Brazil has wall painting 35-43 ya or earlier
firstjois
Guidonb, Eliany S. La Salviab, Silvia Marancac and Oswaldo Baffa Filho.
2003.
Some Evidence of a Date of First Humans to Arrive in Brazil. Journal of
Archaeological Science 30(3): 351-354
Abstract
A calcite formation was found on a rockwall painting at Toca da Bastiana
rockshelter at Serra da Capivara National Park, Piaui, Brazil.
Thermoluminescence and EPR dating of this calcite gave an age of 35 to 43
ka, indicating that humans
lived there prior to 35 ka ago. This result supports the radiocarbon dates
ranging up
to 48 ka BP found earlier for this site.
Rick must be on vacation. This came up in Anth-l.
Anyone what the painting looked like.
Jois
---------------------------------------------
Please stop and smell the roses:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maquaticape.html
When you think you are casting pearls before swine, make a necklace.
Curious Amateur
>Shigueo Watanabea, Walter Elias Feria Aytaa, Henrique Hamaguchia, Ničde
>Guidonb, Eliany S. La Salviab, Silvia Marancac and Oswaldo Baffa Filho.
>2003.
>Some Evidence of a Date of First Humans to Arrive in Brazil. Journal of
>Archaeological Science 30(3): 351-354
>
>Abstract
>
>A calcite formation was found on a rockwall painting at Toca da Bastiana
>rockshelter at Serra da Capivara National Park, Piaui, Brazil.
>Thermoluminescence and EPR dating of this calcite gave an age of 35 to 43
>ka, indicating that humans
>lived there prior to 35 ka ago. This result supports the radiocarbon dates
>ranging up
>to 48 ka BP found earlier for this site.
I'm not surprised by this. S. America has been consistently finding really
old dates.
What surprises me is the fact that there seem to be no sites in N.America
that are as old, even in areas that were never glaciated.
This suggests two things to me:
1. S. America was colonized first.
2. Route taken was either a trans-pacific migration or a migratory route
along the west coast of N. America which didn't stop till they reached S.
America.
Problem with the first scenario is the lack of older sites on Pacific
islands.
Problem with the second scenario is why these immigrants wouldn't have set
up camp along the coast of N. America and thus penetrated the continent.
Anyone else want to take a crack at this?
CA
Lorenzo L. Love
Why not a trans-Atlantic migrated?
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"Why of course the people don't want war... Naturally... That is
understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a
parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people
can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All
you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same in any country."
Hermann Goering
Curious Amateur
Unlikely, I think.
There are so few intervening islands between Africa and S. America.
And there is the affinity between Asians and native Americans.
Did I overlook something?
CA
Jason Eshleman
>In article <uAydncTDp7p...@comcast.com>, "firstjois" <firstjo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Shigueo Watanabea, Walter Elias Feria Aytaa, Henrique Hamaguchia, Niède
>>Guidonb, Eliany S. La Salviab, Silvia Marancac and Oswaldo Baffa Filho.
>>2003.
>>Some Evidence of a Date of First Humans to Arrive in Brazil. Journal of
>>Archaeological Science 30(3): 351-354
>>
>>Abstract
>>
>>A calcite formation was found on a rockwall painting at Toca da Bastiana
>>rockshelter at Serra da Capivara National Park, Piaui, Brazil.
>>Thermoluminescence and EPR dating of this calcite gave an age of 35 to 43
>>ka, indicating that humans
>>lived there prior to 35 ka ago. This result supports the radiocarbon dates
>>ranging up
>>to 48 ka BP found earlier for this site.
>
>I'm not surprised by this. S. America has been consistently finding really
>old dates.
>
>What surprises me is the fact that there seem to be no sites in N.America
>that are as old, even in areas that were never glaciated.
>
>This suggests two things to me:
>
>1. S. America was colonized first.
>2. Route taken was either a trans-pacific migration or a migratory route
>along the west coast of N. America which didn't stop till they reached S.
>America.
Don't forget 3. The dates are erroneous or the error on them is too high
to be useful. I must admit that TL and EPR dates are a bit of a mystery
to me, but several of my arch friends have told me that they're not all
that trustworthy at this point.
Curious Amateur
Yes, this is also a possibility.
It's strange, though, that S. American dates seem to suffer this problem
with dating while N.American dates always seem so firm.
CA
Jason Eshleman
>In article <b19kea$gvn$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, j...@vici.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote:
>>Curious Amateur <no_...@home.guv> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <uAydncTDp7p...@comcast.com>, "firstjois"
>> <firstjo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Shigueo Watanabea, Walter Elias Feria Aytaa, Henrique Hamaguchia, Ničde
There are still relatively few of the anomalously old dates from
S.America. The curious thing is that RC dates don't seem to phase in
gradually at about 12kybp, but rather show up in decent numbers at this
point.
There are a few N.American sites that have been reported as being older
though as well. They're terribly problematic though. I think that
they've been better scrutinized (and rejected) while the older S.Am. stuff
hasn't been scrutinized (and consequently rejected) as much at this point.
Lorenzo L. Love
Yes. The oldest human remains in the Americas; Luzia from Lapa
Vermelha, Brazil. 11,500 year old skull with negroid-australoid physical
type characteristics. Other similar remains in the area/time period. A
trans-Pacific migration from Australia/SE Asia is more likely but I
wouldn't rule out them coming directly from Africa. The more you look at
the earliest native Americans, the less affinity with the mongoloid
physical type typical of modern Asians is seen.
Curious Amateur
>Curious Amateur wrote:
>>
>> In article <3E384954...@thegrid.net>, "Lorenzo L. Love"
> <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>> >Curious Amateur wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <uAydncTDp7p...@comcast.com>, "firstjois"
>> > <firstjo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Modern Asians"? What of those of a similar age?
Seems to me western Africa would be a poor location to start such a
journey.
As opposed to the S.Pacific, the western coast of Africa has almost no
islands with which W.Africans could learn how to migrate and colonize.
In the S.Pacific, those initial voyages were to islands that could be seen.
There were many islands to colonize, and there was the opportunity to learn
what works and what doesn't. By the end they were able to make longer
voyages, to islands unseen.
But how were the W.Africans to learn all that was needed for a voyage as
wide as the Atlantic? They had nothing to 'practice' on.
I see only three routes into S.America, and a fourth has some possibility,
but not much.
1. Beringia (primarily terrestrial/continental)
2. The Aleutians (primarily aquatic[boats]/coastal)
3. The S.Pacific (primarily aquatic[boats]/island-hopping)
The fourth is across/along the ice sheet that spanned the N.Atlantic from
Europe to Canada (primarily aquatic[boats]/coastal).
CA
Curious Amateur
>Curious Amateur <no_...@home.guv> wrote:
>
>>
>>It's strange, though, that S. American dates seem to suffer this problem
>>with dating while N.American dates always seem so firm.
>
>There are still relatively few of the anomalously old dates from
>S.America. The curious thing is that RC dates don't seem to phase in
>gradually at about 12kybp, but rather show up in decent numbers at this
>point.
>
>There are a few N.American sites that have been reported as being older
>though as well. They're terribly problematic though. I think that
>they've been better scrutinized (and rejected) while the older S.Am. stuff
>hasn't been scrutinized (and consequently rejected) as much at this point.
Yes, I can see how that would be a problem.
Thanks. :-)
CA
Jason Eshleman
The real problem is that the earliest Americans don't look like modern
Native Americans, but niether do they look like each other. The
variability is great. I'm not sure that the Lapa Vermelha, Brazil
indiviudal is still the oldest, it's probably either something found in
Mexico or Guatemala. Still, the key is that there's considerable
variability. Similarly, contemporary Asians look rather different as
well.
I'm not convinced that mophology is the best indicator of population
affinities over that much time and space. However, until we get a larger
sample of paleo DNA, it's going ot have to do. We know much about how DNA
is inherited, but far less about how cranio-facial traits are inherited.
>
>Seems to me western Africa would be a poor location to start such a
>journey.
>
>As opposed to the S.Pacific, the western coast of Africa has almost no
>islands with which W.Africans could learn how to migrate and colonize.
And Africa has left no genetic trace in any unadmixed modern or yet
analyzed ancient samples in the New World.
>In the S.Pacific, those initial voyages were to islands that could be seen.
>There were many islands to colonize, and there was the opportunity to learn
>what works and what doesn't. By the end they were able to make longer
>voyages, to islands unseen.
>
>But how were the W.Africans to learn all that was needed for a voyage as
>wide as the Atlantic? They had nothing to 'practice' on.
>
>I see only three routes into S.America, and a fourth has some possibility,
>but not much.
>
>1. Beringia (primarily terrestrial/continental)
>
>2. The Aleutians (primarily aquatic[boats]/coastal)
>
>3. The S.Pacific (primarily aquatic[boats]/island-hopping)
Unlikely. Highly unlikely given the more recent colonization of the
Pacific.
Bob Keeter
no_...@home.guv wrote on 1/29/03 9:10 PM:
Snip. . .
> What surprises me is the fact that there seem to be no sites in N.America
> that are as old, even in areas that were never glaciated.
>
> This suggests two things to me:
>
> 1. S. America was colonized first.
> 2. Route taken was either a trans-pacific migration or a migratory route
> along the west coast of N. America which didn't stop till they reached S.
> America.
>
> Problem with the first scenario is the lack of older sites on Pacific
> islands.
Yep. The other issue is that I belive that the southern Pacific has a
decided "east to west" current in the equatorial regions. (could be wrong).
I do know that the northern pacific the main flow is from Asia to N. America
through the gulf of alaska. I also believe the "southbound" current out of
the north Pacific and the "Northbound" current up from Tierra del Fuego butt
heads somewhere about Equador and turn back west. so. . . any southern
immigration path would have to be by way of Antarctica. (Unlike the
northern route where there are at worst chains of islands (aleutians, et al)
and at best dry land.
>
> Problem with the second scenario is why these immigrants wouldn't have set
> up camp along the coast of N. America and thus penetrated the continent.
>
Well, there is ONE definite possiblity. If the immigrants truely were a
maritime culture running along the coast, its entirely possible that the
signs of their presence is literally hundreds of meters below sea level!
Literally out beyond the depth of you basic scuba divers and not too many
really deep divers have done any archaeology.
> Anyone else want to take a crack at this?
>
just a quick shot.
Would be very interested if there were any additional information on this
find though!
Regards
bk
Bob Keeter
lll...@thegrid.net wrote on 1/29/03 9:36 PM:
Snippage. . . . . .
>> What surprises me is the fact that there seem to be no sites in N.America
>> that are as old, even in areas that were never glaciated.
>>
>> This suggests two things to me:
>>
>> 1. S. America was colonized first.
>> 2. Route taken was either a trans-pacific migration or a migratory route
>> along the west coast of N. America which didn't stop till they reached S.
>> America.
>>
>> Problem with the first scenario is the lack of older sites on Pacific
>> islands.
>>
>> Problem with the second scenario is why these immigrants wouldn't have set
>> up camp along the coast of N. America and thus penetrated the continent.
>>
>> Anyone else want to take a crack at this?
>>
>> CA
>
> Why not a trans-Atlantic migrated?
>
Trans-atlantic is a possibility. The currents are right for a "bluge of
African" to "point of Brazil" voyage, but that is still a very long "blue
water" route. The other thing to remember. . . one or two fishermen blown
from Africa to Brazil do not really make a "colonizing" input unless mom and
the kids (times several Id think) come along. IOW, it would have to be an
intentional migration, not an accidental "storm tossed excursion". an
intentional migration would suggest perhaps that the first voyagers went
home and got the family to return to the "new lands", (sort of like the
viking colonizing voyages), and without the storms and currents to "help
them back to Africa" . . . . . . . . . . . .
The northern Atlantic is a lot less "blue water" but you have to either go
very far north or buck the Gulf stream all the way. Not good.
Regards
bk
Bob Keeter
j...@vici.ucdavis.edu wrote on 1/29/03 10:26 PM:
Snip. . . .
>> This suggests two things to me:
>>
>> 1. S. America was colonized first.
>> 2. Route taken was either a trans-pacific migration or a migratory route
>> along the west coast of N. America which didn't stop till they reached S.
>> America.
>
> Don't forget 3. The dates are erroneous or the error on them is too high
> to be useful. I must admit that TL and EPR dates are a bit of a mystery
> to me, but several of my arch friends have told me that they're not all
> that trustworthy at this point.
>
Perhaps you might need to get a little more data and think just a bit on
this one.
Suppose that you have two dating techniques that are physically disconnected
(i.e. no known method of "skewing" one could skew the other) no matter how
unreliabile either, on its own might be, yet they at least roughly AGREE, .
. . . . . Hmmmm.. . . . the most parsimonious conclusion might be that
neither is greatly in error. No matter how inconvenient the result might be
in terms of current theories!
Think of it as the equivalent of two "double blind" tests that come up with
the same answer.
Regards
bk
Bob Keeter
lll...@thegrid.net wrote on 1/29/03 11:42 PM:
Snippage. . . . . . .
>
> Yes. The oldest human remains in the Americas; Luzia from Lapa
> Vermelha, Brazil. 11,500 year old skull with negroid-australoid physical
> type characteristics. Other similar remains in the area/time period. A
> trans-Pacific migration from Australia/SE Asia is more likely but I
> wouldn't rule out them coming directly from Africa. The more you look at
> the earliest native Americans, the less affinity with the mongoloid
> physical type typical of modern Asians is seen.
>
> Lorenzo L. Love
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
Didnt they recently date a skeleton (from Mexico?) back about another 1000
yrs or so from this one?
Not to start a firestorm of fringe science or anything, but there is at
least some discussion suggesting that Olmec carvings have Negroid features.
I suspect that this was just a stylistic license thing, but . . . . . . if
this stuff in Brazil pans out (and there are no traces westward you have to
take what is left!)
Regards
bk
jgi...@earthlink.net
"Bob Keeter" <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BA5DF0FB.250B7%rke...@earthlink.net...
> in article b19kea$gvn$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu, Jason Eshleman at
> j...@vici.ucdavis.edu wrote on 1/29/03 10:26 PM:
>
>
disconnected
> (i.e. no known method of "skewing" one could skew the other) no matter how
> unreliabile either, on its own might be, yet they at least roughly AGREE,
.
> . . . . . Hmmmm.. . . . the most parsimonious conclusion might be that
> neither is greatly in error. No matter how inconvenient the result might
be
> in terms of current theories!
>
> Think of it as the equivalent of two "double blind" tests that come up
with
> the same answer.
>
Last first. Sure. Known since ancient times that two independent
witnesses are fairly reliable - it's in the Bible, hallelujah.
Also, question of whether all the sites in the USA that were rejected
should have been. Ales Hrdlicka.
Also, people pushing inland from the coast might have found dire
wolves and short based bears unhospitaable. Or maybe not - might have had
the colonists to dinner.
Finally, I've seen an argument that even the facial features depend
on climate. Lower forehead to be less sunburned, etc. Can't remember the
source, mea culpa. Still all that ought to be worth a few remarks in
reply - hold the flames.
Cheers
John GW
Curious Amateur
>In article <cY_Z9.3625$qg1.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>Curious Amateur <no_...@home.guv> wrote:
>>In article <3E386728...@thegrid.net>, "Lorenzo L. Love"
>><lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>>>Curious Amateur wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <3E384954...@thegrid.net>, "Lorenzo L. Love"
>>> <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>>>> >Curious Amateur wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In article <uAydncTDp7p...@comcast.com>, "firstjois"
>>>> > <firstjo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >Guidonb, Eliany S. La Salviab, Silvia Marancac and Oswaldo Baffa Filho.
>>>> >> >2003.
>>>> >> >Some Evidence of a Date of First Humans to Arrive in Brazil. Journal of
>>>> >> >Archaeological Science 30(3): 351-354
>>>> >> >
>>>> Did I overlook something?
>>>>
>>>> CA
>>>
>>>Yes. The oldest human remains in the Americas; Luzia from Lapa
>>>Vermelha, Brazil. 11,500 year old skull with negroid-australoid physical
>>>type characteristics. Other similar remains in the area/time period. A
>>>trans-Pacific migration from Australia/SE Asia is more likely but I
>>>wouldn't rule out them coming directly from Africa. The more you look at
>>>the earliest native Americans, the less affinity with the mongoloid
>>>physical type typical of modern Asians is seen.
>>
>>"Modern Asians"? What of those of a similar age?
>
>The real problem is that the earliest Americans don't look like modern
>Native Americans, but niether do they look like each other. The
>variability is great. I'm not sure that the Lapa Vermelha, Brazil
>indiviudal is still the oldest, it's probably either something found in
>Mexico or Guatemala. Still, the key is that there's considerable
>variability. Similarly, contemporary Asians look rather different as
>well.
So do caucasoids.
Seeing "negroid-australoid" brought to mind the heavier eye ridges of the
australoid, but nothing came to mind as peculiarly "negroid" (Lorenzo?).
Variability would have been my nexrt question, had it not been addressed.
>I'm not convinced that mophology is the best indicator of population
>affinities over that much time and space. However, until we get a larger
>sample of paleo DNA, it's going ot have to do.
If the traditional model (Beringia) for dispersion into the Americas is
based on dating sites and finding a strong correlation between more recent
dates and more southern latitudes, wouldn't a challenging model need to
demonstrate dispersion starting from some other point, with dates
correlating to the distance from the starting point?
No DNA needed, just datable sites.
>We know much about how DNA
>is inherited, but far less about how cranio-facial traits are inherited.
I thought a study of Egyptian mummies determined family ties through the
comparisons of those traits. Perhaps I'm mis-remembering this.
>>Seems to me western Africa would be a poor location to start such a
>>journey.
>>
>>As opposed to the S.Pacific, the western coast of Africa has almost no
>>islands with which W.Africans could learn how to migrate and colonize.
>
>And Africa has left no genetic trace in any unadmixed modern or yet
>analyzed ancient samples in the New World.
By "unadmixed" I take it you mean aboriginal peoples.
snip
>>
>>3. The S.Pacific (primarily aquatic[boats]/island-hopping)
>
>Unlikely. Highly unlikely given the more recent colonization of the
>Pacific.
Is it not possible these islands were colonized at an earlier time, at a
lower sea level when islands had less water between them?
If it occured then, what evidence would be available for dating? Those
sites would now be under-water, probably buried under coral.
Lorenzo L. Love
The modern Asians that modern native Americans have an affinity to. Go
back far enough, that doesn't exist, showing that earlier migrations
from other groups were likely.
>
> Seems to me western Africa would be a poor location to start such a
> journey.
>
> As opposed to the S.Pacific, the western coast of Africa has almost no
> islands with which W.Africans could learn how to migrate and colonize.
Why are islands needed? If they sailed the African coast, that's plenty
of practice. How much practice is needed to get blown out to sea?
>
> In the S.Pacific, those initial voyages were to islands that could be seen.
> There were many islands to colonize, and there was the opportunity to learn
> what works and what doesn't. By the end they were able to make longer
> voyages, to islands unseen.
And not a trace of ancient habitation on any of those islands.
>
> But how were the W.Africans to learn all that was needed for a voyage as
> wide as the Atlantic? They had nothing to 'practice' on.
>
> I see only three routes into S.America, and a fourth has some possibility,
> but not much.
>
> 1. Beringia (primarily terrestrial/continental)
>
> 2. The Aleutians (primarily aquatic[boats]/coastal)
These two probably did happen, but that doesn't mean that they were the
only migration routes. Or the first.
>
> 3. The S.Pacific (primarily aquatic[boats]/island-hopping)
No archeological evidence and most of the currents run the wrong way.
But a possibility.
>
> The fourth is across/along the ice sheet that spanned the N.Atlantic from
> Europe to Canada (primarily aquatic[boats]/coastal).
Not likely until relatively recent times. And peoples with
negroid-australoid physical type characteristics? No.
>
> CA
You left out the Antarctic circumpolar current route. Get on a boat in
Tasmania and get off in Southern Chile. A very long, cold and unlikely
possibility.
Again, how much practice is needed to get blown out to sea? Look at this
map:
http://gaea.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/regoc/images/14circ.gif
From equatorial Africa it's a short straight hop to Brazil. It's hard
not to wind up in South America. And the distance isn't much compared to
the vastness of the Pacific.
Lorenzo L. Love
>
> In article <b19v1e$rid$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, j...@vici.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote:
> >In article <cY_Z9.3625$qg1.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> >Curious Amateur <no_...@home.guv> wrote:
> >>In article <3E386728...@thegrid.net>, "Lorenzo L. Love"
> >><lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
> >>>Curious Amateur wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> In article <3E384954...@thegrid.net>, "Lorenzo L. Love"
> >>> <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
> >>>> >Curious Amateur wrote:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> In article <uAydncTDp7p...@comcast.com>, "firstjois"
> >>>> > <firstjo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Not my words, those of the investigators at Lapa Vermelha.
>
> Variability would have been my nexrt question, had it not been addressed.
>
> >I'm not convinced that mophology is the best indicator of population
> >affinities over that much time and space. However, until we get a larger
> >sample of paleo DNA, it's going ot have to do.
>
> If the traditional model (Beringia) for dispersion into the Americas is
> based on dating sites and finding a strong correlation between more recent
> dates and more southern latitudes, wouldn't a challenging model need to
> demonstrate dispersion starting from some other point, with dates
> correlating to the distance from the starting point?
Who is challenging the Beringia model? This evidence from South America
is suggesting an earlier migration in addition to the northern route.
>
> No DNA needed, just datable sites.
>
> >We know much about how DNA
> >is inherited, but far less about how cranio-facial traits are inherited.
>
> I thought a study of Egyptian mummies determined family ties through the
> comparisons of those traits. Perhaps I'm mis-remembering this.
>
> >>Seems to me western Africa would be a poor location to start such a
> >>journey.
> >>
> >>As opposed to the S.Pacific, the western coast of Africa has almost no
> >>islands with which W.Africans could learn how to migrate and colonize.
> >
> >And Africa has left no genetic trace in any unadmixed modern or yet
> >analyzed ancient samples in the New World.
>
> By "unadmixed" I take it you mean aboriginal peoples.
If they died out, they wouldn't leave any DNA in the modern South
American population. The scant evidence from South America suggests that
these negroid-australoid people were pretty thin on the countryside and
had a surprisingly low level of technology. Not exactly a thriving
population. Consistent with the shipwrecked sailors scenario. It's
entirely possible that they didn't make it.
>
> snip
> >>
> >>3. The S.Pacific (primarily aquatic[boats]/island-hopping)
> >
> >Unlikely. Highly unlikely given the more recent colonization of the
> >Pacific.
>
> Is it not possible these islands were colonized at an earlier time, at a
> lower sea level when islands had less water between them?
Have you looked a map of the eastern Pacific? It's a big place. There
was always lots and lots of water.
>
> If it occured then, what evidence would be available for dating? Those
> sites would now be under-water, probably buried under coral.
And they conveniently never walked up hill? Most Pacific islands aren't
so big that it's plausible that people never settled all the habitable
areas. And no sign of ancient habitation.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very
easy to govern. It demands no social reforms. It does not haggle over
expenditures on armaments and military equipment. It pays without
discussion, it ruins itself, and that is an excellent thing for the
syndicates of financiers and manufacturers for whom patriotic terrors
are an abundant source of gain."
Anatole France
Lorenzo L. Love
I wouldn't be surprised at much earlier remains. Given the propensity of
modern humans to spread and occupy every square inch of the planet,
there may have been many waves of migration to the Americas, mostly
unsuccessful.
The Olmec heads probably portray infantile features, not Negroid. But
it's possible they do portray Africans. There seems to be a lot of
possible African incursions into South America, but of relatively recent
age. African sailors traveling to America in pre-Colombian times doesn't
seem unlikely, but going back to Luzia's time is something else. It all
depends on the ability to spend a few weeks at sea. How good were the
African boats 11,500 years ago?
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"Why of course the people don't want war... Naturally... That is
Lorenzo L. Love
An intentional migration down the coast of Africa only takes a storm to
turn into an unintentional trans-Atlantic migration. Going back for the
wife and kids presents problems for primitive boats mostly dependent on
currents. And there isn't much sign of a large population of these
people in South America. Maybe it was only a few boats loads and they
died out after a few dozen generations.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not
spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Ross Macfarlane
> >>
> >>3. The S.Pacific (primarily aquatic[boats]/island-hopping)
> >
> >Unlikely. Highly unlikely given the more recent colonization of the
> >Pacific.
>
> Is it not possible these islands were colonized at an earlier time, at a
> lower sea level when islands had less water between them?
>
> If it occured then, what evidence would be available for dating? Those
> sites would now be under-water, probably buried under coral.
I'd suggest this could be ruled out based on some other available
evidence. The marks of human colonisation across the islands of the
Pacific are pretty easy to detect, especially those which were
colonised by the Polynesians over the past 2000 years or so. (The
dates of colonisation are generally quite well established using
archaeological markers, such as so-called Lapita pottery, &
radiocarbon dating.)
Common markers are:
- extinctions among indigenous fauna, especially birdlife,
- the introduction of mammals such as pigs & cane rats, which were
carried as food items on sea voyages,
- destruction of forests, and
- the introduction of taro and other crops.
The presence of terrestrial mammals on remote Pacific islands is a
sure sign, as e.g. New Zealand had no mammals other than 2 or 3 bats
prior to the Maoris' arrival, probably sometime between 1000 & 1200
A.D.
Humans managed to island-hop as far as New Britain (in distances of up
to about 60Km / 35 miles if memory serves) by about 30KYA. The theory
is that these islands were either visible, or their existence could be
inferred by watching seabirds. However, there is no evidence of humans
being capable of long sea voyages prior to the extraordinary feats of
navigation & seafaring by the Polynesians' ancestors in the last
couple of millenia.
Tim Flannery's book The Future Eaters is brilliant on this subject, as
well as describing the effects of human arrival in fragile
environments such as Australia & New Zealand. Highly recommended for
laypersons, as is Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs And Steel.
N.B. I have watched with interest the debate over the date of
colonisation of the Americas, and I'm unconvinced about these pre
12KYA dates, as Jason seems to be also. There are so few sites pre
that time, which all seem to be controversially dated, & so many
sites, stone tools, megafauna extinctions & other signs which appear
over a short timeline at the time the glacial barrier is finally
breached between Alaska & the rest of North America. (As far as I can
see, the only viable colonisation route was via Siberia, the Aleutians
& Alaska.)
It's interesting that there seems to be so little clear-cut evidence
for a >30KYA colonisation, because there were earlier times when the
glacial maxima was as high, & the sea levels as low, as just before
the end of the Ice Age. And since humans had the technology to reach
Australia probably 60KYA, there's no reason why they couldn't reach
the Americas. So I'm willing to accept that it could have happened,
but as yet the evidence hasn't convinced me.
Any other views?
Ross Macfarlane
Curious Amateur
>Curious Amateur wrote:
>>
>> In article <3E386728...@thegrid.net>, "Lorenzo L. Love"
>> <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>> >Curious Amateur wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Did I overlook something?
>> >>
>> >> CA
>> >
>> >Yes. The oldest human remains in the Americas; Luzia from Lapa
>> >Vermelha, Brazil. 11,500 year old skull with negroid-australoid physical
>> >type characteristics. Other similar remains in the area/time period. A
>> >trans-Pacific migration from Australia/SE Asia is more likely but I
>> >wouldn't rule out them coming directly from Africa. The more you look at
>> >the earliest native Americans, the less affinity with the mongoloid
>> >physical type typical of modern Asians is seen.
>>
>> "Modern Asians"? What of those of a similar age?
>
>The modern Asians that modern native Americans have an affinity to. Go
>back far enough, that doesn't exist, showing that earlier migrations
>from other groups were likely.
I recall hearing that the Inuit claimed there was a previous race in place
when they arrived in N.America.
>> Seems to me western Africa would be a poor location to start such a
>> journey.
>>
>> As opposed to the S.Pacific, the western coast of Africa has almost no
>> islands with which W.Africans could learn how to migrate and colonize.
>
>Why are islands needed? If they sailed the African coast, that's plenty
>of practice. How much practice is needed to get blown out to sea?
Sending out a colony to S.America was likely a one-way ticket. Without
evidence that there was anything out there, why would they go?
And sailing a coast is not the same, doesn't require the same skills. A
violent storm and you put in to shore. Out of food/water and you put in to
shore. The need to construct more sea-worthy vessels and to provision more
adequately for a longer journey do not exist in a shore-line ship
technology. Without islands to colonize, there could be no experience
gained for this kind of voyage. And without even islands to encourage them,
why set sail for an unknown continent an ocean away?
>> In the S.Pacific, those initial voyages were to islands that could be seen.
>> There were many islands to colonize, and there was the opportunity to learn
>> what works and what doesn't. By the end they were able to make longer
>> voyages, to islands unseen.
>
>And not a trace of ancient habitation on any of those islands.
See my note to Jason about earlier arrivals at times when sea level was
lower. How do we rule out earlier sites below the current water level and
under coral reefs?
Bear in mind that as water level rose, sites would move uphill.
There is also the possibility that earlier colonies were established,
subsequent migrations from these colonies, and then the colonies failed.
New colonists arrived at later dates, when the sea level was higher.
I'm not disputing the published research so much as pointing out certain
assumptions which must be made due to the inability to test other
possibilities.
>> But how were the W.Africans to learn all that was needed for a voyage as
>> wide as the Atlantic? They had nothing to 'practice' on.
>>
>> I see only three routes into S.America, and a fourth has some possibility,
>> but not much.
>>
>> 1. Beringia (primarily terrestrial/continental)
>>
>> 2. The Aleutians (primarily aquatic[boats]/coastal)
>
>These two probably did happen, but that doesn't mean that they were the
>only migration routes. Or the first.
Agreed.
>> 3. The S.Pacific (primarily aquatic[boats]/island-hopping)
>
>No archeological evidence and most of the currents run the wrong way.
>But a possibility.
They got as far as Easter Island. That's more than half way and there are
intervening islands from there to S.America.
>> The fourth is across/along the ice sheet that spanned the N.Atlantic from
>> Europe to Canada (primarily aquatic[boats]/coastal).
>
>Not likely until relatively recent times. And peoples with
>negroid-australoid physical type characteristics? No.
Eskimos in Greenland?
>You left out the Antarctic circumpolar current route. Get on a boat in
>Tasmania and get off in Southern Chile. A very long, cold and unlikely
>possibility.
I wouldn't consider it, given the horrendous winds and storms at those
latitudes.
>Again, how much practice is needed to get blown out to sea? Look at this
>map:
>http://gaea.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/regoc/images/14circ.gif
>From equatorial Africa it's a short straight hop to Brazil. It's hard
>not to wind up in South America. And the distance isn't much compared to
>the vastness of the Pacific.
I've an excellent atlas of the oceans' topography. With it I can identify
any sea mount that might have been at the surface during the ice age. The
Verdes and Canaries are the only two island groups, and I'm pretty
sure neither can be seen from the coast of Africa.
Without experience in building sea-worthy vessels and without the
experience of colonizing islands by sea I don't see such an expedition
starting, let alone succeeding.
It's easy to see such migrations coming from tiny islands that were
colonized in such a manner. Resources get scarce and people start migrating
out to other islands.
What would drive Africans to do this? Their ocean has no islands to compare
with the S.Pacific. They're on a continent with no outjutting peninsulas
from which to see the new world (as in Beringia and the Aleutians). They've
no ancestral tales to help prepare them for such a voyage. Why sail into an
empty sea when they have a continent?
CA
Curious Amateur
>Curious Amateur wrote:
>>
>> In article <b19v1e$rid$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, j...@vici.ucdavis.edu (Jason
> Eshleman) wrote:
>> >In article <cY_Z9.3625$qg1.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>> >Curious Amateur <no_...@home.guv> wrote:
snip
>> >>"Modern Asians"? What of those of a similar age?
>> >
>> >The real problem is that the earliest Americans don't look like modern
>> >Native Americans, but niether do they look like each other. The
>> >variability is great. I'm not sure that the Lapa Vermelha, Brazil
>> >indiviudal is still the oldest, it's probably either something found in
>> >Mexico or Guatemala. Still, the key is that there's considerable
>> >variability. Similarly, contemporary Asians look rather different as
>> >well.
>>
>> So do caucasoids.
>>
>> Seeing "negroid-australoid" brought to mind the heavier eye ridges of the
>> australoid, but nothing came to mind as peculiarly "negroid" (Lorenzo?).
>
>Not my words, those of the investigators at Lapa Vermelha.
Okay. We won't blame you for the vagueness. ;-)
>> Variability would have been my nexrt question, had it not been addressed.
>>
>> >I'm not convinced that mophology is the best indicator of population
>> >affinities over that much time and space. However, until we get a larger
>> >sample of paleo DNA, it's going ot have to do.
>>
>> If the traditional model (Beringia) for dispersion into the Americas is
>> based on dating sites and finding a strong correlation between more recent
>> dates and more southern latitudes, wouldn't a challenging model need to
>> demonstrate dispersion starting from some other point, with dates
>> correlating to the distance from the starting point?
>
>Who is challenging the Beringia model? This evidence from South America
>is suggesting an earlier migration in addition to the northern route.
As I understand the traditional model, Beringia is the only access point to
NA. If another model arrives that says there was more than one access
point, that would be a "challenge" to the traditional model, wouldn't it?
snip
>> >And Africa has left no genetic trace in any unadmixed modern or yet
>> >analyzed ancient samples in the New World.
>>
>> By "unadmixed" I take it you mean aboriginal peoples.
>
>If they died out, they wouldn't leave any DNA in the modern South
>American population. The scant evidence from South America suggests that
>these negroid-australoid people were pretty thin on the countryside and
>had a surprisingly low level of technology. Not exactly a thriving
>population. Consistent with the shipwrecked sailors scenario. It's
>entirely possible that they didn't make it.
Then the location of their sites (if any) would favour the east coast of
S.America, the Caribbean, and SE N. America.
>> snip
>> >>
>> >>3. The S.Pacific (primarily aquatic[boats]/island-hopping)
>> >
>> >Unlikely. Highly unlikely given the more recent colonization of the
>> >Pacific.
>>
>> Is it not possible these islands were colonized at an earlier time, at a
>> lower sea level when islands had less water between them?
>
>Have you looked a map of the eastern Pacific? It's a big place. There
>was always lots and lots of water.
I wasn't thinking of distance travelled. I was thinking of the elevation of
those initial sites.
>> If it occured then, what evidence would be available for dating? Those
>> sites would now be under-water, probably buried under coral.
>
>And they conveniently never walked up hill? Most Pacific islands aren't
>so big that it's plausible that people never settled all the habitable
>areas. And no sign of ancient habitation.
Why climb those hills when you have to come down to fish? A primarily
maritime race would prefer a sea-shore home.
Bear in mind with 100 metres difference between lowest sea level and now,
situating a home at our sea level would mean climbing uphill for a
kilometre on a reasonably graded slope. Why do this unless the entire
sea-shore is already occupied? And if the sea-shore is that crowded, why
not emigrate to the next island where you can have a sea-shore home?
CA
Curious Amateur
snip
>
>Tim Flannery's book The Future Eaters is brilliant on this subject, as
>well as describing the effects of human arrival in fragile
>environments such as Australia & New Zealand. Highly recommended for
>laypersons, as is Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs And Steel.
I have Jared's book (I was reading it over Christmas, put it down and
haven't finished it yet). It is quite intriguing and insightful.
As you have been with your list of markers. I can see an earlier visit
would be ruled out unless it didn't involve any of your markers (highly
unlikely, I agree).
I concede a southern route prior to the northern routes seems very remote.
But I do like your earlier entry times for the northern route. :-)
CA
Philip Deitiker
news:18fa6145.0301...@posting.google.com:
Since marinars made it to Japan 35 to 45 kya, it is possible
that on a very warm period that some marinars made it as far north
as the kurils, I seriously doubt, unless they got caught in some
freak storm that they managed to survive they could have made
it to the americans. Now 18 kya is the peak of the last ice age.
As dreadful as this sounds sea levels would have been at their
lowest levels and the southern route around the aluetians would
have been do-able for a very cold adaptive peoples. It would not be
a journey I would want to be on.
35 kya one needs to look at sea levels and possible submerged geography
that might be used. We don't know there could have been some easily caught
species of fish that travel between Japan and say vancover that appears in
Japan in late spring and then migrates to vancover by early fall and these
peoples could have lived in boat eating fish as they went, who knows?
Most of the genetic evidence suggests a migration around north asia.
Some of the early markers are as abundant in canada as in south america.
jgi...@earthlink.net
"Ross Macfarlane" <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:18fa6145.0301...@posting.google.com...
>
> I'd suggest this could be ruled out based on some other available
> evidence. The marks of human colonisation across the islands of the
> Pacific are pretty easy to detect, especially those which were
> colonised by the Polynesians over the past 2000 years or so. >
>
> - extinctions among indigenous fauna, especially birdlife,
> - the introduction of mammals such as pigs & cane rats, which were
> carried as food items on sea voyages,
> - destruction of forests, and
> - the introduction of taro and other crops.
>
people hunting sea animals along the coast.. Can't see any of the above
applying.
> The presence of terrestrial mammals on remote Pacific islands is a
> sure sign, as e.g. New Zealand had no mammals other than 2 or 3 bats
> prior to the Maoris' arrival, probably sometime between 1000 & 1200
> A.D.
>
What animals do you envision these people as carrying in their boats?
> Humans managed to island-hop as far as New Britain (in distances of up
> to about 60Km / 35 miles if memory serves) by about 30KYA. The theory
> is that these islands were either visible, or their existence could be
> inferred by watching seabirds. However, there is no evidence of humans
> being capable of long sea voyages prior to the extraordinary feats of
> navigation & seafaring by the Polynesians' ancestors in the last
> couple of millenia.
>
What evidence is likely to remain of boats made of sealskins? What
about the finds on Prince of Wales?
> N.B. I have watched with interest the debate over the date of
> colonisation of the Americas, and I'm unconvinced about these pre
> 12KYA dates, as Jason seems to be also. There are so few sites pre
> that time, which all seem to be controversially dated,
Can't see this - evolution is controversial, so this proves nothing.
For example, Adovasio says that Haynes objected to the carbon dates of
Meadowcroft because the samples _might_ have been contaminated. Hell, the
Sun _might_ not rise tomorrow.
The point is, Clovis first can never be proven except by inference, so
the burden of proof should be on those who support this hypothesis. It
hasn't been, except by the argument that the only way south was the ice free
corridor.
Certain sardonic humor in one point. One objection to Meadowcroft was
that it was too close to the glacier. So people are supposed to have come
south between two extensive glaciers. It's cold up there even today.
& so many
> sites, stone tools, megafauna extinctions & other signs which appear
> over a short timeline at the time the glacial barrier is finally
> breached between Alaska & the rest of North America. (As far as I can
> see, the only viable colonisation route was via Siberia, the Aleutians
> & Alaska.)
Well, it is one thing to drive a species to extinction when it is already
under stress for climatic reasons. Not sure fishermen would see the point
in tangling with the predators when they could just as easily go on south
along the coast.
>
> It's interesting that there seems to be so little clear-cut evidence
> for a >30KYA colonisation, because there were earlier times when the
> glacial maxima was as high, & the sea levels as low, as just before
> the end of the Ice Age. And since humans had the technology to reach
> Australia probably 60KYA, there's no reason why they couldn't reach
> the Americas. So I'm willing to accept that it could have happened,
> but as yet the evidence hasn't convinced me.
>
> Any other views?
>
Couple of other remarks, not necessarily responsive to your post.
Older sites have more time to be contaminated. Jungle not too good a place
to preserve evidence, I think. Also, in USA, any evidence of older
migrations is being covered up in accordance with NAGPRA.
Still, as you say, the evidence remaining is scanty.
Regards
John GW
Philip Deitiker
news:3E38B0C0...@thegrid.net:
> Again, how much practice is needed to get blown out to sea? Look at
> this map:
> http://gaea.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/regoc/images/14circ.gif
> From equatorial Africa it's a short straight hop to Brazil. It's hard
> not to wind up in South America. And the distance isn't much compared
> to the vastness of the Pacific.
If that had happened we would see west african markers. Africans
did make it to the islands off of nigeria and to the canary islands
early. Certainly a possibility but the markers are post australomelanesian
which suggest that a west ward route was unlikely.
Jason Eshleman
That's a bit of a misrepresentation. It wasn't a dismissal out of hand
based on whim. The site itself has some characteristics that would make
carbon contamination not improbable. Combined with the fact that the
"artifacts" associated with these older dates get rather sketchy as well,
the skepticism in the pre-Clovis Meadowcroft dates is healthy.
I'm pretty convinced that Monte Verde predates Clovis, and I'm more than
willing to accept older dates *if* they're solid, but it seems that when
you get much older than 12kybp, the quality of the evidence drops
precipitously in (almost?) all instances. As sites after 12kybp seem far
less problematic on average, I think this says something about the
validity of the sites.
> The point is, Clovis first can never be proven except by inference, so
>the burden of proof should be on those who support this hypothesis. It
>hasn't been, except by the argument that the only way south was the ice free
>corridor.
Dreadfully few in the field seem to support the ice-free corridor as the
intial entry any more. However, this doesn't make sketchy evidence at
Meadowcroft any less sketchy.
> Certain sardonic humor in one point. One objection to Meadowcroft was
>that it was too close to the glacier. So people are supposed to have come
>south between two extensive glaciers. It's cold up there even today.
That's a bit of a simplification. The argument (which I don't entirely
buy) was that in the pre-Clovis period, Meadowcroft would have been so
close to the glacial retreat as to be an exceptionally poor biome for
human habitation. This argument has been applied to the "ice free
corridor" as well, and has led many to reject it as an entry route,
favoring instead a coastal route which appears to have been readily
passible by about 14kybp. Curiously, Brown Bears show up in the lower 48
about the same time as people and paleogenetic work on Brown Bears seems
to indicate that they moved along the coast and not through the corridor.
[snip]
> Couple of other remarks, not necessarily responsive to your post.
>Older sites have more time to be contaminated. Jungle not too good a place
>to preserve evidence, I think. Also, in USA, any evidence of older
>migrations is being covered up in accordance with NAGPRA.
Not true at all. We've attempted genetic work on a good dozen
paleo-samples. Problem is that damn little DNA persists that long.
Further, those that have worked (to date) show no evidence of an earlier
migration and a subsequent replacement.
Doug Weller
Amateur wrote:
>In article <b19v1e$rid$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, j...@vici.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote:
>>In article <cY_Z9.3625$qg1.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>>Curious Amateur <no_...@home.guv> wrote:
>>>In article <3E386728...@thegrid.net>, "Lorenzo L. Love"
>>><lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>>>>Curious Amateur wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In article <3E384954...@thegrid.net>, "Lorenzo L. Love"
>>>> <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>>>>> >Curious Amateur wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> In article <uAydncTDp7p...@comcast.com>, "firstjois"
>>>>> > <firstjo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >Shigueo Watanabea, Walter Elias Feria Aytaa, Henrique Hamaguchia, Niède
>>>>> >> >Guidonb, Eliany S. La Salviab, Silvia Marancac and Oswaldo Baffa Filho.
>>>>> >> >2003.
>>>>> >> >Some Evidence of a Date of First Humans to Arrive in Brazil. Journal of
>>>>> >> >Archaeological Science 30(3): 351-354
>>>>> >> >
>snip
>>>>> Did I overlook something?
>>>>>
>>>>> CA
>>>>
>>>>Yes. The oldest human remains in the Americas; Luzia from Lapa
>>>>Vermelha, Brazil. 11,500 year old skull with negroid-australoid physical
>>>>type characteristics. Other similar remains in the area/time period. A
>>>>trans-Pacific migration from Australia/SE Asia is more likely but I
>>>>wouldn't rule out them coming directly from Africa. The more you look at
>>>>the earliest native Americans, the less affinity with the mongoloid
>>>>physical type typical of modern Asians is seen.
>>>
>>>"Modern Asians"? What of those of a similar age?
>>
>>The real problem is that the earliest Americans don't look like modern
>>Native Americans, but niether do they look like each other. The
>>variability is great. I'm not sure that the Lapa Vermelha, Brazil
>>indiviudal is still the oldest, it's probably either something found in
>>Mexico or Guatemala. Still, the key is that there's considerable
>>variability. Similarly, contemporary Asians look rather different as
>>well.
>
>So do caucasoids.
In this context, what does 'caucasoid' mean?
[SNIP]
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Lorenzo L. Love
You keep harping on the need for islands and assuming that it could only
be a deliberate and planned voyage. It doesn't take any islands to get
blown off shore. It doesn't take any experience to get blown off shore.
It doesn't take any planning to get blown off shore. It doesn't take any
ancestral tales to get blown off shore. And once you get blown off shore
from equatorial Africa, given the prevailing currents, you are going to
almost inevitably wind up in South America. It's the eastward journey
across the Pacific against prevailing currents that requires planning
and experience. And there is no archeological evidence for that ancient
of people in the Pacific.
Two thousand miles with the currents or nine thousand miles against the
currents?
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very
Lorenzo L. Love
Even if the Lapa Vermelha dates are too old by a factor of half, the
present of negroid-australoid physical type people in South America is
inconsistent with the northern migration route being the only mode of
entrance to the Americas.
Jason Eshleman
Lorenzo L. Love <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>Even if the Lapa Vermelha dates are too old by a factor of half, the
>present of negroid-australoid physical type people in South America is
>inconsistent with the northern migration route being the only mode of
>entrance to the Americas.
Unless those traits aren't great markers of close genetic affinity. In
populations that were small, you would expect drift to operate quickly,
producing rather large inter and intra populational variances. That's
what we see in the paleo americans.
Lorenzo L. Love
Not if they died out. Perhaps they were a people barely hanging on.
Are there any genetic markers for negroid-australoid physical type along
the northern migration route or in the East Pacific? The physical
anthropologists seem pretty sure about the physical type of Luzia and
her people. Either the physical anthropologists are completely wrong and
osteometrics are invalid or negroid-australoid types got to South
America some how.
Philip Deitiker
news:b1bpnv$7cs$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu:
> That's a bit of a misrepresentation. It wasn't a dismissal out of
> hand based on whim. The site itself has some characteristics that
> would make carbon contamination not improbable. Combined with the
> fact that the "artifacts" associated with these older dates get rather
> sketchy as well, the skepticism in the pre-Clovis Meadowcroft dates is
> healthy.
Well in defense of John, carbon contamination is more likely to make the
datings younger than older since dating is based on decay rate. For example
if the age was 40 ky and it was contaminated with an equal part of 60Ky its
only going to change the date by 3 kya. However if its age was 40kya and it
was contaminated with an equal part of 20 kya it would alter the date over
10 ky.
I just don't trust carbon datings over 25 kya, one thing I would want to
know was how much of the sample was carbon, and how much carbon does on
expect for any age.
> I'm pretty convinced that Monte Verde predates Clovis, and I'm more
> than willing to accept older dates *if* they're solid, but it seems
> that when you get much older than 12kybp, the quality of the evidence
> drops precipitously in (almost?) all instances.
Yes but 14 kya it drops even more precipitously.
> Dreadfully few in the field seem to support the ice-free corridor as
> the intial entry any more. However, this doesn't make sketchy
> evidence at Meadowcroft any less sketchy.
Well at least one hunk a bunk ended up in the dumpster.
> That's a bit of a simplification. The argument (which I don't
> entirely buy) was that in the pre-Clovis period, Meadowcroft would
> have been so close to the glacial retreat as to be an exceptionally
> poor biome for human habitation. This argument has been applied to
> the "ice free corridor" as well, and has led many to reject it as an
> entry route, favoring instead a coastal route which appears to have
> been readily passible by about 14kybp. Curiously, Brown Bears show up
> in the lower 48 about the same time as people and paleogenetic work on
> Brown Bears seems to indicate that they moved along the coast and not
> through the corridor.
Again how rapidly will the population grow from
a small number of seed animals. When you see evidence,
it means they have already been growing for quite a
time. More than probably the warm up after the last
glacial maximum created opportunities we cannot
fathom yet for intercontinental travel.
> Not true at all. We've attempted genetic work on a good dozen
> paleo-samples. Problem is that damn little DNA persists that long.
> Further, those that have worked (to date) show no evidence of an
> earlier migration and a subsequent replacement.
There was an article out recently that Neandertal sample were
kept preserved at 'cold' sites. I brougth this up immediately before
Krings, that I doubt Nenadertal DNA could be sequenced but if it could it
likely found in a place that was quite cold and with trace anti-oxidants
present.
I think some of the Monte Alban and Adcock irregularities are probably
due to the condition of the DNA, it is entirely possible if some erectoid
made it up to the artic circle before croaking and its DNA was preserved
through the ice ages, we could have some sample of erectoid worthy of mtDNA
analysis.
Philip Deitiker
news:3E398280...@thegrid.net:
> You keep harping on the need for islands and assuming that it could
> only be a deliberate and planned voyage. It doesn't take any islands
> to get blown off shore. It doesn't take any experience to get blown
> off shore. It doesn't take any planning to get blown off shore. It
> doesn't take any ancestral tales to get blown off shore. And once you
> get blown off shore from equatorial Africa, given the prevailing
> currents, you are going to almost inevitably wind up in South America.
Uh, no, probably you will end up in the carribean or trapped in the mid
south atlantic were you perish, The currents run southeast to northwest
across from west africa to the mediteranean, more so in the summer with
stong currents all the way into the gulf in late september.
> It's the eastward journey across the Pacific against prevailing
> currents that requires planning and experience. And there is no
> archeological evidence for that ancient of people in the Pacific.
> Two thousand miles with the currents or nine thousand miles against
> the currents?
That goes without saying. The shortest and most dangerous route
runs along antartica. Most of the accidents that occur in the
round the world sailing competition occur in the southern
pacific. You can make good time, but it wont help you if your
mainsail snaps off and flies away.
Philip Deitiker
news:3E398468...@thegrid.net:
> Even if the Lapa Vermelha dates are too old by a factor of half, the
> present of negroid-australoid physical type people in South America is
> inconsistent with the northern migration route being the only mode of
> entrance to the Americas.
I suspect that the first settlers of Japan and probably those most
capable of making the trip if the trip was made early were
melanistic maritime travelers from the philipines. You may argue that the
currents don't push individuals eastward to americas, but the prevailing
current in the western pacific is the current that runs from taiwan to
Japan. So you idea that they could not get north rapidly is much more easy
to refute than the idea of a westward voyage from africa.
From the philipines there a submerged shelf running to about 100 miles of
taiwan with a small group of islands, from tiawan there is a small group of
islands about 75 northeast and a submerge archeopelagio running northeast
with intermittant islands of the ryukyu chain that connect with kyushu.
From hokkaido there extends the kurils which are almost peninsular during
glacial periods and these extend to kamchatka. There is a know raise areas
of the aleutian chain that is proximaly to russian, the most difficult part
of the trip would be from kamchatca to the aluetian chain. The longest
distance one would have to travel, potentially with a wind out of northwest
and northeastern moving current would be 250 miles. This route would
probably reach its maximum about 17500 years ago but there may have been
nice opportunities earlier.
Lorenzo L. Love
Look at http://gaea.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/regoc/images/14circ.gif
What's the shortest route? Not along Antartica. It's straight along the
equator.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt
Philip Deitiker
> Not if they died out. Perhaps they were a people barely hanging on.
Improbable, they would be a founder affect. Humans in a brand new empty
continent.
> Are there any genetic markers for negroid-australoid physical type
> along the northern migration route or in the East Pacific?
Yes, there are derived markers in rkyukyu and philipines that can be found
at high densities in melantistic peoples as well as on the asian mainland.
You missed the discussion of Gisele and me, they appear to have been
diluted in Japan.
Early Japan appears to have been settled by 2 kinds of peoples, the
Kofun making mainlanders and the Island hopping seafaring group (35+ kya).
They appear also to have intemixed, but the mainland culture appears to
have been dominant. This culture appears to have undergone a large change
from north to south somewhere before 12 kya with the introduction of clovis
like tools and an associated shift in morphology (taller individuals) which
thereafter is called Jomon. Then a wave of mainlanders appears to have
displacively admixed these about 2600 years to 300 years ago further. Japan
in HLA and mtDNA has markers that are unique to Japan and show a period of
isolation and slightly different origin from continental asians. Thus I
think that Japan offers itself up as at least the most northern latitude
of early melanesians. Japanese have told me that certain groups of
kyushuans are more similar to philipinos than koreans, and from my own
visual experiance certain rural non-agrarian areas of Japan (where primary
trade is craftsman and artisans) tend to have different features from
the standard normal sino/korean looking japanese. You will not see the
craniofacial variation in china, per mile that you see in Japan. Thus
japan appears to be still not homogenous but homogenized in many places
with a few places where the pre-Yayoi features persist.
The HLA of Japanese shows a number of haplotypes and alleles not found in
china or korea, one of the major haplotypes that is nodal in Japan appears
to have come from the west, but there are other haplotypes that appear to
have originated in indonesia and differ enough from those from china and
korea to suggest a degree of isolation in Japan itself.
Thus there is small but convincing evidence that Japan was home to some
early east coast travelers. There are remains on the ryukyu chain that date
to 28 kya that could only be arrived at by boat.
Lorenzo L. Love
A pretty extreme case of convergent evolution. If the old dates prove to
be accurate, I would discount that as likely. No time for it to happen.
Basically you are saying that there are two massive errors here, the
dating is wrong and the osteometrics are wrong. If only one of two
separate disciplines are not completely screwed up, there is something
odd here.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World
War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Albert Einstein
Philip Deitiker
> Look at http://gaea.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/regoc/images/14circ.gif
> What's the shortest route? Not along Antartica. It's straight along the
> equator.
Except you would normally be going against the current, against the
prevailing winds in a doldrum, you get about 1500 miles shy of Hawaii and
you are already dead.
Lorenzo L. Love
>
> "Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in
> news:3E398B7F...@thegrid.net:
>
> > Not if they died out. Perhaps they were a people barely hanging on.
>
> Improbable, they would be a founder affect. Humans in a brand new empty
> continent.
>
> > Are there any genetic markers for negroid-australoid physical type
> > along the northern migration route or in the East Pacific?
>
> Yes, there are derived markers in rkyukyu and philipines that can be found
> at high densities in melantistic peoples as well as on the asian mainland.
> You missed the discussion of Gisele and me, they appear to have been
> diluted in Japan.
EAST Pacific?
Did these negroid-australoid physical types go straight from the western
Pacific to South America? If not are there any genetic traces along the
intervening route?
Lorenzo L. Love
What the hell are you talking about? You're in the wrong ocean. You
didn't even look at the map did you?
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very
Curious Amateur
Those lacking melanin, including Turks, Slavs, Teutons, Celts, Iberians,
Franks, Romans, Greeks, Nordics, Persians, etc.
Sorry if I was obscure.
CA
Jason Eshleman
>Jason Eshleman wrote:
>>
>> In article <3E398468...@thegrid.net>,
>> Lorenzo L. Love <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Even if the Lapa Vermelha dates are too old by a factor of half, the
>> >present of negroid-australoid physical type people in South America is
>> >inconsistent with the northern migration route being the only mode of
>> >entrance to the Americas.
>>
>> Unless those traits aren't great markers of close genetic affinity. In
>> populations that were small, you would expect drift to operate quickly,
>> producing rather large inter and intra populational variances. That's
>> what we see in the paleo americans.
>
>A pretty extreme case of convergent evolution. If the old dates prove to
>be accurate, I would discount that as likely. No time for it to happen.
>Basically you are saying that there are two massive errors here, the
>dating is wrong and the osteometrics are wrong. If only one of two
>separate disciplines are not completely screwed up, there is something
>odd here.
I'm saying that the really old dates are problematic, yes, and I am far
from convinced of their validity.
Recall that the odd osteometrics aren't done on samples dated to 40kybp or
whatever the really old south american dates are. They're from samples
that are in the 10-12ky range.
I don't think that it's at all clear that questionable really old dates
and a typological classification of a single individual.
The problem with the osteometric analyses that say "X is
negroid/australoid/whateveroid" is that it's exceptionally typological and
if you start with a typological framework, you will *always* be forced to
put your specimens in an existing type. There's variation in any
population and you'd expect to see greater levels of variation if
populations were small and gene flow limited. The convergence doesn't
strike me as all that shocking actually.
Remember we're talking about *one* specimen that looks australoid or
negroid or whatever it's being called. We've got other specimens of
roughly the same age. Luzia doesn't look like the Spirit Cave Mummy or
Kennewick or the recent Mexican museum find or Wizard's Beach (which
incidently is haplogroup C--typically Native American), all of which have
been argued to represent older populations as well. While many (but not
all) of them likewise aren't close typological matches with modern Native
Americans, neither is there a "paleo-indian" type that would indicate that
the differences are due to a single population replacing an early
population. The variance in paleoindian types is so high that it either
argues several populations in the Americas early, or that some phenomenon
produced a high degree of variation within the population, some of which
will have superficial convergence on other "types."
Curious Amateur
snip
>
>You keep harping on the need for islands and assuming that it could only
>be a deliberate and planned voyage. It doesn't take any islands to get
>blown off shore. It doesn't take any experience to get blown off shore.
>It doesn't take any planning to get blown off shore. It doesn't take any
>ancestral tales to get blown off shore. And once you get blown off shore
>from equatorial Africa, given the prevailing currents, you are going to
>almost inevitably wind up in South America. It's the eastward journey
>across the Pacific against prevailing currents that requires planning
>and experience. And there is no archeological evidence for that ancient
>of people in the Pacific.
>Two thousand miles with the currents or nine thousand miles against the
>currents?
With island hopping it isn't 9000 miles, Lorenzo. ;-)
As for the Atlantic crossing, you are right. They could get blown out to
sea. I just have serious doubts they'd live to see the end of the voyage.
The lack of fresh water alone would kill them in an open boat at sea.
Without provisioning, I don't expect any to survive.
Does that help explain my reason for doubting the Atlantic crossing?
CA
Curious Amateur
>present of negroid-australoid physical type people in South America is
>inconsistent with the northern migration route being the only mode of
>entrance to the Americas.
But aren't we still unsure of what that "negroid-australoid" term really
means?
Where else do we find "negroid-australoid" features?
CA
Lorenzo L. Love
Actually it's something like 400 specimens from the Lagoa Santa region,
Luzia is just the oldest and most intact. Yes, there is enormous
variation between these different groups of early Americans. Different
waves of immigration from different regions would account for that.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very
Lorenzo L. Love
Not unless you assume they didn't have the sense to carry food and
water. Given favorable wind and currents, the trip from Africa to South
America could have been as short as two weeks. Lets say a more realistic
trip time was four weeks. That's a three knot rate of advance, about
walking speed. There are many historical accounts of people spending
much longer then that adrift with little or no provisions.
pete
`
` You left out the Antarctic circumpolar current route. Get on a boat in
` Tasmania and get off in Southern Chile. A very long, cold and unlikely
` possibility.
What a wonderful left field idea. I wonder how far north the southern
ice shelves extended at the height of the ice age, and how extensive
were the whale herds and penguin flocks. And of course, the farther
south you go, the shorter the route around. Still, I have to agree,
considering the likely state of the weather (and the likely technology
of the possible migrants), an extremely unlikey scenario. ...I don't
have a globe to hand, but Tasmania is about the same distance to
Tierra del Fuego from either direction, isn't it?
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
pete
` Philip Deitiker wrote:
`>
`> "Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in
`> news:3E3997FD...@thegrid.net:
`>
`> > Look at http://gaea.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/regoc/images/14circ.gif
`> > What's the shortest route? Not along Antartica. It's straight along the
`> > equator.
`>
`> Except you would normally be going against the current, against the
`> prevailing winds in a doldrum, you get about 1500 miles shy of Hawaii and
`> you are already dead.
`
` What the hell are you talking about? You're in the wrong ocean. You
` didn't even look at the map did you?
you quoted Phil's comments agreeing with you about the Pacific route,
and responded with more defense of the atlantic route. Phil then
responded about the pacific again.
Bob Keeter
lll...@thegrid.net wrote on 1/30/03 7:53 PM:
Snippage; . . . . . .
>> What would drive Africans to do this? Their ocean has no islands to compare
>> with the S.Pacific. They're on a continent with no outjutting peninsulas
>> from which to see the new world (as in Beringia and the Aleutians). They've
>> no ancestral tales to help prepare them for such a voyage. Why sail into an
>> empty sea when they have a continent?
>>
>> CA
>
> You keep harping on the need for islands and assuming that it could only
> be a deliberate and planned voyage. It doesn't take any islands to get
> blown off shore. It doesn't take any experience to get blown off shore.
> It doesn't take any planning to get blown off shore. It doesn't take any
> ancestral tales to get blown off shore. And once you get blown off shore
> from equatorial Africa, given the prevailing currents, you are going to
> almost inevitably wind up in South America. It's the eastward journey
> across the Pacific against prevailing currents that requires planning
> and experience. And there is no archeological evidence for that ancient
> of people in the Pacific.
> Two thousand miles with the currents or nine thousand miles against the
> currents?
>
> Lorenzo L. Love
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
OK, Lorenzo, lets appeal to that analytical mind that cut right through the
controversy to the undeniable truth of the PPCT! 8-)
Think of it this way,. . . . . . .
Imagine a group of primitive villagers in the process of migrating "down the
coast" a couple of miles to a new river mouth to set up a new village.
Along comes one of those summertime low pressure centers out of central
africa, destined to become a carribean hurricane. It grabs this small group
of travelers (lets just say 20 canoes, each with two or three people, not
unlike many of the dugout canoes you might find in primative cultures
today), and sweeps the little fleet out to sea on the way to Brazil. What
percentage of the canoes do you want to survive the initial encounter with a
storm violent enough to drive all of the canoes offshore in spite of their
efforts not to be swept "off the edge of the world"!?
OK, lets say that these are REALLY good dugout canoes, and at least one half
survive to "right" themselves after the storm is over. You are left with
ten. How many of those ten canoes would you suspect could still have any
fresh water on board after having been capsized in the storm and carried far
out to sea? Maybe four or five?
Now if you are talking about a culture willing to use their canoes to
migrate along the coast, you are talking a culture with some exposure to the
sea and at least some familiarity with the principles of navigation. What
direction do you row, into the morning sun or into the setting sun? One
way, you might actually make a little headway against the current (not that
you could tell) in the direction you know to be "shoreline". Row in the
other direction and you are headed for a total unknown deep blue sea. Which
way, as a sane and reasonable man, do you row?
Even if you turn in the other direction and row directly away from the
direction where you KNOW safety lies, you have perhaps an average speed of
4-5 knots (counting the unseen current). To make a 2000 mile crossing, 5
knots will take about 400 hrs of rowing, in round numbers the best you could
assume would be about 16 days in the tropical sun, no shade, no water. . . .
what percentage of those canoes would you expect to survive?
8-))
Do they make aquatic kitty cats that tow canoes across oceans? ;-)
Regards
bk
Lorenzo L. Love
That's your definition of caucasoid? The most trivial and variable
characteristic? That's kind of ... limited. You better look that up.
While you are at it, look up negroid and australoid.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"Why of course the people don't want war... Naturally... That is
Lorenzo L. Love
My comments were about the map. The ATLANTIC map. Phil responded with a
non sequitur about Hawaii. Look at the map.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"Why of course the people don't want war... Naturally... That is
Michael Clark
"Bob Keeter" <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BA5F39AD.25136%rke...@earthlink.net...
> in article 3E398280...@thegrid.net, Lorenzo L. Love at
> lll...@thegrid.net wrote on 1/30/03 7:53 PM:
>
> Even if you turn in the other direction and row directly away from the
> direction where you KNOW safety lies, you have perhaps an average speed of
> 4-5 knots (counting the unseen current). To make a 2000 mile crossing, 5
> knots will take about 400 hrs of rowing, in round numbers the best you could
> assume would be about 16 days in the tropical sun, no shade, no water. . . .
> what percentage of those canoes would you expect to survive?
>
> 8-))
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/11/12/wsamoa.survival/
Bob Keeter
bit...@spammer.com wrote on 1/31/03 1:53 AM:
Perhaps one small point. . . 1. that was not a canoe. 2. Not sure, but
seem to remember that there is more rain in areas where there are islands.
Something about "stirring" the atmosphere with the differential heating off
of islands, with the storms then moving out over the water. er. . . . . how
was it that they said that their companions passed away?
Regards
bk
Bob Keeter
bit...@spammer.com wrote on 1/31/03 1:53 AM:
>
Sorry, I forgot. . . . .
" . . . . . . . . which saw them drift nearly 4,000 kilometers (2,480 miles)
west from Western Samoa to Papua New Guinea. "
Six months of drifting got them 2,480 miles.
As for catching rain water etc. a 20 ft aluminum boat is probably 8+ ft
wide. that gives me about 160 sq. feet of "catchment" for water. If I have
a 1" rain storm, I get 160 x 144 x 1 cubic inches of water (or just about
100 gallons). If I take the same rainfall into a 2 ft X 15 ft canoe, it
looks like about 18 gallons. Now the canoe will have a lot less freeboard
than a nice aluminum fishing boat so a lot more "slosh" of seawater into the
boat to contaminate any water that might be caught.
Regards
bk
jgi...@earthlink.net
"Jason Eshleman" <j...@vici.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:b1bpnv$7cs$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> In article <OAd_9.4979$wd2.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> <jgi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Ross Macfarlane" <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:18fa6145.0301...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> >> The presence of terrestrial mammals on remote Pacific islands is a
> >> sure sign, as e.g. New Zealand had no mammals other than 2 or 3 bats
> >> prior to the Maoris' arrival, probably sometime between 1000 & 1200
> >> A.D.
> >>
> > What animals do you envision these people as carrying in their boats?
Incidentally, I was referring to the First Americans - I can't think of
anything but dogs.
> > Can't see this - evolution is controversial, so this proves nothing.
> >For example, Adovasio says that Haynes objected to the carbon dates of
> >Meadowcroft because the samples _might_ have been contaminated. Hell,
the
> >Sun _might_ not rise tomorrow.
>
> That's a bit of a misrepresentation. It wasn't a dismissal out of hand
> based on whim. The site itself has some characteristics that would make
> carbon contamination not improbable. Combined with the fact that the
> "artifacts" associated with these older dates get rather sketchy as well,
> the skepticism in the pre-Clovis Meadowcroft dates is healthy.
>
However Adovasio claims that the ground was checked for possible carbon
due to flooding and none was found inside the drip line - or some such
thing - won't guarantee my memory is exact. He dealt with this, anyhow.
> I'm pretty convinced that Monte Verde predates Clovis, and I'm more than
> willing to accept older dates *if* they're solid, but it seems that when
> you get much older than 12kybp, the quality of the evidence drops
> precipitously in (almost?) all instances. As sites after 12kybp seem far
> less problematic on average, I think this says something about the
> validity of the sites.
>
>> Couple of points. More time to become problematical. People tend
to see what they want to see. Possible self-fulfilling prophecy, here.
There are few sites, so each new sites cannot be pre-clovis, so the number
of sites remains small.
> > The point is, Clovis first can never be proven except by inference,
so
> >the burden of proof should be on those who support this hypothesis.
It
> >hasn't been, except by the argument that the only way south was the ice
free
> >corridor.
>
> Dreadfully few in the field seem to support the ice-free corridor as the
> intial entry any more. However, this doesn't make sketchy evidence at
> Meadowcroft any less sketchy.
>
> > Certain sardonic humor in one point. One objection to Meadowcroft
was
> >that it was too close to the glacier. So people are supposed to have
come
> >south between two extensive glaciers. It's cold up there even today.
>
> That's a bit of a simplification. The argument (which I don't entirely
> buy) was that in the pre-Clovis period, Meadowcroft would have been so
> close to the glacial retreat as to be an exceptionally poor biome for
> human habitation.
I think also, it was felt the biota found there could not have existed
that close to the glacier, as it ran at that time. Too cold for that.
Maybe valid - really need to simply check a number of sites just for this -
shoot, it wouldn't cost anything but money.
>This argument has been applied to the "ice free
> corridor" as well, and has led many to reject it as an entry route,
> favoring instead a coastal route which appears to have been readily
> passible by about 14kybp. Curiously, Brown Bears show up in the lower 48
> about the same time as people and paleogenetic work on Brown Bears seems
> to indicate that they moved along the coast and not through the corridor.
>
> [snip]
> > Couple of other remarks, not necessarily responsive to your post.
> >Older sites have more time to be contaminated. Jungle not too good a
place
> >to preserve evidence, I think. Also, in USA, any evidence of older
> >migrations is being covered up in accordance with NAGPRA.
>
> Not true at all. We've attempted genetic work on a good dozen
> paleo-samples. Problem is that damn little DNA persists that long.
> Further, those that have worked (to date) show no evidence of an earlier
> migration and a subsequent replacement.
>
Well, I really had in mind the trashing of the site where KM was
found - river mud is sacred. But OK, and, of course, Philip made the point
that there is no gradient, (I guess I'm giving what he said correctly) from
South to North, which might occur if there was some replacement.
Regards
John GW
jgi...@earthlink.net
"Philip Deitiker" <Donte...@bcm.tmc.org> wrote in message
news:Xns931398...@128.249.2.19...
. And once you
> > get blown off shore from equatorial Africa, given the prevailing
> > currents, you are going to almost inevitably wind up in South America.
>
> Uh, no, probably you will end up in the carribean or trapped in the mid
> south atlantic were you perish, The currents run southeast to northwest
> across from west africa to the mediteranean, more so in the summer with
> stong currents all the way into the gulf in late september.
>
Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa. Didn't feel like rowing back, so just
went on around.
Regards
John GW
Lorenzo L. Love
And lets say they all got ate by a sea monster. There are historical
accounts of long periods adrift with few or no provisions. Look up the
whaling ship Essex, 90 days in open boats, starvation, thirst,
cannibalism, all the fun stuff. There was a case in WWII of a merchant
ship sunk by a U-boat, don't remember the name, but I think it was 40
days in life rafts. Another WWII case where a shot down pilot spent some
incredibly long time in a rubber raft. It does rain, you know, and there
are a few fish in the sea. I wouldn't recommend it as a vacation but
people have survived far worst then an Atlantic crossing.
Some of the Lapa Vermelha investigators think Luzia and her people came
from the same population that settled Australia, but came the long why
around, via the traditional Bering Strait Land Bridge. There's problems
with that in the lack of any evidence along the way. Whether or not
Luzia's ancestors came directly from Africa or not, there is no physical
impediment to a east to west Atlantic crossing.
"And all studies preceding and subsequent to the analysis of Luzia have
generated the same result: the first South Americans have a marked
morphological affinity with present-day Africans and Australians,
showing no resemblance to present Asian Mongoloids or American Indians."
- anthropologist Walter Neves, University of São Paulo
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very
jgi...@earthlink.net
> j...@vici.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in
> news:b1bpnv$7cs$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu:
>
>
> Well in defense of John, carbon contamination is more likely to make the
> datings younger than older since dating is based on decay rate. For
example
> if the age was 40 ky and it was contaminated with an equal part of 60Ky
its
> only going to change the date by 3 kya. However if its age was 40kya and
it
> was contaminated with an equal part of 20 kya it would alter the date over
> 10 ky.
Wasn't it coal that was supposed to be the contaminant? I would
think more recent carbon would be fairly likely from forest fires, though.
> I just don't trust carbon datings over 25 kya, one thing I would want to
> know was how much of the sample was carbon, and how much carbon does on
> expect for any age.
>
Not supposed to be very good then, are they?
> Yes but 14 kya it drops even more precipitously.
> > Curiously, Brown Bears show up
> > in the lower 48 about the same time as people and paleogenetic work on
> > Brown Bears seems to indicate that they moved along the coast and not
> > through the corridor.
>
Interesting, Jason, (too lazy to answer your post separately.) Is it
felt they came all the way from Alaska or from island refuges?
Regards
John GW
Lorenzo L. Love
Close enough. About 40% on the Pacific leg. But the Antarctic
circumpolar current only goes west to east. If you want to go back home,
you have to keep going east, around the planet. Not the route I would
want to go.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
Rube...@webtv.net
theory resembles yours.....right?
Mike Clark
Reminds me of the eager archeo student who spends all summer locked in a
small room with 10,000 rim sherds. He carefully weighs, measures, sniffs
of, and licks each fragment --but never bothers to assemble a single pot.
Is it possible, Bob? Or impossible?
> Regards
> bk
Philip Deitiker
news:3E399EE7...@thegrid.net:
> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>>
>> "Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in
>> news:3E398B7F...@thegrid.net:
>>
>> > Not if they died out. Perhaps they were a people barely
>> > hanging on.
>>
>> Improbable, they would be a founder affect. Humans in a
>> brand new empty continent.
>>
>> > Are there any genetic markers for negroid-australoid
>> > physical type along the northern migration route or in
>> > the East Pacific?
>>
>> Yes, there are derived markers in rkyukyu and philipines
>> that can be found at high densities in melantistic peoples
>> as well as on the asian mainland. You missed the
>> discussion of Gisele and me, they appear to have been
>> diluted in Japan.
>
> EAST Pacific?
Let me ask you a question, suppose you are right, suppose some
seasonal melanesian maritime 'forager' got blow of into a storm
with his wife and family, and they ended up in canada, do you
think that would stay there? What you would do is keep traveling
the coast until you find a place that was like your home. During
the last ice age that probably was close to the equator
(particularly if there was not competition)
Some of the haplotypes are found in canada, but the pacific
coast of canada appears to have been flushed several times with
sea travelers from asia. For example the tlinglit which dot some
the best areas appear to have a very close relationship with
preYayoi Japanese, so close I would be willing to bet that they
immigrated directly from Japan into north american and intermix
only mildly with the native peoples.
Our understand of who brought haplotypes when is just not all
that good, there are certainly hints, some show affinities with
central asians (like altai), some show affinities with kor-
mongols. some show affinities with kor-japanese. Others with
little ragtag groups in siberia.
Philip Deitiker
> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>>
>> "Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in
>> news:3E3997FD...@thegrid.net:
>>
>> > Look at
>> > http://gaea.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/regoc/images/14cir
>> > c.gif What's the shortest route? Not along Antartica.
>> > It's straight along the equator.
>>
>> Except you would normally be going against the current,
>> against the prevailing winds in a doldrum, you get about
>> 1500 miles shy of Hawaii and you are already dead.
>
> What the hell are you talking about? You're in the wrong
> ocean. You didn't even look at the map did you?
The part of the post I was responding to you was specifically
dealing with pacific route.
In reference to your map, the most likely leaving point would be
the islands off or nigeria. That part of the route would
generally take them in the direction of the islands of the south
east carribean, during the ice age consider that the current
would turn more northerly in the direction of ne carribean.
However, there could be opportunity for them to get off in the
carribean.
pete
` pete wrote:
`>
`> on Thu, 30 Jan 2003 22:07:56 GMT, Lorenzo L. Love <lll...@thegrid.net> sez:
`> ` Philip Deitiker wrote:
`> `>
`> `> "Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in
`> `> news:3E3997FD...@thegrid.net:
`> `>
`> `> > Look at http://gaea.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/regoc/images/14circ.gif
`> `> > What's the shortest route? Not along Antartica. It's straight along the
`> `> > equator.
`> `>
`> `> Except you would normally be going against the current, against the
`> `> prevailing winds in a doldrum, you get about 1500 miles shy of Hawaii and
`> `> you are already dead.
`> `
`> ` What the hell are you talking about? You're in the wrong ocean. You
`> ` didn't even look at the map did you?
`> `
`> you quoted Phil's comments agreeing with you about the Pacific route,
`> and responded with more defense of the atlantic route. Phil then
`> responded about the pacific again.
` My comments were about the map. The ATLANTIC map.
`
I'm aware of that, but you refered to a route along the Antarctic coast,
and Phil's comment about that, which your comment and map reference
immediately followed, was from his second paragraph, where he was agreeing
with you, and talking exclusively about the pacific. He never said
anything about the antarctic in regard to atlantic crossings. Just
trying to keep things clear...
zolota
"Curious Amateur" <no_...@home.guv> wrote in message
news:pQ7_9.4958$qg1.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> In article <3E38B0C0...@thegrid.net>, "Lorenzo L. Love"> >> In article <3E386728...@thegrid.net>, "Lorenzo L. Love"
> >> <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
> >> >Curious Amateur wrote:
snip
> >The modern Asians that modern native Americans have an affinity to. Go
> >back far enough, that doesn't exist, showing that earlier migrations
> >from other groups were likely.
>
> I recall hearing that the Inuit claimed there was a previous race in place
> when they arrived in N.America.
The eastern Innu (Thule culture) arrived from the West and took over from
the existing Dorset culture in eastern Canada.. The later went extinct
~AD1200. Their campsites are markedly different. IIRc the present residents
of Alaska are also relatively recent and IIRC pushed the Thule peoples
foreward. the Inuit are not a single people or language. In fact, each town
has a different accent.
SNIP
Lorenzo L. Love
I don't think anyone ended up in Canada except the people coming down
from the Bering Strait. If a seasonal equatorial African maritime
'forager' got blow off into a storm with his wife and family, and they
ended up in equatorial South America, do you think that would stay
there?
> Some of the haplotypes are found in canada, but the pacific
> coast of canada appears to have been flushed several times with
> sea travelers from asia. For example the tlinglit which dot some
> the best areas appear to have a very close relationship with
> preYayoi Japanese, so close I would be willing to bet that they
> immigrated directly from Japan into north american and intermix
> only mildly with the native peoples.
> Our understand of who brought haplotypes when is just not all
> that good, there are certainly hints, some show affinities with
> central asians (like altai), some show affinities with kor-
> mongols. some show affinities with kor-japanese. Others with
> little ragtag groups in siberia.
So the answer is no?
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt
Lorenzo L. Love
Even the Dorsets are way too recent figure into this matter of ancient
Americans.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World
War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Albert Einstein
Ross Macfarlane
> >
> Don't believe your analogy is well taken, to compare the Polynesians with
> people hunting sea animals along the coast.. Can't see any of the above
> applying.
>
Sorry John, I think you missed my point. I was primarily arguing
against a trans-Pacific route - SE Asia - South America via Fiji &
Tahiti. By implication, I can't envisage a trans-Atlantic,
Africa-South America route either.
A coastal skirting, involving relatively short sea voyages between
visible islands would have been conceivable 35KYA. However, as I think
Phil implies, the northern Pacific route, in skin boats at the height
of the Ice Age, would be a lot more challenging than Bali to Flores,
or Timor to northern Australia.
So when the evidence for an early colonisation is solid, I will accept
it & marvel at human ingenuity yet more, but for the time being I'm
still not convinced.
> >
> What animals do you envision these people as carrying in their boats?
>
Answer would depend on who is travelling from where. Coastal
hunter-gatherers - most probably no food animals. Early Polynesians
(or more correctly, Lapita peoples) came from an agricultural society
which already used domesticated animals.
>
> What evidence is likely to remain of boats made of sealskins? What
> about the finds on Prince of Wales?
>
See above. North Pacific findings didn't figure in my thinking, & I'm
not really familiar with the specifics of POW Island, or any specific
localities in the Americas.
>
> Can't see this - evolution is controversial, so this proves nothing.
> For example, Adovasio says that Haynes objected to the carbon dates of
> Meadowcroft because the samples _might_ have been contaminated. Hell, the
> Sun _might_ not rise tomorrow.
> The point is, Clovis first can never be proven except by inference, so
> the burden of proof should be on those who support this hypothesis. It
> hasn't been, except by the argument that the only way south was the ice free
> corridor.
> Certain sardonic humor in one point. One objection to Meadowcroft was
> that it was too close to the glacier. So people are supposed to have come
> south between two extensive glaciers. It's cold up there even today.
>
As noted - have nothing specific to say against your view; just that
I'm not yet convinced. Convince me! :-)
>
> Well, it is one thing to drive a species to extinction when it is already
> under stress for climatic reasons. Not sure fishermen would see the point
> in tangling with the predators when they could just as easily go on south
> along the coast.
> >
Are yes. I'd have been disappointed if the megafauna extinction
comment didn't provoke a response, because it is a source of endless
controversy. I personally think humans most likely played a
significant part in the megafauna extinctions, probably delivering the
coup de grace to many species which were environmentally stressed by
the end of the Ice Age.
> >
> > Any other views?
> >
> Couple of other remarks, not necessarily responsive to your post.
> Older sites have more time to be contaminated. Jungle not too good a place
> to preserve evidence, I think. Also, in USA, any evidence of older
> migrations is being covered up in accordance with NAGPRA.
> Still, as you say, the evidence remaining is scanty.
> Regards
> John GW
Happy with that. To paraphrase 2 Quality Managers I used to work with:
a) "In God We Trust. All others, bring data"
or if you prefer,
b) "Without data, we're just 2 blokes with an opinion"...
Hmm, come to think of it, there's a few around this NG would do well
to consider option (b) a bit more often.
Ross Macfarlane :-)
Ross Macfarlane
>
> Even if the Lapa Vermelha dates are too old by a factor of half, the
> present of negroid-australoid physical type people in South America is
> inconsistent with the northern migration route being the only mode of
> entrance to the Americas.
>
1. If negroid/australoids could make it to Australia, New Britain,
Phillipines etc., why not the Americas?
2. And if they could, why not by the northern route?
3. And if not that way, which way (considering my objections to the
trans-south Pacific & trans-south Atlantic routes)?
4. When?
Ross Macfarlane
Curious Amateur
>in article 3E398280...@thegrid.net, Lorenzo L. Love at
>lll...@thegrid.net wrote on 1/30/03 7:53 PM:
>
>Snippage; . . . . . .
>
>
>Think of it this way,. . . . . . .
>
>
>Do they make aquatic kitty cats that tow canoes across oceans? ;-)
Catfish? ;-)
CA
Curious Amateur
For four weeks? The coast is a stone's throw away for these mariners. Why
carry so much supplies on the boat when you can provision from shore
anytime? What are they doing that they should feel the need for four weeks
worth of supplies for each person on the boat?
>Given favorable wind and currents, the trip from Africa to South
>America could have been as short as two weeks. Lets say a more realistic
>trip time was four weeks. That's a three knot rate of advance, about
>walking speed. There are many historical accounts of people spending
>much longer then that adrift with little or no provisions.
Drinking rain water, as I recall.
Have you considered how these people are supposed to survive a day after
landing? Any idea of how weak they'd be? What plants would they recognize
for eating? How would they hunt after four weeks at sea with little or no
provisions?
And as Bob pointed out, where do you go when blown out to sea? Back to home
and the wife and kids? Or further out to sea?
CA
Curious Amateur
>Curious Amateur wrote:
>>
>> In article <5msi3voutffuqr053...@4ax.com>, Doug Weller
> <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 03:06:27 GMT, in sci.anthropology.paleo, Curious
>> >Amateur wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>So do caucasoids.
>> >
>> >In this context, what does 'caucasoid' mean?
>>
>> Those lacking melanin, including Turks, Slavs, Teutons, Celts, Iberians,
>> Franks, Romans, Greeks, Nordics, Persians, etc.
>>
>> Sorry if I was obscure.
>>
>> CA
>
>That's your definition of caucasoid? The most trivial and variable
>characteristic? That's kind of ... limited. You better look that up.
>While you are at it, look up negroid and australoid.
Racial anatomy is not one of my interests, Lorenzo. In the context of the
question I provided what I thought would be an identifying marker and
several examples to flesh it out.
I'm still unclear on what "negroid-australoid" looks like, and when I asked
you, you deferred to the author.
Perhaps we should both look it up ;-)
CA
Curious Amateur
Problem here is that the prevailing winds up the SW coast of Africa are
northbound.
CA
Curious Amateur
Thanks. :-)
CA
Alain Deschamps
<lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>And lets say they all got ate by a sea monster. There are historical
>accounts of long periods adrift with few or no provisions. Look up the
>whaling ship Essex, 90 days in open boats, starvation, thirst,
>cannibalism, all the fun stuff. There was a case in WWII of a merchant
>ship sunk by a U-boat, don't remember the name, but I think it was 40
>days in life rafts. Another WWII case where a shot down pilot spent some
>incredibly long time in a rubber raft. It does rain, you know, and there
>are a few fish in the sea. I wouldn't recommend it as a vacation but
>people have survived far worst then an Atlantic crossing.
>
Another case was Alain Bombard which derived from Canary Island to
Antilles without food or water during 65 days.
AD
Philip Deitiker
news:lhtk3v8frr0c7a69h...@4ax.com:
> Another case was Alain Bombard which derived from Canary
> Island to Antilles without food or water during 65 days.
OK, so we don't need to get people, we need to get
1. Man and
2. Woman
or
3. Pregnant woman.
The product is probably not very viable.
The equitorial current is devoid of wind.
A life raft is made of plastic, catches water.
A dugout is made of wood, which would adsorb most trace amount
of water (a dugout is the boat the natives used along the
western coast of africa, and melanesia) so lets put our theories
in the context of what one is using.
Those whaling boats are not dugouts.
A family in a dug-out
3 adults max, 2 or 3 children max.
Assuming cannibalism 30% survive max.
1 adult and 1 child, the child is related to the
adult, 50% chance same sex.
jgi...@earthlink.net
"Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:3E39E327...@thegrid.net...
. There are historical
> accounts of long periods adrift with few or no provisions. Look up the
> whaling ship Essex, 90 days in open boats, starvation, thirst,
> cannibalism, all the fun stuff.
Only two made it, and don't believe they would have if they hadn't been
picked up by a ship. And they knew what they were looking for.
Bligh made it after that murdering bastard Christian dumped him, but,
again, he knew where he wanted to go. Also, some islands, though not safe
to land on them most of the time. And he was allowed a modicum of
provisions. Also, used to discipline but maybe any boat would have that.
Cheers
John GW
jgi...@earthlink.net
"Philip Deitiker" <Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Ijv_9.13968$rq4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> 3 adults max, 2 or 3 children max.
>
> Assuming cannibalism 30% survive max.
>
> 1 adult and 1 child, the child is related to the
> adult, 50% chance same sex.
>
that I would expect the children wouldn't survive.
Incidentally, never found the people of the Marie Celestel. Probably
didn't take provisions.
Cheers
John GW
jgi...@earthlink.net
> <jgi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<OAd_9.4979$wd2.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > >
> > Don't believe your analogy is well taken, to compare the Polynesians
with
> > people hunting sea animals along the coast.. Can't see any of the above
> > applying.
> >
> Sorry John, I think you missed my point.
Yes, I did.
I was primarily arguing
> against a trans-Pacific route - SE Asia - South America via Fiji &
> Tahiti. By implication, I can't envisage a trans-Atlantic,
> Africa-South America route either.
>
By George, we agree - can't have that. Whether people agree or not should
depend on whether you want to argue - I always tell JW's I don't believe in
the Trinity, since I think it's a waste of time to argue with them and like
them personally.
> A coastal skirting, involving relatively short sea voyages between
> visible islands would have been conceivable 35KYA. However, as I think
> Phil implies, the northern Pacific route, in skin boats at the height
> of the Ice Age, would be a lot more challenging than Bali to Flores,
> or Timor to northern Australia.
>
> So when the evidence for an early colonisation is solid, I will accept
> it & marvel at human ingenuity yet more, but for the time being I'm
> still not convinced.
>
Well, I'll tell you what bothers me as an innocent bystander ( though
maybe I'm not so innocent.)
It's that the Clovis First seem to feel that they need not prove anything.
Once the ice free corridor is questionable, then one date is as good as
another as far as I'm concerned, so any position needs proof.
Nor do I put much stock in the mass extinction. Let me give a couple
of analogies. Men exterminated the wolves in the lower fortyeight. There
was an explosion in the coyote population, and a decrease in species
diversity and of some other populations, such as that of raptors. Put
wolves back in Yellowstone, got more diversity, though I'm neutral on that
program.
Obviously, coyotes did not wipe out the wolves.
Again starfish on the NW coast. Remove them, and, IIRC, mussel
population explodes, while there is a decrease in species diversity.
Mussels did not remove the starfish, and did exist as a prior population.
Perhaps bears moving south brought in a pathogen which decimated the
short faced bears. Hell, grant the use of maybe and I'll prove anything.
But it is true that doctors are finding that disease is much more
complicated than Koch thought. E. coli, for example. Or prions. So it
might not take much.
I suppose Martin is at least as knowledgeable about ecology as I am,
but one does have some blindness where one's own baby of a hypothesis is
concerned.
> > The point is, Clovis first can never be proven except by
inference, so
> > the burden of proof should be on those who support this hypothesis.
I gave this argument before. Unless you grant near infallibility to
the Clovis First, then there must be some probability that sites like
Meadowcroft are good and solid. The point is, it needs only one site to
prove a pre-Clovis presence, while a hundred Clovis sites simply say there
was a population explosion, and do not prove Clovis First. So when you
take eight sites with only a 10% chance (which is giving the critics a
pretty damned good edge) then the probability that there was pre-Clovis is,
IIRC, 57%.
And I think I commented some circular reasoning here. Few sites even
admitted as possibilities, so sites are approached, not with an open mind,
but using the paucity of sites to reject this one. Add that up, and the
attitude has caused the paucity.
In the fifties, cops said there were 50,000 deaths due to drinking
and driving. A Harvard group did the same kind of study on accidents that
occur in airline crashes and found that about a third were not due to
drinking but were due to mechanical failure, poor design, and perhaps lack
of driver skill ( which I discount, since a car should be designed for those
who use it.) I'm not talking, BTW, about gross lack of skill like driving
up on a sidewalk into a crowd of people.
The point is, statistics are only as good as the people who collect
the individual data and will reflect their biases and inabilities. As
Philip is mentioning with regard to sequencing, I think.
> As noted - have nothing specific to say against your view; just that
> I'm not yet convinced. Convince me! :-)
> >
As you remark, below, I think more data is needed . All that is
needed is to hire a number of people to do a lot of excavating, and, shoot,
it's only money. Actually, might be a solution to the unemployment
problem.
> Are yes. I'd have been disappointed if the megafauna extinction
> comment didn't provoke a response, because it is a source of endless
> controversy. I personally think humans most likely played a
> significant part in the megafauna extinctions, probably delivering the
> coup de grace to many species which were environmentally stressed by
> the end of the Ice Age.
> > >
> > Still, as you say, the evidence remaining is scanty.
> Happy with that. To paraphrase 2 Quality Managers I used to work with:
>
> a) "In God We Trust. All others, bring data"
>
> or if you prefer,
>
> b) "Without data, we're just 2 blokes with an opinion"...
>
I'll buy that, if you'll agree to it being two opinions. No matter
how many point two people agree on, they can always find something to argue
about if they will only try hard enough.
Cheers
John GW
jgi...@earthlink.net
"Ross Macfarlane" <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:18fa6145.03013...@posting.google.com...
news:<3E398468...@thegrid.net>...
> >
> > Even if the Lapa Vermelha dates are too old by a factor of half, the
> > present of negroid-australoid physical type people in South America is
> > inconsistent with the northern migration route being the only mode of
> > entrance to the Americas.
>
> 1. If negroid/australoids could make it to Australia, New Britain,
> Phillipines etc., why not the Americas?
>
> 2. And if they could, why not by the northern route?
>
> 3. And if not that way, which way (considering my objections to the
> trans-south Pacific & trans-south Atlantic routes)?
>
> 4. When?
>
> Ross Macfarlane
>
take to evolve the change?
Believe C-S found that the Australoids were further removed from
Africans that the Europeans or the Asians. Which means any similarity of
feature had to reevolve to suit the southern climate.
Regards
John GW
Ross Macfarlane
> news:lhtk3v8frr0c7a69h...@4ax.com:
>
> > Another case was Alain Bombard which derived from Canary
> > Island to Antilles without food or water during 65 days.
>
> OK, so we don't need to get people, we need to get
> 1. Man and
> 2. Woman
>
> or
>
> 3. Pregnant woman.
>
4. Viable long-term breeding population. Which means, cf. 500 people
+, to avoid inbreeding...
Ross Macfarlane
Ross Macfarlane
> I'll buy that, if you'll agree to it being two opinions. No matter
> how many point two people agree on, they can always find something to argue
> about if they will only try hard enough.
> Cheers
> John GW
Agree to disagree (for now).
Actually, the original & only slightly censored quote was:
b) "Without data, you're just another [expletive deleted] bloke with an opinion."
But I thought that sounded unnecessarily agressive in the circumstances... :-)
Ross Macfarlane
Lorenzo L. Love
>
> "Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in message news:<3E398468...@thegrid.net>...
> >
> > Even if the Lapa Vermelha dates are too old by a factor of half, the
> > present of negroid-australoid physical type people in South America is
> > inconsistent with the northern migration route being the only mode of
> > entrance to the Americas.
> >
> > Lorenzo L. Love
> > http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
> >
> We all need an opinion... :-) Four questions:
>
> 1. If negroid/australoids could make it to Australia, New Britain,
> Phillipines etc., why not the Americas?
Why not? If the Lapa Vermelha investigators are right, they did.
>
> 2. And if they could, why not by the northern route?
They may have, but they left no trace along the way. It's many times as
long as the direct route from Africa and why did they wind up in Brazil
and not Acapulco?
>
> 3. And if not that way, which way (considering my objections to the
> trans-south Pacific & trans-south Atlantic routes)?
I don't see any problem with the direct route from Africa.
>
> 4. When?
Prior to the date of the Lapa Vermelha site. Whenever that is.
>
> Ross Macfarlane
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"We recognize, however dimly, that greater efficiency, ease, and
security may come at a substantial price in freedom, that law and order
can be a doublethink version of oppression, that individual liberties
surrendered for whatever good reason are freedom lost."
Walter Cronkite, in the preface to the 1984 edition of 1984
Lorenzo L. Love
So why aren't the current South Americans showing the same facial
change?
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"We recognize, however dimly, that greater efficiency, ease, and
Lorenzo L. Love
What does "Racial" mean to you in conjunction with modern humans?
Lorenzo L. Love
They go the way wind and currents take them. You're sounding like
Verhaegen, people drop dead after a couple hours without water. There
has been many historical cases of people surviving far longer then that
reported here by myself and others. People are a lot tougher then you
give them credit for.
Philip Deitiker
news:18fa6145.03013...@posting.google.com:
Ideally but it may explain why the population grew slowly.
From Parham and Ohta there were obvious changes in the HLA class
B and C genes as a result of recombination. Many populations are inbred
and father/daughter progeny are viable. Mother son is a bit extreme
A father daugter combo would not be to bad if the daughter produced more
than 5 children becuase at least 4 instances of variability would generally
be carried through as long as the population continually expanded.
HLA is more problematic, because even in inbreed groups there tend to be
a dozen or so alleles at the more variable loci, and this appears to be
under constant selection. Most notably HLA restriction may restrict mate
selection such that it reduces the willingness of females to mate.
As a result new lets say at each loci there are 3 alleles passed, three
pairs would appear 66% of the time. As people expanded away from the site
the number of pairs would drop and a given female at a given time may have
only choices between mates with the exact same HLA type as she has.
In mice there is a very strong aversion of females to same type males.
A female crossed with allotypic male produces on average about 4 times the
number of progeny. As a result there would be an immediate selection for
new alleles in males. These appear in south america by gene conversion.
When I looked that these it appeared to me that all of these have come from
asia, and that the number of individual could have been between 5 and 10 in
the initial population. I have not checked but I could check to see if
these haplotypes might also result from west africa. The base problem is
that there is very little new variation in HLA outside of convertants. And
all variation comes from africa, that asians possess a more limited set and
these flow from asia only correlates with asian expansion, it does not
negate an instance where some came from asia at the same time that a few
came from africa, and later mixed.
But I seriously doubt the 5 or 10 came from africa. I don't think the
technology of africa 12 kya would support a mid ocean voyage across the
duldroms into south america.
Lorenzo L. Love
Eight out of twenty from the Essex survived. Two of them wound up adrift
at sea again years later and survived that too. Bligh, I believe, had
state of the art navigation instruments and charts as well as being an
exceptional navigator, so it's not quite the same thing as he knew where
he was and where he was going, but surviving such a voyage in horribly
overcrowded open boats show how tough humans are.
Lorenzo L. Love
As these non-Mongoloid physical type early American populations haven't
survived to historical times, maybe the founding population was too
small to survive for long and they did die out from inbreeding.
Gisele Horvat
<lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>As these non-Mongoloid physical type early American populations haven't
>survived to historical times, maybe the founding population was too
>small to survive for long and they did die out from inbreeding.
I've found a lot more information concerning non-Mongoloid physical
types in the New World than Mongoloid physical types ...and the focus
of the majority of these articles was *not* ancient remains. So,
Lorenzo, what have you been reading?
Gisele
Philip Deitiker
> Eight out of twenty from the Essex survived. Two of them
> wound up adrift at sea again years later and survived that
> too. Bligh, I believe, had state of the art navigation
> instruments and charts as well as being an exceptional
> navigator, so it's not quite the same thing as he knew
> where he was and where he was going, but surviving such a
> voyage in horribly overcrowded open boats show how tough
> humans are.
I don't know where the essex was but the bounty was halfway
across the pacific.
How many people you think a 12 kya boat can hold.
Lorenzo L. Love
What do you have more ancient then Luzia?
Bob Keeter
lll...@thegrid.net wrote on 1/31/03 11:43 PM:
>
> . . . . . . the Lapa Vermelha site. Whenever that is.
>
Since this keeps coming up it would seem that Ive got some more reading to
add to my "pile". Since you seem to be most familiar, Lorenzo, could you
point me at some or the more authoratative writeups, web pages, or whatever?
Thanks
bk
Bob Keeter
lll...@thegrid.net wrote on 1/31/03 11:53 PM:
Snippage. . . .
>> And as Bob pointed out, where do you go when blown out to sea? Back to home
>> and the wife and kids? Or further out to sea?
>>
>> CA
>>
> They go the way wind and currents take them.
>
You are absolutely correct. They DO go the way the wind and currents take
them. CA's question possibly should have been "Where do they TRY to go?"
The problem is that with one of the fairly swift major ocean currents, a
three or four knot "made good through the water" in the direction of home is
just about cancelled out by a two or three knot current in the opposite
direction.
> You're sounding like Verhaegen, people drop dead after a couple hours without
> water. There has been many historical cases of people surviving far longer
> then that reported here by myself and others.
>
Now, Lorenzo, thats not the case at all! Ithink that the claim is that it
would be very hard for a COLONIZING group to make the trip. Onesie-twosie,
certainly! Maybe, just MAYBE three or four; but a COLONIZING sized group
would just be very hard to explain. On the other hand, the Polynesians
achieved very much the feat you propose, and possibly with even greater
"challenges". Consider the Easter Island and Hawaiian populations and the
distances from the nearest land mass or even "stepping stone" island! True
they did it several thousand years after these incursions might have taken
place, and they did it with canoe technology that is considerably beyond
what Ive read MIGHT have been available, but making landfall in Hawaii with
an obviously viable colony would probably be more than just a little sporty.
> People are a lot tougher then you give them credit for.
>
Survivors are just as tough as need be, else they are victims! ;-)
Regards
bk
Gisele Horvat
<lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>Gisele Horvat wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:52:34 GMT, "Lorenzo L. Love"
>> <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>>
>> >As these non-Mongoloid physical type early American populations haven't
>> >survived to historical times, maybe the founding population was too
>> >small to survive for long and they did die out from inbreeding.
>>
>> I've found a lot more information concerning non-Mongoloid physical
>> types in the New World than Mongoloid physical types ...and the focus
>> of the majority of these articles was *not* ancient remains. So,
>> Lorenzo, what have you been reading?
>>
>> Gisele
>
>What do you have more ancient then Luzia?
I hope I didn't imply that I did have anything "more ancient than
Luzia" but there's been way too much talk about gene replacement as
far as I'm concerned (and that's where I was coming from). I
especially liked Hanihara's article, Frontal and Facial Flatness of
Major Human Populations, (AJPA 111:105-134 (2000)) because, although I
know nothing about physical anthropology, I was able to arrange his
data to see his results such as this one:
"A deep infraglabellar notch occurs almost exclusively in the
Australian and the Melanesian samples. However, a few populations
originally derived from eastern Asia, such as the Nicobarese and the
Easter Island samples, and to a lesser extent, the Eskimo and the
Fuegian-Patagonian samples, show deep infraglabellar notches."
Gisele
Lorenzo L. Love
Google "Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1" or "Lapa Vermelha" Luzia . Most will
be in Portuguese or French as it was a French-Brazilian team that found
her. http://www.antropologiabiologica.mn.ufrj.br/english/luzia/luzia.htm
is an introductory site in English.
This is about another site but relates to
Luzia:http://www.saa.org/Publications/AmAntiq/AQAbstracts/Aq65-1/neves-blum.html
American Antiquity Volume 65 Number 1 January 2000
The Buhl Burial: A Comment on Green et al.
Walter A. Neves and Max Blum
Abstract
Green et al.’s (1998) recent contention that the Buhl Paleoindian
craniofacial attributes are similar to other North American Indians and
East Asian populations is tested here through a principal components
analysis based on 16 cranial measurements. The analysis involved the
comparison of the cranial morphology of the Buhl specimen with 26
Howells’ modern populations. We also added to the analysis the
craniometric data regarding a firmly established South American
Paleoindian skull (Lapa Vermelha IV, Hominid I), that shows craniofacial
similarities to Africans and Australians. The results corroborate the
ideas presented by Green et al.(1998) and Neves et al. (1998a). They
suggest that the Americas were colonized in early times by two different
populations, one of generalized sapiens, and another of classic
Mongoloids, with a short interval of time between the migratory events.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very
easy to govern. It demands no social reforms. It does not haggle over
expenditures on armaments and military equipment. It pays without
discussion, it ruins itself, and that is an excellent thing for the
syndicates of financiers and manufacturers for whom patriotic terrors
are an abundant source of gain."
Anatole France
Lorenzo L. Love
This relate to Brazil how? Does Luzia and company have this deep
infraglabellar notch? Do you think the Eskimo and the Fuegian-Patagonian
samples got this from the same route?
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very