods can be affiliated because they are recent and are clearly
ancestral to a modern culture.
Finds like Kennewick Man are different....they are ancient beyond the
memory of any modern culture and can offer insights that are otherwise
impossible to attain without their study.
The fact that he is morphologically distinct from ANY modern population
and his bones contain a spearpoint that is associated with ancestors to
modern native cultures speak to a LACK of affiliation, rather than
confirming one.
I also believe that there is some level of fear in your community that
these studies may confirm the hypothesis that "First" Nations may not
actually be first; having actually displaced earlier populations that
no longer exist. The fear being that this knowledge would reduce the
political power of First Nations [if your ancient ancestors replaced an
earlier population, why should I feel guilty about my recent ancestors
replacing yours?]. I would like to believe that this would not be the
case, but my faith in humanity has failed me before.
On the point of being culture-centric....I do attempt as best I can to
see things from the other guy's perspective, it doesn't always work. I
believe that reasonable people can reach reasonable understandings;
unfortunately, this is often difficult when people take arbitrary
positions [such as....if it's older than circa 1492 and on my
traditional land, it must be my direct ancestor].
You are also being culture-centric when you insist that your modern
cultural values be applied to the bones of someone that lived 8400
years ago. Even if he was your direct ancestor, which is
unlikely....how can you assume that his cultural values would still be
reflected in your modern culture....that, my friend is culture-centric.
I do have a fairly well tuned bullshit detector and after reading your
replies....it is ringing really loud.
floyd
I like _The Genetics of Human Populations [Unabridged]_ by L. L.
Cavalli-Sforza and W. F. Bodmer.
_The History and Geography of Human Genes : (Abridged paperback
edition)_ by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza is also good, and more
accessable.
Luca is the "grandfather" of this type of research, really, so if
you're interested in the topic, you'll eventually have to read his
work. For this particular question (colonisation of the Americas) see:
"A Novel Y-Chromosome Variant Puts an Upper Limit on the Timing of
First Entry into the Americas"
Letter to the Editor
Seielstad, M., Yuldasheva, N., Singh, N., Underhill, P., Oefner, P.,
Shen, P., Wells, R. S. /American Journal of Human Genetics/, 2003,
volume 73, pages 700-705
available in PDF at
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2003_v73_p700-705.pdf
and many more interesting related papers are available at the Stanford
Human Population Genetics Lab's website:
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications.html
HTH
man_in_...@yahoo.com
Completely wrong. Evidence of human habitation of the
Americas goes back some 50,000 years. Chukotka and
Kamchatka, maybe Pleistocene/Holocene barrier, at best.
I personally am not surprised by these "pre-Indian
Caucasian" stories; in addition to the obvious racism, if
there's anything Westerners are known for, parsimony ain't
it. (An old joke is that a white man and an Indian are out
camping. In the middle of the night, they wake up and look
at the stars and the Indian asks him what it means. The
white guy goes on about "It reminds me of the vastness of
the universe and how we're all just tiny specks." The Indian
says "It tells me someone took our tent.")
Floyd L. Davidson
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> >those remains should be repatriated. The key is that the affiliation
>> >MUST BE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED. Simply finding bones on land presently
>> >occupied by a particular tribe is not sufficient to prove affiliation.
>>
>> An absurdly over emphasized requirement meant only to destroy
>> the actual value of NAGPRA.
>>
>> "CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED" is of course a matter of opinion. There
>> are *many* opinions... but the one which counts the most is the
>> opinion of the people who believe the remains are indeed their
>> ancestors. That is true *even if* they are not examples of White
>> Westernized America.
>
>And so people have a right to an opinion according to what they
>BELIEVE? That is such nonsense that I can't believe you typed it with a
>straight face.
What? You think another culture should have opinions based on what
*you* believe? I believe you did type that with a straight face,
and that you don't have a clue.
>> Clearly there *is evidence* that the remains could indeed be
>> affiliated with modern populations *and* those people are of the
>> opinion that it is. That should have been enough, because
>> *clearly* the damage that NAGPRA intends to avoid *will* be
>> inflicted if that affiliation is denied. Citing legal
>> technicalities as a reason does *not* make it less of an
>> affront.
>
>If they really were of that opinion, they would not mind seeing the
>evidence examined.
According to *your* value system. But not according to theirs...
>> Your opinion, again, stinks. It is culture centric and does not
>> allow for any other opinion to be valid.
>
>No ones opinions are valid. Facts are valid.
Which is *exactly* what I said. You just haven't yet figured out
prioritizing facts is opinion.
>> I am sorry that your culture is so insensitive, both about other
>> cultures but even about your own ancestors. Other cultures do
>> not suffer that flaw; you might want to study them to learn a
>> more sophisticated, and civilized, value system.
>
>I am sorry that your culture is so damn silly.
That's a fact. Mine *is yours*. But I do understand what
it is...
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>The opinion that Kennewick Man cannot be affiliated with ANY modern
>population is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the scientific
>community.
Not true. It is the opinion of *some people* in the scientific
community. There was no consensus on that, and in fact some
very good evidence was presented supporting an opposing view.
>Also...are you seriously suggesting that your ancestors did
>not move around and stayed in one location for thousands of years? If
>humanity does one thing well....it is that we move around a lot.
Your ancestors and mine have moved around. What significance
does that have in relationship to Kennewick Man? We have no
evidence which proves he *wasn't* an ancestor of the current
Native populations in that area.
>Finds like Kennewick Man are different....they are ancient beyond the
>memory of any modern culture and can offer insights that are otherwise
>impossible to attain without their study.
And so far, with all of the "science" that has been performed on
Kennewick Man... we know just about nothing of any real value.
We know that several so called scientists are as pig headed and
narrow minded as can be, and we know that KM probably ate a lot
of fish.
Was there anything else?
Or are you counting all the hilarious statements by Chatters et al?
Do you think he actually looked like Patrick Stuart? Or that KM
was Caucasian?
>The fact that he is morphologically distinct from ANY modern population
>and his bones contain a spearpoint that is associated with ancestors to
>modern native cultures speak to a LACK of affiliation, rather than
>confirming one.
Your logic is apparently overcome by fantasy. What do you think
KM was? Some visitor who was attacked by locals, or was he a
local being attacked by invading newcomers?
How do you know if he wasn't accidentally speared in a hunting
accident, by his own brother?
>I also believe that there is some level of fear in your community that
>these studies may confirm the hypothesis that "First" Nations may not
>actually be first; having actually displaced earlier populations that
>no longer exist. The fear being that this knowledge would reduce the
>political power of First Nations [if your ancient ancestors replaced an
>earlier population, why should I feel guilty about my recent ancestors
>replacing yours?]. I would like to believe that this would not be the
>case, but my faith in humanity has failed me before.
You make a *lot* of unwarranted assumptions and act as if they
are facts. What do you mean by "my community"? Nobody here
thinks that the Native population was anything other than the
first humans in this area. There is no "fear" that such could
be proven. Your whole idea is abjectly silly!
(My ancestors are virtually all Teutonic...)
>On the point of being culture-centric....I do attempt as best I can to
>see things from the other guy's perspective, it doesn't always work. I
>believe that reasonable people can reach reasonable understandings;
>unfortunately, this is often difficult when people take arbitrary
>positions [such as....if it's older than circa 1492 and on my
>traditional land, it must be my direct ancestor].
So you take the opposite stand, that since it isn't documented
in the English language and found in the courthouse archives, it
*can't* be true and therefore *you* have a right to claim
ownership?
>You are also being culture-centric when you insist that your modern
>cultural values be applied to the bones of someone that lived 8400
>years ago.
I haven't done that at all though. What I've suggested is that
the people who are most closely related are the one's whose
cultural values should be applied. That is certainly not *my*
cultural values!
>Even if he was your direct ancestor, which is
>unlikely....
As near as I can tell, it is impossible. That is despite Chatters
saying otherwise.
>how can you assume that his cultural values would still be
>reflected in your modern culture....that, my friend is culture-centric.
You are too far out on that limb to survive.
>I do have a fairly well tuned bullshit detector and after reading your
>replies....it is ringing really loud.
Oh, we know what you are and there is no need to describe it.
AC
Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> wrote:
> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>The opinion that Kennewick Man cannot be affiliated with ANY modern
>>population is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the scientific
>>community.
>
> Not true. It is the opinion of *some people* in the scientific
> community. There was no consensus on that, and in fact some
> very good evidence was presented supporting an opposing view.
Like what? And how does any of that justify the attempt to hide what is
clearly a very fascinating specimen that has in common with it only a
handful of other discoveries in the Americas?
<snip>
willre...@yahoo.com
> willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> >> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> >those remains should be repatriated. The key is that the
affiliation
> >> >MUST BE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED. Simply finding bones on land
presently
> >> >occupied by a particular tribe is not sufficient to prove
affiliation.
> >>
> >> An absurdly over emphasized requirement meant only to destroy
> >> the actual value of NAGPRA.
> >>
> >> "CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED" is of course a matter of opinion. There
> >> are *many* opinions... but the one which counts the most is the
> >> opinion of the people who believe the remains are indeed their
> >> ancestors. That is true *even if* they are not examples of White
> >> Westernized America.
> >
> >And so people have a right to an opinion according to what they
> >BELIEVE? That is such nonsense that I can't believe you typed it
with a
> >straight face.
>
> What? You think another culture should have opinions based on what
> *you* believe? I believe you did type that with a straight face,
> and that you don't have a clue.
I never had a straight face but that is heredity. I don't believe
anyone should have to have any particular opinion. People are going to
have what opinions they have, not what they should have.
However, I don't believe one group of people should be the only ones to
have a say in a matter just because they have strongly-held opinions.
Even thought they believe that they have a higher stake in the matter
than I do.
>
> >> Clearly there *is evidence* that the remains could indeed be
> >> affiliated with modern populations *and* those people are of the
> >> opinion that it is. That should have been enough, because
> >> *clearly* the damage that NAGPRA intends to avoid *will* be
> >> inflicted if that affiliation is denied. Citing legal
> >> technicalities as a reason does *not* make it less of an
> >> affront.
> >
> >If they really were of that opinion, they would not mind seeing the
> >evidence examined.
>
> According to *your* value system. But not according to theirs...
And what reason is there for their value system to trump mine? It isn't
that I want mine to necessarily be able to trump theirs, either, but
where do we go from there?
>
> >> Your opinion, again, stinks. It is culture centric and does not
> >> allow for any other opinion to be valid.
> >
> >No ones opinions are valid. Facts are valid.
>
> Which is *exactly* what I said. You just haven't yet figured out
> prioritizing facts is opinion.
Finding facts preceded prioritizing them.
>
> >> I am sorry that your culture is so insensitive, both about other
> >> cultures but even about your own ancestors. Other cultures do
> >> not suffer that flaw; you might want to study them to learn a
> >> more sophisticated, and civilized, value system.
> >
> >I am sorry that your culture is so damn silly.
>
> That's a fact. Mine *is yours*. But I do understand what
> it is...
Your culture is that of the poker room at Foxwoods Casino also? Didn't
know that.
Will in New Haven
Ken Shackleton
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> >The opinion that Kennewick Man cannot be affiliated with ANY modern
> >population is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the scientific
> >community.
>
> Not true. It is the opinion of *some people* in the scientific
> community. There was no consensus on that, and in fact some
> very good evidence was presented supporting an opposing view.
>
> >Also...are you seriously suggesting that your ancestors did
> >not move around and stayed in one location for thousands of years?
If
> >humanity does one thing well....it is that we move around a lot.
>
> Your ancestors and mine have moved around. What significance
> does that have in relationship to Kennewick Man? We have no
> evidence which proves he *wasn't* an ancestor of the current
> Native populations in that area.
Human movement means that present populations were not always where
they are now, and it cannot be assumed that an ancient skeleton is
ancestral to those modern populations that exist in the same location.
Also, NAGPRA specifies that there must be a cultural affiliation;
failing to prove that he isn't affiliated is not the same as confirming
that he is.
>
> >Finds like Kennewick Man are different....they are ancient beyond
the
> >memory of any modern culture and can offer insights that are
otherwise
> >impossible to attain without their study.
>
> And so far, with all of the "science" that has been performed on
> Kennewick Man... we know just about nothing of any real value.
> We know that several so called scientists are as pig headed and
> narrow minded as can be, and we know that KM probably ate a lot
> of fish.
>
> Was there anything else?
>
> Or are you counting all the hilarious statements by Chatters et al?
> Do you think he actually looked like Patrick Stuart? Or that KM
> was Caucasian?
I did see the reconstruction that [I'll admit] bears a resemblance to
Patrick Stewart. I would think that it would be foolish to think he was
Caucasian; bones give no indication of skin colour, and the
reconstruction did not have any hair, and since Mr. Stewart is
bald....there is a resemblance. However, the skull morphology indicates
that Kennewick Man is not closely related to any modern population, but
he is does resemble to the Ainu of Japan, not modern Native Americans.
>
> >The fact that he is morphologically distinct from ANY modern
population
> >and his bones contain a spearpoint that is associated with ancestors
to
> >modern native cultures speak to a LACK of affiliation, rather than
> >confirming one.
>
> Your logic is apparently overcome by fantasy. What do you think
> KM was? Some visitor who was attacked by locals, or was he a
> local being attacked by invading newcomers?
>
> How do you know if he wasn't accidentally speared in a hunting
> accident, by his own brother?
Could have been any of the above, not the last one unless his brother
found the spearpoint or traded for it from the ancestors of the modern
natives.
>
> >I also believe that there is some level of fear in your community
that
> >these studies may confirm the hypothesis that "First" Nations may
not
> >actually be first; having actually displaced earlier populations
that
> >no longer exist. The fear being that this knowledge would reduce the
> >political power of First Nations [if your ancient ancestors replaced
an
> >earlier population, why should I feel guilty about my recent
ancestors
> >replacing yours?]. I would like to believe that this would not be
the
> >case, but my faith in humanity has failed me before.
>
> You make a *lot* of unwarranted assumptions and act as if they
> are facts. What do you mean by "my community"? Nobody here
> thinks that the Native population was anything other than the
> first humans in this area. There is no "fear" that such could
> be proven. Your whole idea is abjectly silly!
>
> (My ancestors are virtually all Teutonic...)
You worded your previous response to give the impression that you were
a member of the Native community in Barrow. Knowing that a reasonable
person would make this mistake and then calling him out on it is the
act of a troll.
The native population may be the first humans there, but were those
particular natives first? Perhaps they moved there 2,000 years ago, or
500 years ago? Mayber there were other cultures that lived there
previously and left, or were forced out. Archaeological study can
answer the question by investigating the myths and stories of the
locals and compare that with the evidence.
>
> >On the point of being culture-centric....I do attempt as best I can
to
> >see things from the other guy's perspective, it doesn't always work.
I
> >believe that reasonable people can reach reasonable understandings;
> >unfortunately, this is often difficult when people take arbitrary
> >positions [such as....if it's older than circa 1492 and on my
> >traditional land, it must be my direct ancestor].
>
> So you take the opposite stand, that since it isn't documented
> in the English language and found in the courthouse archives, it
> *can't* be true and therefore *you* have a right to claim
> ownership?
You put words in my mouth.
I take the stand that just because my ancestors come from Scotland,
that not every ancient skeleton in the Highlands is not necessarily my
ancestor. To assume that would be foolish and most likely incorrect.
The native assumption that Kennewick Man is their ancestor just because
his bones were found on land presently occupied by them is similarly
foolish and most likely incorrect.
>
> >You are also being culture-centric when you insist that your modern
> >cultural values be applied to the bones of someone that lived 8400
> >years ago.
>
> I haven't done that at all though. What I've suggested is that
> the people who are most closely related are the one's whose
> cultural values should be applied. That is certainly not *my*
> cultural values!
>
> >Even if he was your direct ancestor, which is
> >unlikely....
>
> As near as I can tell, it is impossible. That is despite Chatters
> saying otherwise.
Again.....you are dissing me for reasonably assuming you were a native.
>
> >how can you assume that his cultural values would still be
> >reflected in your modern culture....that, my friend is
culture-centric.
>
> You are too far out on that limb to survive.
I am not assuming that my cultural values apply to a 8400 year old
skeleton....who is on the limb?
>
> >I do have a fairly well tuned bullshit detector and after reading
your
> >replies....it is ringing really loud.
>
> Oh, we know what you are and there is no need to describe it.
I will anyway:
I am a reasonable person, who does not suffer fools gladly; and got
taken in by a troll.
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:40:41 -0800,
>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> wrote:
>> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>The opinion that Kennewick Man cannot be affiliated with ANY modern
>>>population is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the scientific
>>>community.
>>
>> Not true. It is the opinion of *some people* in the scientific
>> community. There was no consensus on that, and in fact some
>> very good evidence was presented supporting an opposing view.
>
>Like what?
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/index.htm
A short legal summary of the determination that Kennewick Man
fit the requirements of NAGPRA is here,
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/c14memo.htm
>And how does any of that justify the attempt to hide what is
>clearly a very fascinating specimen that has in common with it only a
>handful of other discoveries in the Americas?
What is being hidden?
How does *anything* justify the desecration of ancestral remains
of a people who find that extremely offensive? NAGPRA was
passed specifically to stop the treatment of Native people as
specimens, and it should be enforced with precisely that
objective in mind.
Floyd L. Davidson
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED" is of course a matter of opinion. There
>> >> are *many* opinions... but the one which counts the most is the
>> >> opinion of the people who believe the remains are indeed their
>> >> ancestors. That is true *even if* they are not examples of White
>> >> Westernized America.
>> >
>> >And so people have a right to an opinion according to what they
>> >BELIEVE? That is such nonsense that I can't believe you typed it with a
>> >straight face.
>>
>> What? You think another culture should have opinions based on what
>> *you* believe? I believe you did type that with a straight face,
>> and that you don't have a clue.
>
>I never had a straight face but that is heredity. I don't believe
>anyone should have to have any particular opinion. People are going to
>have what opinions they have, not what they should have.
>
>However, I don't believe one group of people should be the only ones to
>have a say in a matter just because they have strongly-held opinions.
>Even thought they believe that they have a higher stake in the matter
>than I do.
Then why do you object to the concept that their opinions would
be based on what *they* believe, rather than what *you* believe.
You seem to be applying a double standard.
>> >> inflicted if that affiliation is denied. Citing legal
>> >> technicalities as a reason does *not* make it less of an
>> >> affront.
>> >
>> >If they really were of that opinion, they would not mind seeing the
>> >evidence examined.
>>
>> According to *your* value system. But not according to theirs...
>
>And what reason is there for their value system to trump mine? It isn't
>that I want mine to necessarily be able to trump theirs, either, but
>where do we go from there?
What reason is there for *your* value system to trump theirs?
It clearly is not *your* ancestor, so the only thing we can
definitely say is that your opinion has *no* bearing on what is
or not valid.
AC
> AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:40:41 -0800,
>>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> wrote:
>>> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The opinion that Kennewick Man cannot be affiliated with ANY modern
>>>>population is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the scientific
>>>>community.
>>>
>>> Not true. It is the opinion of *some people* in the scientific
>>> community. There was no consensus on that, and in fact some
>>> very good evidence was presented supporting an opposing view.
>>
>>Like what?
>
> http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/index.htm
>
> A short legal summary of the determination that Kennewick Man
> fit the requirements of NAGPRA is here,
>
> http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/c14memo.htm
So the key thing here, from what I can gather, was some C14 dating problems.
>
>>And how does any of that justify the attempt to hide what is
>>clearly a very fascinating specimen that has in common with it only a
>>handful of other discoveries in the Americas?
>
> What is being hidden?
>
> How does *anything* justify the desecration of ancestral remains
> of a people who find that extremely offensive? NAGPRA was
> passed specifically to stop the treatment of Native people as
> specimens, and it should be enforced with precisely that
> objective in mind.
I'm afraid I do lump the furthering of human knowledge higher on the pole
than theoretical affinities thousands of years old. Native peoples are not
being treated as specimens, very ancient remains and sites that may or may
not have a relationship to modern populations are being studied. I'm sorry,
but I find any attempt to hide or defeat this kind of knowledge simply to
spare the feelings of people, no matter who those people are, to be
wrongheaded and against the spirit of exploration.
AC
> definitely say is that your opinion has *no* bearing on what is
> or not valid.
How can *you* justify that? It cuts both ways.
Ken Shackleton
The key word is "ancestral".....just because he is old and is Native,
does not a cultural affiliation or ancestor make....
There has never been a cultural affiliation made between KM and ANY
existing Native American culture. For that matter, KM cannot be
affiliated with ANY modern human culture.....he is simply too old to
make that determination.
It would be like me making a claim on ancestry when an ancient grave is
discovered in Saxony....I know that my ancestors came from there, since
I know that the Saxons invaded the British Isles in the 4th century. I
must have Saxon blood, since one of my grandfathers was English. So I
can argue a cultural affiliation with a 1st century Saxon grave.....and
it's 6400 years younger than KM.....so if there is a viable claim to
Kennewick Man.....my claim would be much, much stronger.
Foolish....right? The claim to Kennewick Man is even more ridiculous.
Lee Olsen
Like I said: "The incompetents at BBC, who do not know the difference
between
"formed" and "lost" or are at least not educated enough to edit out a
mistake of this magnitude are not competent enough to judge between
facts and fantasies on the peopling of the Americas issue."
> Evidence of human habitation of the
> Americas goes back some 50,000 years.
Completely wrong. There is no credible 50,000-year-old site in the
Americas.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html
"They refer to claims of great antiquity for artifacts from the Calico,
Pedra Furada, Sandia Cave, Sheguiandah, and Timlin sites, but are
apparently unaware of recent (and some not so recent) work concerning
these sites which substantially refutes (or calls into serious
question) the claims of the original investigators (e.g., Cole and
Godfrey, 1977; Cole et al., 1978; Funk, 1977; Haynes and Agogino, 1986;
Julig et al., 1990; Kirkland, 1977; Meltzer et al., 1994; Preston,
1995; Schnurrenberger and Bryan, 1985; Starna, 1977; Taylor, 1994)."
You fall under the category of the unaware.
Chukotka and
> Kamchatka, maybe Pleistocene/Holocene barrier, at best.
No barrier at all, they walked across, just like the citations said.
>
> I personally am not surprised by these "pre-Indian
> Caucasian" stories;
Your mind seems to have jumped the track. The BBC article was about
Australians and how the Beringia Land Bridge was "formed 11,000 years
ago."
in addition to the obvious racism, if
> there's anything Westerners are known for, parsimony ain't
> it. (An old joke is that a white man and an Indian are out
> camping. In the middle of the night, they wake up and look
> at the stars and the Indian asks him what it means. The
> white guy goes on about "It reminds me of the vastness of
> the universe and how we're all just tiny specks." The Indian
> says "It tells me someone took our tent.")
What does all that have to do with what I posted? Or were you just
talking to yourself?
Lee Olsen
> AC wrote:
> > > Just looking at the surviving native population there is no
> evidence
> > > that even if the Australoids were here first that they had a high
> > > enough population to influence the phenotype of the new invaders.
> > > Anything is possible, they may not have survived the ice age,
they
> may
> > > have been susceptable to diseases brought by the newcomers, they
> may
> > > never have gotten to America, or whatever. The most notable
thing
> is
> > > that they didn't leave much if any evidence of their existence in
> the
> > > Americans that were discovered by Europeans.
> >
> > It's still early on, but I suspect that you are right. These
earlier
> > colonizers don't seem to have come in large numbers, and if they
were
> around
> > when the Clovis peoples came I think it's quite possible that they
> were
> > subsumed or wiped out.
>
> Whatever happened to parsimony?
>
> > > If the 50,000 year estimate is correct, you think that humans
with
> a
> > > 30,000 year head start would have left some trace in the
population
> of
> > > Asians that came after them. There should have been two
continents
> > > full of them.
> >
> > One would think so, and that's probably the most puzzling part
about
> this
> > new layer of colonization. Due to the low number of verified sites
> and some
> > of the political difficulties being thrown up, answers are hard to
> come by.
> >
> > If I remember correctly, the Clovis peoples had been hanging around
> eastern
> > Siberia and Berengia for some time before the Laurentide Ice Sheet
> had
> > melted sufficiently to allow them access to the rest of the
Americas.
>
> Err . . . No. There are no Clovis sites in Siberia or
> Alaska.
Err... Why don't you try matching your 50,000-year-old-industry with
anywhere else in the world that you think it might fit.
And just for fun, why don't you define just *exactly* what you think a
Clovis site should look like.
Lee Olsen
> Datum: Indians don't fit the mongoloid type.
Why would they after X thousands of years? Did the exact same mixing
occur in the Americas that occured in Asia?
At all. Long
> faces, long noses prognathism, and dolichocephaly aren't
> mongoloid features.
So all Indians fit your misconstrued stereotype?
> Datum: This "prehistoric genocide" claim is unparsimonious,
> untestable, and these claims of "man's innate aggression"
> were discredited in the 70s.
> Datum: War is generally a case of resources. Population
> growth was slow and steady until the rise of complex
> societies.
> Inference: In New Zealand, racists claim another race was
> there before the Maori. In South Africa, racists claim
> whites were there before blacks. Ditto for Rhodesia before
> it was renamed Zimbabwe and Mugabe kicked the whites out.
> Even in North America, the "mound builders" were originally
> thought to be an ancient white race killed off by Indians.
> Needless to say, none of these are true.
So give us a citation here, (1%?) of everybody thought that? A loon
news reporter, that doesn't know the difference between "formed" and
"lost," says "it appears that the mongoloid people from the north
invaded and wiped out the original
Americans." So he is now speaking for the majority?
> Conclusion: It's more logical, more parsimonious, that
> Indians are descended from the people who created those
> 50,000-year-old tools,
Why stop there, why not believe the 200,000-year-old Calico tool
hallucination also?
and actually any other conclusion is
> probably ideologically motivated.
Same can be said for fringe believers that see tools were there aren't
any to see and those who believe errant dating.
<snip>
Floyd L. Davidson
>> does that have in relationship to Kennewick Man? We have no
>> evidence which proves he *wasn't* an ancestor of the current
>> Native populations in that area.
>
>Human movement means that present populations were not always where
>they are now, and it cannot be assumed that an ancient skeleton is
>ancestral to those modern populations that exist in the same location.
You have no evidence that those tribes have moved in that
particular period of time. They say they have not, and in fact
there is physical evidence which supports that.
>Also, NAGPRA specifies that there must be a cultural affiliation;
>failing to prove that he isn't affiliated is not the same as confirming
>that he is.
Your lack of information about this topic does not constitute
any lack of the various proofs required.
The Department of the Interior produced a "Cultural Affiliation
Report" in September 2000, with 5 chapters:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/cultaff_intro.htm
"Background and Scope for the Cultural Affiliation Reports"
Francis P. McManamon, Jason C. Roberts, and Brooke S. Blades
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/ames.htm
"Review of the Archaeological Data"
Dr. Kenneth M. Ames
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/boxberger.htm
"Review of Traditional Historical and Ethnographic Information"
Dr. Daniel L. Boxberger
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/hunn.htm
"Review of Linguistic Information"
Dr. Eugene S. Hunn
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/hackenberger.htm
"Cultural Affiliation Study of the Kennewick Human Remains:
Review of Bio-Archaeological Information"
Dr. Steven Hackenberger
>> Or are you counting all the hilarious statements by Chatters et al?
>> Do you think he actually looked like Patrick Stuart? Or that KM
>> was Caucasian?
>
>I did see the reconstruction that [I'll admit] bears a resemblance to
>Patrick Stewart.
Of *course* the "reconstruction" looks like Stewart! Chatters
decided *before* he did it that he would make it look like
Stewart. The "reconstruction" was merely plastering a known
face onto a model of the skull. It had *nothing* to do with any
attempt at determining what Kennewick Man actually looked like.
>I would think that it would be foolish to think he was
>Caucasian; bones give no indication of skin colour, and the
>reconstruction did not have any hair, and since Mr. Stewart is
>bald....there is a resemblance. However, the skull morphology indicates
>that Kennewick Man is not closely related to any modern population, but
>he is does resemble to the Ainu of Japan, not modern Native Americans.
And *no reputable scientist" is going to suggest that that means
he is *not* the ancestor of today's modern Indians.
>> >The fact that he is morphologically distinct from ANY modern population
>> >and his bones contain a spearpoint that is associated with ancestors to
>> >modern native cultures speak to a LACK of affiliation, rather than
>> >confirming one.
>>
>> Your logic is apparently overcome by fantasy. What do you think
>> KM was? Some visitor who was attacked by locals, or was he a
>> local being attacked by invading newcomers?
>>
>> How do you know if he wasn't accidentally speared in a hunting
>> accident, by his own brother?
>
>Could have been any of the above, not the last one unless his brother
>found the spearpoint or traded for it from the ancestors of the modern
>natives.
Eh? You aren't making sense.
The most likely scenario is that he *is* the ancestor of modern Natives,
and so was the person who injured him (accidental or otherwise).
The idea that there would have been *two* cultures there, one of which
became modern Natives and the other of which had no such influence, is
absurd. Are you claiming that one of them was transient?
>> (My ancestors are virtually all Teutonic...)
>
>You worded your previous response to give the impression that you were
>a member of the Native community in Barrow. Knowing that a reasonable
>person would make this mistake and then calling him out on it is the
>act of a troll.
I gave no such impression. In fact I am *very careful* to avoid
any such implication, and go out of my way just as I did above
to make that very clear relatively early in such discussions.
Of course it is often useful to wait a day or so, to allow those
with a propensity to jump to conclusions to dive off the cliff.
You don't seem to rely heavily on real evidence for much of
anything you are saying, and that was just another data point in
a graphic demonstration of that your conclusions are false.
>The native population may be the first humans there, but were those
>particular natives first? Perhaps they moved there 2,000 years ago, or
>500 years ago?
What evidence do you have for that?
>Mayber there were other cultures that lived there
>previously and left, or were forced out. Archaeological study can
>answer the question by investigating the myths and stories of the
>locals and compare that with the evidence.
Been done! And doesn't support what you are claiming...
>> >On the point of being culture-centric....I do attempt as best I can to
>> >see things from the other guy's perspective, it doesn't always work. I
>> >believe that reasonable people can reach reasonable understandings;
>> >unfortunately, this is often difficult when people take arbitrary
>> >positions [such as....if it's older than circa 1492 and on my
>> >traditional land, it must be my direct ancestor].
>>
>> So you take the opposite stand, that since it isn't documented
>> in the English language and found in the courthouse archives, it
>> *can't* be true and therefore *you* have a right to claim
>> ownership?
>
>You put words in my mouth.
*You* did the necessary babbling, not me.
>The native assumption that Kennewick Man is their ancestor just because
>his bones were found on land presently occupied by them is similarly
>foolish and most likely incorrect.
But that is just *your* *ignorant* depreciation of what they
have said and of what is known otherwise. There are indeed some
*very* good reasons to believe that they have ancestors going
back prior to 7000 years ago in that area. The evidence for
9000 isn't as good, but it outweighs any claim that it can't be.
Of course, you've never heard of that evidence, so it doesn't
exist? And some of it was not recorded in the English language,
nor stored in an American court house until recently, so I
suppose you won't accept it either.
Do I need to explain what that means?
>> >Even if he was your direct ancestor, which is
>> >unlikely....
>>
>> As near as I can tell, it is impossible. That is despite Chatters
>> saying otherwise.
>
>Again.....you are dissing me for reasonably assuming you were a native.
I am dissing you for not sticking to facts, and making
assumptions on topics that you don't know anything at all about.
I certainly did *not* in any way insinuate that I am Native.
You assumed that anyone whose opinions sided with Native
opinions necessarily is Native. You make a lot of other
assumptions, equally false, too.
>> You are too far out on that limb to survive.
>
>I am not assuming that my cultural values apply to a 8400 year old
>skeleton....who is on the limb?
That is exactly what you are doing, even if you deny it 20 more
times.
>I am a reasonable person, who does not suffer fools gladly; and got
>taken in by a troll.
I'll grant that you've been suckered. You walked into a
discussion that you are totally unprepared for, and made
statements based on ignorance under the assumption that nobody
would have sufficient knowledge to demonstrate that you are both
ignorant and wrong.
That was a mistake. Do a little research with google and find
out how often this topic has been discussed on Usenet, who has
taken part in those discussions, and where there is
documentation that provides facts.
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:33:21 -0800,
>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> wrote:
>> AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:40:41 -0800,
>>>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> wrote:
>>>> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>The opinion that Kennewick Man cannot be affiliated with ANY modern
>>>>>population is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the scientific
>>>>>community.
>>>>
>>>> Not true. It is the opinion of *some people* in the scientific
>>>> community. There was no consensus on that, and in fact some
>>>> very good evidence was presented supporting an opposing view.
>>>
>>>Like what?
>>
>> http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/index.htm
>>
>> A short legal summary of the determination that Kennewick Man
>> fit the requirements of NAGPRA is here,
>>
>> http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/c14memo.htm
>
>So the key thing here, from what I can gather, was some C14 dating problems.
So, it appears you don't want to read anything for detail.
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/index.htm
Try it, and see if it can help get that foot out of your mouth.
Floyd L. Davidson
>>
>> http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/index.htm
>The key word is "ancestral".....just because he is old and is Native,
>does not a cultural affiliation or ancestor make....
>There has never been a cultural affiliation made between KM and ANY
>existing Native American culture. For that matter, KM cannot be
The key word is _ignorance_. I gave you a link, which *clearly*
demonstrates that what you are saying is false. You ignore the
link, make no attempt to learn anything about the topic, and
continue to make false statements.
>affiliated with ANY modern human culture.....he is simply too old to
>make that determination.
That is not true either.
Floyd L. Davidson
>> Err . . . No. There are no Clovis sites in Siberia or
>> Alaska.
>
>Err... Why don't you try matching your 50,000-year-old-industry with
>anywhere else in the world that you think it might fit.
>
>And just for fun, why don't you define just *exactly* what you think a
>Clovis site should look like.
If you think there are "Clovis sites" in either Alaska or Siberia,
I'd like to know where, and see something by the people excavating
them suggesting that they think it is Clovis.
I don't keep real close tabs on this stuff, but I've never heard
of such.
Doug Weller
This is very old news - a 1999 program. And no one should be surprised to
find that it is misleading. The evidence for a 'massacre' is of course
just one way of interpreting the rock art and IMHO should be given no
weight whatsover, especially at Lucia's descendants are still alive!
Take a look at this:
http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?1,300309,302557#msg-302557
"The PaleoIndian Lagoa Santa people (Luzia's folk) overlap American Indian
& East Asian features MORE than they do anybody else. And there is an
Indian tribe called the Botocudo, from the same region of Brazil that the
Lagoa Santa remains were found, who are described as having originally
(the tribe has no fullbloods nowadays, but they DO have a good collection
of older crania from fullblooded tribal members) been close matches for
Lagoa Santa. I've REALLY wondered why Walter Neves didn't include them in
his craniometric comparisons......
The Pericu of Baja California (only "recently" killed off, by the Spanish)
show strong craniometric affinities to the Lagoa Santa paleoIndians, AND
even closer ones to PaleoIndian (like Penon Woman) Archaic era samples
from the Valley of Mexico. These PaleoIndian/Archaic samples, in turn,
closely match modern Aztec samples. (Can you spell "biological
continuity?") "
and
"The PaleoIndian Lagoa Santa people (Luzia's folk) overlap American Indian
& East Asian features MORE than they do anybody else. And there is an
Indian tribe called the Botocudo, from the same region of Brazil that the
Lagoa Santa remains were found, who are described as having originally
(the tribe has no fullbloods nowadays, but they DO have a good collection
of older crania from fullblooded tribal members) been close matches for
Lagoa Santa. I've REALLY wondered why Walter Neves didn't include them in
his craniometric comparisons......
The Pericu of Baja California (only "recently" killed off, by the Spanish)
show strong craniometric affinities to the Lagoa Santa paleoIndians, AND
even closer ones to PaleoIndian (like Penon Woman) Archaic era samples
from the Valley of Mexico. These PaleoIndian/Archaic samples, in turn,
closely match modern Aztec samples. (Can you spell "biological
continuity?") "
END OF QUOTE
The Brazilians involved with Lucia think she came to South America via
Siberia.
We are talking about shared ancestry here.
Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
rich hammett
>>The key word is "ancestral".....just because he is old and is Native,
>>does not a cultural affiliation or ancestor make....
>>There has never been a cultural affiliation made between KM and ANY
>>existing Native American culture. For that matter, KM cannot be
> The key word is _ignorance_. I gave you a link, which *clearly*
> demonstrates that what you are saying is false. You ignore the
> link, make no attempt to learn anything about the topic, and
> continue to make false statements.
The way I read that report, the legal determination was made
entirely on the basis that KM was pre-columbian.
Who writes these stupid laws, anyway?
rich
>>affiliated with ANY modern human culture.....he is simply too old to
>>make that determination.
> That is not true either.
--
Secret Squirrel
man_in_...@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1114656938.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> Actually, most of the opposition to NAGPRA comes from
> people who sell artifacts, as well as from white
> supremacist groups and the usual "nutty professor seeking
> tenure" variety.
I've read the Act, and unless I'm misinterpreting what it says,
it's pretty broad. I'll try to see if I can post more on it
this weekend.
> FWIW, there were human remains collected in the 19th
> century in the Smithsonian's basement when NAGPRA passed.
> These boxes hadn't even been opened yet.
You can't make too much of that. I know someone who's worked
on prehistorical human remains, including that from North
America (and this person, moreover, was partially of Native
American ancestry, enough to "look" like one), and it's true,
sometimes you discover things by looking at the old stuff
that got carted up and stored in the basement of museums "until
we get the time to examine it" just as often as you discover
them out in a new dig in the field. The field is something like
paleontology and astronomy, the ratio of professionals to
material is unfavorable, so stuff does pile up.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQnF5AT/rA6+b3AyhAQH+kAf+MICXIenZH+2xPyVu6ZBCdAsrt6Zm9ucK
KwxLonOpmaODFIgV+Y5bwI8bT+oILeZneS82eYjJ/7D3BG79BJefB+wOPQIJTUUV
yHfU5tg1IwJ/tdl2+dPtOAomOVNRtfAnoMN1QcG99wVfLHq0+pzeQj6utjxtKKBq
c7Lfida1qrDHewtIHQW1Ssr4dDZpMMmlW1GSAf3a4UzyG4pn56dp83gCR8zB+Njp
0IOJMMKtlVwGd9qbxMkpon1UVWu8UHksZMHiLS8cS3S4EKbN0dX8AEpphVpd9Yka
Ql7pYIYHxTrcRjpw2fJq9kuVhsc1MdKM5FRUemzfUyEvfektcJMBsw==
=23ef
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
VoiceOfReason
A number of Clovis points would be a good start.
Secret Squirrel
"Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote in
news:1114720446.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> (My ancestors are virtually all Teutonic...)
>
> You worded your previous response to give the impression
> that you were a member of the Native community in Barrow.
That he is, as I understand it, but he's "white". Visit his
home page sometime.
> Knowing that a reasonable person would make this mistake
> and then calling him out on it is the act of a troll.
>> >Even if he was your direct ancestor, which is
>> >unlikely....
>>
>> As near as I can tell, it is impossible. That is despite
>> Chatters saying otherwise.
>
> Again.....you are dissing me for reasonably assuming you
> were a native.
> I am a reasonable person, who does not suffer fools gladly;
> and got taken in by a troll.
Floyd's not a troll. I'm not sure I completely agree with him
about this issue, but then again I've learned a lot from him.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQnF5AT/rA6+b3AyhAQFXswgAl+Kvj0fKuoGpu8pfOwV22FG5NwV93G8j
0NdV/BKew6FopC0m+vIjPZ3wakBAQLmL3YxCRnekvZTW9ujsvZ6ri8H2x5Yf/lf9
2UQ7TXhV7nYAvp8BzCfv5O3uV6+26WsqlsY8aDZF1puYKzPixAZfrHRp3nXcnbL2
QfL2X8EcmwCLvBWet0ua3svsBdwgsLfW4TFbjN2hVZ5UbFa6jWZD09j8bC14YxI1
GDtb9UxXEAsolY1vivXFHDdgpjNq57T77WeNv8rfQ9tTQSDHpWncHFRf18pRRQrK
611r7Il6hrtGrhqms49ihKYOJ3MjncB4t8kp0KVPE3HWre3onOr0Sw==
=37Nf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lee Olsen
Macroblades from prismatic cores.
http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/books/colclo.html
OK, your turn....:-)
rich hammett
> There is no evidence of "Clovis peoples" migrating into NA in
> the first place. The technology appears to have originated in
> NA.
Well, okay, that's good for the "Clovis" part, but the _people_
still had to come from somewhere.
rich
rich hammett
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> >those remains should be repatriated. The key is that the affiliation
>>> >MUST BE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED. Simply finding bones on land presently
>>> >occupied by a particular tribe is not sufficient to prove affiliation.
>>>
>>> An absurdly over emphasized requirement meant only to destroy
>>> the actual value of NAGPRA.
>>>
>>> "CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED" is of course a matter of opinion. There
>>> are *many* opinions... but the one which counts the most is the
>>> opinion of the people who believe the remains are indeed their
>>> ancestors. That is true *even if* they are not examples of White
>>> Westernized America.
>>
>>And so people have a right to an opinion according to what they
>>BELIEVE? That is such nonsense that I can't believe you typed it with a
>>straight face.
> What? You think another culture should have opinions based on what
> *you* believe?
Now let me get this straight...It's okay for older immigrants
to order newer immigrants around using current political
power, but it's bad when the newer immigrants order the older
ones around using that same power?
rich
--
rich hammett
He's clearly my species, and I think that the use in science
and education of ALL deceased members of my species trumps
any whiny victimhood misuse of federal laws in the name of
religion.
rich
rich hammett
> FWIW, there were human remains collected in the 19th century
> in the Smithsonian's basement when NAGPRA passed. These
> boxes hadn't even been opened yet.
There's tons of stuff that hasn't been studied there. Is
this important?
Lee Olsen
> "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Err . . . No. There are no Clovis sites in Siberia or
> >> Alaska.
> >
> >Err... Why don't you try matching your 50,000-year-old-industry with
> >anywhere else in the world that you think it might fit.
> >
> >And just for fun, why don't you define just *exactly* what you think
a
> >Clovis site should look like.
>
> If you think there are "Clovis sites" in either Alaska or Siberia,
> I'd like to know where, and see something by the people excavating
> them suggesting that they think it is Clovis.
>
> I don't keep real close tabs on this stuff, but I've never heard
> of such.
The most comprehensive study, and the most informative, IMO, would be
West 1996.
I just got a copy through interlibrary loan, you should be able to do
the same. Many of the primary researchers who have done work in
Beringia have written chapters in this book.
Since 1996 there have been some new finds and 14C dates. I will look
those up and post what I have.
Lee Olsen
Lee Olsen wrote:
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> > "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Err . . . No. There are no Clovis sites in Siberia or
> > >> Alaska.
> > >
> > >Err... Why don't you try matching your 50,000-year-old-industry
with
> > >anywhere else in the world that you think it might fit.
> > >
> > >And just for fun, why don't you define just *exactly* what you
think
> a
> > >Clovis site should look like.
> >
> > If you think there are "Clovis sites" in either Alaska or Siberia,
> > I'd like to know where, and see something by the people excavating
> > them suggesting that they think it is Clovis.
> >
> > I don't keep real close tabs on this stuff, but I've never heard
> > of such.
>
>
> The most comprehensive study, and the most informative, IMO, would be
> West 1996.
> I just got a copy through interlibrary loan, you should be able to do
> the same. Many of the primary researchers who have done work in
> Beringia have written chapters in this book.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9k7zq
Oops, time ran out on the URL.
FH West, CF West
American beginnings: the prehistory and palaeoecology of Beringia
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996
Floyd L. Davidson
>In talk.origins Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>>The key word is "ancestral".....just because he is old and is Native,
>>>does not a cultural affiliation or ancestor make....
>>>There has never been a cultural affiliation made between KM and ANY
>>>existing Native American culture. For that matter, KM cannot be
>
>> The key word is _ignorance_. I gave you a link, which *clearly*
>> demonstrates that what you are saying is false. You ignore the
>> link, make no attempt to learn anything about the topic, and
>> continue to make false statements.
>
>The way I read that report, the legal determination was made
>entirely on the basis that KM was pre-columbian.
I have to wonder just how you could have read it and yet missed
everything it says? For example, in Chapter 3, written by
"Daniel L. Boxberger, Ph.D. with Stacy Rasmus, Research
Assistant" we find the purpose of their part of the
investigations:
Statement of Purpose
This report has been prepared under contract with the
National Park Service for the purpose of investigating the
ethnographic and historical data concerning the cultural
affiliation of the Kennewick human remains. Specifically I
was asked to review published and archival materials related
to the traditional ethnography, including traditional
histories, kinship and patterns of residence, trade and
social networks, artifact types and dwellings, community and
settlement patterns, and economic and subsistence
patterns. The documented historic database was also to be
reviewed but was considered secondary. The specifications of
this contract were to focus on the period prior to the
written historical record, 1805, and extending back to the
approximate date of the Kennewick human remains, circa 9,500
BP. The determinations of the Indian Claims Commission were
to be consulted for the approximate boundaries of tribal
territories and based on these determinations and stated
interest the following recognized and non-recognized tribes
were to be considered in this report: the Confederated Tribes
and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation; the Nez Perce Tribe;
the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation;
the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation;
and the Wanapum Band of Indians, a non-federally recognized
tribe.
You say you did actually read the report, right?
One interesting part of the conclusion in that particular report
has signficance in light of claims made in this thread in regard
to possible movement of entire cultures into and out of the area.
Used in conjunction, the protohistoric, ethnographic, oral
traditions and historic database suggest a cultural
continuity in the southern Plateau extending into the
prehistoric past. Cultural change occurred, as it does in all
cultures, but this change can be seen as transitional and
continuous with new cultural forms emerging out of previous
cultural forms. There is no evidence of in-migration causing
cultural transformation. Rather, the adoption of cultural
traits originating outside the Plateau, e.g., the Plains,
Great Basin, Northwest Coast, were incorporated into existing
Plateau traditions.
So much for the current tribes not being descendent from the
people who existed in that area at the time KM lived. And so
much for there being no evidence to associate those people with
KM. And so much for your claim to have read the report.
And of course that is only a *small* part of what you missed
when you "read" the report.
>Who writes these stupid laws, anyway?
Probably people who don't make up fabrications about what they
have and have not read, and probably people who actually can
read and understand the significance of scientific reports.
Who writes these stupid Usenet articles, anyway?
Floyd L. Davidson
>In talk.origins Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>
>> There is no evidence of "Clovis peoples" migrating into NA in
>> the first place. The technology appears to have originated in
>> NA.
>
>Well, okay, that's good for the "Clovis" part, but the _people_
>still had to come from somewhere.
So?
Floyd L. Davidson
>In talk.origins Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>> willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>And so people have a right to an opinion according to what they
>>>BELIEVE? That is such nonsense that I can't believe you typed it with a
>>>straight face.
>
>> What? You think another culture should have opinions based on what
>> *you* believe?
>
>Now let me get this straight...It's okay for older immigrants
>to order newer immigrants around using current political
>power, but it's bad when the newer immigrants order the older
>ones around using that same power?
Well if you want to get this straight, please do. But you'll
have to do a better job of explaining yourself that posting
gibberish like that. It doesn't mean anything.
John Harshman
> AC wrote:
>
>>Having had my ass handed to me on a fine silver plate by my betters,
>
> I
>
>>actually am interested in reading some literature on the topic of the
>
> early
>
>>human migrations, and the evidence for them via genetic markers and
>>archaeology. What are some good (and reasonably recent) references
>
> on the
>
>>subject?
>>
>>--
>>mightym...@hotmail.com
>
>
> _Human Evolutionary Genetics_ Jobling, Hurles and Tyler-Smith
>
> Garland Science Publishing 2004
>
> Disclaimer 1: I market the damn book
>
> Disclaimer 2: There is a very good popular book that covers much of the
> same ground and I would tell you what it was if I could remember it.
> HEG has a great deal of very technical material in the first few
> chapters and it is intended as a textbook. The book I can't remember
> was easier for me to read. However, I DID read HEG and enjoyed much of
> it.
Are you perchance trying to think of one of Cavalli-Sforza's books?
John Harshman
> AC wrote:
>
>>Having had my ass handed to me on a fine silver plate by my betters,
>
> I
>
>>actually am interested in reading some literature on the topic of the
>
> early
>
>>human migrations, and the evidence for them via genetic markers and
>>archaeology. What are some good (and reasonably recent) references
>
> on the
>
>>subject?
>>
>>--
>>mightym...@hotmail.com
>
>
> I like _The Genetics of Human Populations [Unabridged]_ by L. L.
> Cavalli-Sforza and W. F. Bodmer.
> _The History and Geography of Human Genes : (Abridged paperback
> edition)_ by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza is also good, and more
> accessable.
For a more popular account, try Cavalli-Sforza's The Human Diasporas.
rich hammett
> rich hammett <bubba...@warmmail.com> wrote:
>>In talk.origins Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>> willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>And so people have a right to an opinion according to what they
>>>>BELIEVE? That is such nonsense that I can't believe you typed it with a
>>>>straight face.
>>
>>> What? You think another culture should have opinions based on what
>>> *you* believe?
>>
>>Now let me get this straight...It's okay for older immigrants
>>to order newer immigrants around using current political
>>power, but it's bad when the newer immigrants order the older
>>ones around using that same power?
> Well if you want to get this straight, please do. But you'll
> have to do a better job of explaining yourself that posting
> gibberish like that. It doesn't mean anything.
Well, it does, but here:
You don't object to American Indians using political power
to enforce their beliefs onto others, but you object to
European Americans using political power to enforce their
beliefs on American Indians.
rich
rich hammett
> rich hammett <bubba...@warmmail.com> wrote:
>>In talk.origins Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>
>>> There is no evidence of "Clovis peoples" migrating into NA in
>>> the first place. The technology appears to have originated in
>>> NA.
>>
>>Well, okay, that's good for the "Clovis" part, but the _people_
>>still had to come from somewhere.
> So?
So we were talking about ANCESTORS, not tech innovators, before
you tossed in the wed hewwing.
rich hammett
> rich hammett <bubba...@warmmail.com> wrote:
>>In talk.origins Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>The key word is "ancestral".....just because he is old and is Native,
>>>>does not a cultural affiliation or ancestor make....
>>>>There has never been a cultural affiliation made between KM and ANY
>>>>existing Native American culture. For that matter, KM cannot be
>>
>>> The key word is _ignorance_. I gave you a link, which *clearly*
>>> demonstrates that what you are saying is false. You ignore the
>>> link, make no attempt to learn anything about the topic, and
>>> continue to make false statements.
>>
>>The way I read that report, the legal determination was made
>>entirely on the basis that KM was pre-columbian.
> I have to wonder just how you could have read it and yet missed
> everything it says? For example, in Chapter 3, written by
> "Daniel L. Boxberger, Ph.D. with Stacy Rasmus, Research
> Assistant" we find the purpose of their part of the
> investigations:
I said "legal determination." The link giving the legal
justification said it was just necessary to establish
that the remains were precolumbian, and it did so.
rich
> Statement of Purpose
--
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> > Datum: Indians don't fit the mongoloid type.
>
> Why would they after X thousands of years? Did the exact same mixing
> occur in the Americas that occured in Asia?
That's what the BBC would have us believe. But you, OTOH,
would have us believe that everything we know about mammal
anatomy is wrong.
> At all. Long
> > faces, long noses prognathism, and dolichocephaly aren't
> > mongoloid features.
>
> So all Indians fit your misconstrued stereotype?
*snicker* How many Indians have you met?
> > Datum: This "prehistoric genocide" claim is unparsimonious,
> > untestable, and these claims of "man's innate aggression"
> > were discredited in the 70s.
> > Datum: War is generally a case of resources. Population
> > growth was slow and steady until the rise of complex
> > societies.
> > Inference: In New Zealand, racists claim another race was
> > there before the Maori. In South Africa, racists claim
> > whites were there before blacks. Ditto for Rhodesia before
> > it was renamed Zimbabwe and Mugabe kicked the whites out.
> > Even in North America, the "mound builders" were originally
> > thought to be an ancient white race killed off by Indians.
> > Needless to say, none of these are true.
>
> So give us a citation here, (1%?) of everybody thought that?
1%? Are you kidding? These were almost universal beliefs in
the 19th century, and even into the early 20th. In the case
of South Africa, practically all white South Africans
believed they were there before the blacks.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm
> > > >
> > > > The first Americans were descended from Australian aborigines,
> > > > according to evidence in a new BBC documentary.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The skulls suggest faces like those of Australian aborigines
> > > > The programme, Ancient Voices, shows that the dimensions of
> > > prehistoric
> > > > skulls found in Brazil match those of the aboriginal peoples of
> > > > Australia and Melanesia. Other evidence suggests that these
first
> > > > Americans were later massacred by invaders from Asia.
> > > >
> > > > Until now, native Americans were believed to have descended
from
> > > Asian
> > > > ancestors who arrived over a land bridge between Siberia and
> Alaska
> > > and
> > > > then migrated across the whole of north and south America. The
> land
> > > > bridge was formed 11,000 years ago during the ice age, when sea
> > level
> > > > dropped.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > However, the new evidence shows that these people did not
arrive
> in
> > > an
> > > > empty wilderness. Stone tools and charcoal from the site in
> Brazil
> > > show
> > > > evidence of human habitation as long ago as 50,000 years.
> > > >
> > > > The site is at Serra Da Capivara in remote northeast Brazil.
This
> > > area
> > > > is now inhabited by the descendants of European settlers and
> > African
> > > > slaves who arrived just 500 years ago.
> > > >
> > > > But cave paintings found here provided the first clue to the
> > > existence
> > > > of a much older people.
> > > >
> > > > Images of giant armadillos, which died out before the last ice
> age,
> > > > show the artists who drew them lived before even the natives
who
> > > > greeted the Europeans.
> > > >
> > > > These Asian people have facial features described as mongoloid.
> > > > However, skulls dug from a depth equivalent to 9,000 to 12,000
> > years
> > > > ago are very different.
> > > >
> > > > Walter Neves, an archaeologist from the University of Sao
Paolo,
> > has
> > > > taken extensive skull measurements from dozens of skulls,
> including
> > > the
> > > > oldest, a young woman who has been named Lucia.
> > > >
> > > > "The measurements show that Lucia was anything but mongoloid,"
he
> > > says.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The next step was to reconstruct a face from Lucia's skull.
> First,
> > a
> > > > CAT scan of the skull was done, to allow an accurate working
> model
> > to
> > > > be made.
> > > >
> > > > Then a forensic artist, Richard Neave from the University of
> > > > Manchester, UK, created a face for Lucia. The result was
> > surprising:
> > > > "It has all the features of a negroid face," says Dr Neave.
> > > >
> > > > The skull dimensions and facial features match most closely the
> > > native
> > > > people of Australia and Melanesia. These people date back to
> about
> > > > 60,000 years, and were themselves descended from the first
> humans,
> > > who
> > > > left Africa about 100,000 years ago.
> > > >
> > > > But how could the early Australians have travelled more than
> 13,500
> > > > kilometres (8,450 miles) at that time? The answer comes from
more
> > > cave
> > > > paintings, this time from the Kimberley, a region at the
northern
> > tip
> > > > of Western Australia.
> > > >
> > > > Here, Grahame Walsh, an expert on Australian rock art, found
the
> > > oldest
> > > > painting of a boat anywhere in the world. The style of the art
> > means
> > > it
> > > > is at least 17,000 years old, but it could be up to 50,000
years
> > old.
> > > >
> > > > And the crucial detail is the high prow of the boat. This would
> > have
> > > > been unnecessary for boats used in calm, inland waters. The
> design
> > > > suggests it was used on the open ocean.
> > > >
> > > > Fantastic voyage
> > > >
> > > > Archaeologists speculate that such an incredible sea voyage,
from
> > > > Australia to Brazil, would not have been undertaken knowingly
but
> > by
> > > > accident.
> > > >
> > > > Just three years ago, five African fishermen were caught in a
> storm
> > > and
> > > > a few weeks later were washed up on the shores of South
America.
> > Two
> > > of
> > > > the fishermen died, but three made it alive.
> > > >
> > > > But if the first Americans had drifted from Australia, where
are
> > > their
> > > > descendants now? Again, the skulls suggest an answer.
> > > >
> > > > The shape of the skulls changes between 9,000 and 7,000 years
ago
> > > from
> > > > being exclusively negroid to exclusively mongoloid. Combined
with
> > > rock
> > > > art evidence of increasing violence at this time, it appears
that
> > the
> > > > mongoloid people from the north invaded and wiped out the
> original
> > > > Americans.
> > > >
> > > > The only evidence of any survivors comes from Terra del Fuego,
> the
> > > > islands at the remotest southern tip of South America.
> > > >
> > > > The pre-European Fuegeans, who lived stone age-style lives
until
> > this
> > > > century, show hybrid skull features which could have resulted
> from
> > > > intermarrying between mongoloid and negroid peoples. Their
> rituals
> > > and
> > > > traditions also bear some resemblance to the ancient rock art
in
> > > > Brazil.
> > > >
> > > > The identity of the first Americans is an emotive and
> controversial
> > > > question. But the evidence from Brazil, and a handful of people
> who
> > > > still live at the very tip of South America, suggests that the
> > > Americas
> > > > have been home to a greater diversity of humans than previously
> > > thought
> > > > - and for much longer.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From the scientifically illiterate people at BBC:
> > > "The land bridge was formed 11,000 years ago during the ice age,
> when
> > > sea level dropped."
> > >
> > > >From the real scientists:
> > > "The terrestrial connection between the continents was lost
roughly
> > > 11,000 years ago...... "
> > > http://tinyurl.com/b2x2y
> > >
> >
>
http://instaar.colorado.edu/QGISL/bering_land_bridge/blb_overview.html
> > >
> > > Also...
> > >
> > > http://whyfiles.org/061polar/anthro.html
> >
> > Completely wrong.
>
> Like I said: "The incompetents at BBC, who do not know the difference
> between
> "formed" and "lost" or are at least not educated enough to edit out a
> mistake of this magnitude are not competent enough to judge between
> facts and fantasies on the peopling of the Americas issue."
It's funny, since I like their war on terror. But "whites
were in America before Indians" stories remind me of another
British pop culture reference: The Black Knight. It's just a
scratch! Just a flesh wound!
> > Evidence of human habitation of the
> > Americas goes back some 50,000 years.
>
>
> Completely wrong. There is no credible 50,000-year-old site in the
> Americas.
http://www.sc.edu/usctimes/articles/2004-11/topper_discovery.html
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html
> "They refer to claims of great antiquity for artifacts from the
Calico,
> Pedra Furada, Sandia Cave, Sheguiandah, and Timlin sites, but are
> apparently unaware of recent (and some not so recent) work concerning
> these sites which substantially refutes (or calls into serious
> question) the claims of the original investigators (e.g., Cole and
> Godfrey, 1977; Cole et al., 1978; Funk, 1977; Haynes and Agogino,
1986;
> Julig et al., 1990; Kirkland, 1977; Meltzer et al., 1994; Preston,
> 1995; Schnurrenberger and Bryan, 1985; Starna, 1977; Taylor, 1994)."
>
> You fall under the category of the unaware.
I've read those, and they consist largely of ad hominems,
circular reasoning, and other fallacioius thinking.
> Chukotka and
> > Kamchatka, maybe Pleistocene/Holocene barrier, at best.
>
> No barrier at all, they walked across, just like the citations said.
I was referring to the time just at the start of the
Holocene or end of the Pleistocene.
> > I personally am not surprised by these "pre-Indian
> > Caucasian" stories;
>
> Your mind seems to have jumped the track. The BBC article was about
> Australians and how the Beringia Land Bridge was "formed 11,000
years
> ago."
It's the same story, essentially, though.
Ken Shackleton
Floyd, contrary to what you may believe, I do try to set aside my
pre-conceptions in order to get to the bottom of the issues at hand...
I went through the provided link....there is a lot there, but this is
what I got from it:
1. When KM was found and it became clear how old he was, several groups
filed claims; among them, scientists and several native bands.
2. DNA analysis failed to produce any results that would help decide
the issue.
3. Studies of the bones, the skull in particular, place him within a
group of paleoindians that are described in the report as
"Polynesian-like" since the modern population that they most closely
resemble are polynesians. The report was also clear that this group of
individuals [including KM] do not closely resemble any modern
population.
4. Archaeological evidence indicates that there was sparce population,
and high mobility in the area at the timeframe where KM was found.
5. The natives in the area describe themselves as always having been in
the area.
So....what does this tell us?
KM was certainly a native as defined by NAGPRA since he obviously
predates any european contact [imagine europe in 6400 BCE....our
ancestors would have lived exactly as the paleoindians did, but I
digress].
How far into the past does cultural memory go? Can it reach back 8400
years? It can certainly go back many centuries, even several millenia
once cultures invent writing, but over 8 millenia....that is a very
long time. How far back is "always" from a cultural memory perspective?
I doubt as far back as 8400 years.
KM and the others described as "polynesian-like" paleoindians may have
been invaders to an area already populated by the ancestors of the
present amerindians. The fact that the ancestors of the modern
populations arrived no later than 11,000 BCE [and possibly much
earlier] and KM is only 8,400 years old would make this a strong
possibility.
There is always the remote [very remote] possibility that KM may have
been ancestral to the present modern populations; but given what I read
in the reports that you referred to, I find that unlikely; in fact,
barely even plausible. Also, as the courts have supported the
scientific position to allow further study....it would appear that they
came to the same conclusion.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> >> There is no evidence of "Clovis peoples" migrating into NA in
> >> the first place. The technology appears to have originated in
> >> NA.
> >
> >Well, okay, that's good for the "Clovis" part, but the _people_
> >still had to come from somewhere.
>
> So?
That's just Rich setting up a straw man.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> > FWIW, there were human remains collected in the 19th century
> > in the Smithsonian's basement when NAGPRA passed. These
> > boxes hadn't even been opened yet.
>
> There's tons of stuff that hasn't been studied there. Is
> this important?
If you have a hundred years and don't study it, you really
shouldn't protest when people want it back.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> You don't object to American Indians using political power
> to enforce their beliefs onto others, but you object to
> European Americans using political power to enforce their
> beliefs on American Indians.
You DO realize fundamentalist Christians used the same
argument when the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of
1978 was passed?
Floyd L. Davidson
>Lee Olsen wrote:
>> > If you think there are "Clovis sites" in either Alaska or Siberia,
>> > I'd like to know where, and see something by the people excavating
>> > them suggesting that they think it is Clovis.
>> >
>> > I don't keep real close tabs on this stuff, but I've never heard
>> > of such.
>>
>>
>> The most comprehensive study, and the most informative, IMO, would be
>> West 1996.
>> I just got a copy through interlibrary loan, you should be able to do
>> the same. Many of the primary researchers who have done work in
>> Beringia have written chapters in this book.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/9k7zq
>
>Oops, time ran out on the URL.
>FH West, CF West
>American beginnings: the prehistory and palaeoecology of Beringia
>Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996
I don't keep up with it, as noted... but I keep up a whole lot
better than that! 1996, in that field, is ancient history! In
1996 you conformed to the accepted migration routes and dates,
or you were academically dead. In about 1998 that became so
awkward that several reputable scientists publicly denounced it,
and force alternate routes and dates to become acceptable over
night.
Look up recent papers related the the Mesa Site, to Healy Lake,
and to the Nenana Complex. The names to key on are Kunz,
Reiner, Hoffecker and Goebel.
Here's something from Tony Baker, dated September 2004:
"Bone tools and red ochre are also commonly cited as Clovis
traits. They are also common in the Upper Paleolithic
throughout the Old World, including Siberia and Alaska, where
Clovis did not reside."
http://www.ele.net/art_folsom/pre-clovis_2004/preclovis2004.htm
Note also that Baker believes that the Mesa Site projectiles
from the North Slope are ancestral to Clovis. He says that Kunz
and Reiner hint at that possibility. It should also be noted
that none of them claim the Mesa projectiles are derived from
anything in Siberia. They do relate the Nenana complex to
Siberian finds though, but nobody suggests those are related to
Clovis in any way.
Here is a one paragraph summary of recent archaeology,
"The earliest dates for American Beringia tool complexes are
near 12,000 B.P. (West 1996:544). There are no Clovis sites in
Alaska, nor are mammoth kills evidenced (Meltzer 1995:24,
Yesner 1996:248). No Clovis points are found in Siberia
(Bonnichsen and Turnmire 1999:2). All the radiocarbon dates
for the fifty fluted points found in northern Alaska date
after the Clovis horizon (Hamilton and Goebel
1999:180-181). The oldest Alaskan sites date to just before
Clovis dates."
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleoamerican_origins.html
That URL is particularly useful as it has a one paragraph summary
of the status of virtually every site in Alaska and Siberia, with
cites for all published studies.
I know there is more recent information from Dr. Kunz, but at
the moment all I came up with was from back in the mid-90's. He
has published since then, and the more recent information and
interpretation is *much* more interesting. (My take on Kunz is
that for political purposes most likely, he held with the theory
of migration through Beringia after the ice receded for several
years, even though his own data virtually proved it to be
impossible. When the Mesa site data was first published it was
initially claimed that it probably meant a wave of people moved
from Siberia to Tierra Del Fuego in as little as 500 hundred
years! I read that, and just simply laughed. I now realize
that publishing any other claim at the time would probably have
been the end of his reputation and any ability to get research
funding. That is *not* funny.)
Floyd L. Davidson
I've reformated quoted paragraphs to get shorter lines
that won't wrap in such an ugly way. This is done because
the context of this particular post is simply hilarious!
Do you understand the significance of citing Michael Collins????
Especially when you clearly have not read the book and have no
idea who or what he is?
"Clovis certainly doesn't seem to have any antecedent sites in
eastern Asia" Michael Collins
Collins has been, for decades, one of the *prime* pushers of the
so-called Pre-Clovis theory. Which is to say that he has never
believed that Clovis people were the first to migrate into North
America. He certainly does not support the idea that Clovis
originated or even had ancestral roots in Siberia (or Alaska for
that matter)!
He will, of course, provide a great deal of evidence to support
that "50,000-year-old-industry" you don't seem to believe is
possible! His current public opinion is that people have been
in NA for at least 20,000 years.
Do _you_ want another turn?
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>4. Archaeological evidence indicates that there was sparce population,
>and high mobility in the area at the timeframe where KM was found.
Cite?
What I read, said this:
"Used in conjunction, the protohistoric, ethnographic, oral
traditions and historic database suggest a cultural continuity
in the southern Plateau extending into the prehistoric
past. Cultural change occurred, as it does in all cultures,
but this change can be seen as transitional and continuous
with new cultural forms emerging out of previous cultural
forms. There is no evidence of in-migration causing cultural
transformation. Rather, the adoption of cultural traits
originating outside the Plateau, e.g., the Plains, Great
Basin, Northwest Coast, were incorporated into existing
Plateau traditions."
Review of Traditional Historical and Ethnographic
Information Daniel L. Boxberger, Ph.D. with Stacy Rasmus,
Research Assistant
>5. The natives in the area describe themselves as always having been in
>the area.
>
>So....what does this tell us?
That you need to re-read the material.
>How far into the past does cultural memory go? Can it reach back 8400
>years? It can certainly go back many centuries, even several millenia
>once cultures invent writing, but over 8 millenia....that is a very
>long time. How far back is "always" from a cultural memory perspective?
>I doubt as far back as 8400 years.
Others, however, have no doubt... since there is confirming
physical evidence in some cases. And no conflicting evidence.
>KM and the others described as "polynesian-like" paleoindians may have
>been invaders to an area already populated by the ancestors of the
There is no evidence at all of any such "invaders".
It also happens that I've seen others making what appears to be
valid claims that the idea that there are no modern Indians with
those "Polynesian-like" characteristics is not correct. I
haven't looked into it though, but they suggest the spectrum
that was used for comparison was vastly too small, that the
researchers simply had to little connection with modern Indians
to know what to look for and where to find it.
>present amerindians. The fact that the ancestors of the modern
>populations arrived no later than 11,000 BCE [and possibly much
>earlier] and KM is only 8,400 years old would make this a strong
>possibility.
Are you serious? What that indicates is that KM was indeed one
of the ancestors of modern populations. There is *no* evidence
of any such invasion. Where is it supposed to have come from?
How are they supposed to have arrived? Why did they leave no
traces?
Why not stop being frivolously absurd in your claims, now that
you realize this discussion is going to center on real
documentation rather than ignorance and the assumption that
nobody in the discussion will actually be able to produce
documentation?
>There is always the remote [very remote] possibility that KM may have
>been ancestral to the present modern populations; but given what I read
You just said you read the reports... any yet call the conclusion they
reached "very remote". That is absurd.
>in the reports that you referred to, I find that unlikely; in fact,
You find it unlikely, and all those scientists with PhD's in related
fields who have the credentials to form authoritative opinions are
wrong? I find *you* to be unplausible!
>barely even plausible. Also, as the courts have supported the
>scientific position to allow further study....it would appear that they
>came to the same conclusion.
It appears to me that the court found what the courts in this
country have always found. They found against the Indians. And
there is very little doubt about why either. Let me quote from
something that Supreme Court Justice Stanley Reed wrote to
Justice William O. Douglas in response to Douglas' criticism of
a draft of the majority opinion in "Hynes v Grimes Packing
Company" in 1949,
"I think it is best for the Indians. If the Indians were given
a monopoly of a three million dollar a year fishery like
Karluk and if this Court did not decide that the reservation
was temporary, it would be too much to give the Indians."
Which is to say, that Reed was not concerned with the Law, or the
intent of Congress so much as he was going on his personal opinion
that following the law would give a windfall to Indians, and that
he would not allow it. And with that, the economic resources of
the Karluk reservation were stripped from the Indians and the
windfall was distributed to non-Indians.
That of course is the history of Indian Law in the US from
almost day one, and ignoring the intent of NAGPRA is hardly
setting a precedent.
Floyd L. Davidson
>In talk.origins Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>>
>>>The way I read that report, the legal determination was made
>>>entirely on the basis that KM was pre-columbian.
>
>> I have to wonder just how you could have read it and yet missed
>> everything it says? For example, in Chapter 3, written by
>> "Daniel L. Boxberger, Ph.D. with Stacy Rasmus, Research
>> Assistant" we find the purpose of their part of the
>> investigations:
>
>I said "legal determination." The link giving the legal
>justification said it was just necessary to establish
>that the remains were precolumbian, and it did so.
You still aren't making sense. Did you read the *title* to
that?
Subject: Determination That the Kennewick Human Skeletal
Remains are "Native American" for the Purposes of
the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
It was not intended to demonstrate anything else. It was one
small part, an enclosure, of the entire report.
It did *not* say "it was just necessary to establish...", it
said that is all that particular letter was intended to do.
Regardless, if you had read the entire letter you would have
noticed the other interesting information it included at the
end.
>> Probably people who don't make up fabrications about what they
>> have and have not read, and probably people who actually can
>> read and understand the significance of scientific reports.
>
>> Who writes these stupid Usenet articles, anyway?
I'm still wondering...
Floyd L. Davidson
Exactly. Poor fellow hasn't had much luck with this topic at
all... :-)
(Gosh, you'd almost think we set them up with those comments
about Clovis and Alaska/Beringia, huh? Like... maybe we'd heard
about that before???)
Floyd L. Davidson
>In talk.origins Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>> rich hammett <bubba...@warmmail.com> wrote:
>>>In talk.origins Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>>
>>>> There is no evidence of "Clovis peoples" migrating into NA in
>>>> the first place. The technology appears to have originated in
>>>> NA.
>>>
>>>Well, okay, that's good for the "Clovis" part, but the _people_
>>>still had to come from somewhere.
>
>> So?
>
>So we were talking about ANCESTORS, not tech innovators, before
>you tossed in the wed hewwing.
Oh, now you claim it was *me* that tossed it in?
Actually, it was just one more instance of you wandering off in
another ridiculous direction hoping there would be no answer with
documentation popping up to blow you away again. But there is.
The fact is, when Clovis technology was developed, it appears to
have been developed right there, in place, by people who didn't
migrate anywhere and hadn't for at least many thousands of years.
It is also very clear that they shared that new technology over
an extremely wide area, among a large and somewhat diverse group
of people.
Rich, you aren't making any headway at all, and this is getting
to be nothing but a turkey shoot for me. I like turkeys at
Thanksgiving, for dinner, not for entertainment value at the end
of April. Have you got *anything* reasonable to to add to the
discussion?
Floyd L. Davidson
>> Well if you want to get this straight, please do. But you'll
>> have to do a better job of explaining yourself that posting
>> gibberish like that. It doesn't mean anything.
>
>Well, it does, but here:
>
>You don't object to American Indians using political power
>to enforce their beliefs onto others,
A situation you cannot provide an example for.
>but you object to
>European Americans using political power to enforce their
>beliefs on American Indians.
Whose ancestor is it? American Indians or European Americans?
Isn't it obvious just exactly who's beliefs should determine
the disposition of a Native ancestor?
Stop being silly.
t(nospam)kavanagh
>
> > FWIW, there were human remains collected in the 19th century
> > in the Smithsonian's basement when NAGPRA passed. These
> > boxes hadn't even been opened yet.
Speaking as one who had worked, off and on at the Smithsonian since 1967
(National Anthropological Archives; Native Americans program; Dept of
Anthropology; Handbook of North American Indians; NMAI), for the sake of
historical accuracy, I offer the following:
There is no single place that can be described as the Smithsonian's
"basement"; there are, after all, at least half a dozen museums on the
Mall alone, let alone the other storage places. None of them have
specimen/artifact/whatever storage in the "basement."
To be more specific, the Smithsonian's physical anthropology collections
were (before the recent move to Silver Hill), on the *third floor* of
the Museum of Natural History. Not in some undesignated "basement," and
not in the attic (that's where some of the the ethnology and archaeology
collections were stored), but on the third floor along side the
departmental offices and the library.
tk
All of the "boxes" had been opened at least once since accessioning
(since ca. 1870 if not before).