[Oxymoron]

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

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

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

[yiwahikanak]

It may be poor taste (as in lazy), but I'm going to copy/paste from the other thread to get my part rolling. I'm including the full conversation with Oxy so far.

linky

1, you are not native simply older immigrant...the "indians" mongoliod tribes moving from Siberia and all that jazz.

An oft referred to, widely accepted, but notoriously evidence poor theory. I suggest reading Vine Deloria Jr.'s chapter "Low Bridge" (it's short) on this.

2.Not Aboriginal for the same reason

3. Not Indegenous for the same reason

Of course, #2 and #3 rely completely on #1, which explains why it is so important for certain people to cling to unproven and highly problematic theories.

Of course, we were here (at latest estimates) at least 50,000 years ago. The Bering Strait theory has us crossing over 12,000 years ago...20,000 years ago...even at the outmost limits it's suggested maybe it was actually 30,000 ago...lol...I'm sure in a few years there will be people claiming 'oh no we actually meant 50,000 years ago...'

Though at that point, does it really matter? No matter how this impecunious theory is stretched backwards to fit the actual evidence, we have been here for at least 50,000 years. Long indeed enough to effectively defeat any claim to 'newness' or 'lack of aboriginality'.

4. Cree ok Cree it is.

Appreciated, as it's the most accurate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
linky

The point is that we can argue about the actual period of the migration, but you admit it was a migration...thus you cannot be called indegenous anymore then people who came here 700 years ago.

Nope. I never agreed there was a migration. What I did was provide you with facts, based on your own scientific tradition (so you would not be made to feel uncomfortable), that specifically contradict the migration theory which arose from that same scientific tradition.

As well, 'indigenous' as it refers to people, references the FIRST people, the original people of a region. Which we are, under your tradition, and mine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

linky

According to archeological data the original migrants were eradicated, by new waves some time around 10000 BCE.

According to some marginalised theories. I will gladly refute your evidence, once you present it.

Also you dont believe in the migration theory? So you have evidence to back up your claim?

I believe the migration theory exists. However, I have already provided you with evidence of why the migration theory is not compelling, and in fact highly problematic as it is directly contradicted by hard evidence. The migration theory itself is not backed up with hard evidence, but rather suppositions, weakly supported. The short chapter I provided you with explains this, and cites specific problems.

Since you apparently are a proponent of the theory, feel free to present evidence supporting it. I have backed up my claim already, but will gladly expand once you do some work on your side.

[yiwahikanak]

As for my own beliefs on where we came from, I will not be sharing those on this forum, my apologies in advance. I know that may seem weird, but this is a forum meant specifically for debates based on western traditions, and it would be extremely difficult, if not downright impossible, to 'translate' my traditions into that framework without warping them beyond all recognition.

What I will do, is debate the various theories proposed by westerners, within the western scientific tradition. Fair enough?

[Oxymoron]

Recent discoveries in New World archaeology along with new scientific methods for analyzing data have led to new ideas regarding the origin of the first peoples of the Americas and their time of arrival.

The traditional theory held that the first Americans crossed the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska around 11,500 years ago and followed an "ice-free corridor" between two large Canadian ice sheets (the Laurentide and Cordilleran) to reach unglaciated lands to the south. These first inhabitants, whose archaeological sites are scattered across North and South America, were called the Clovis people, named after the town in New Mexico where their fluted spear points used for hunting mammoth were first found in 1932.

There is now convincing evidence of human habitation sites that date earlier than the Clovis culture including sites located in South America. Monte Verde, a well-studied site located along a river near southern central Chile, dates 12,500 years ago. This site contains the buried remnants of dwellings, stone tools including large bifacial projectile points, and preserved medicinal and edible plants. How did people manage to settle this far south at such an early date? A coastal migration route is now gaining more acceptance, rather than the older view of small bands moving on foot across the middle of the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and into the continents. Emerging evidence suggests that people with boats moved along the Pacific coast into Alaska and northwestern Canada and eventually south to Peru and Chile by 12,500 years ago—and perhaps much earlier. Archaeological evidence in Australia, Melanesia, and Japan indicate boats were in use as far back as 25,000 to 40,000 years ago. Sea routes would have provided abundant food resources and easier and faster movement than land routes. Many coastal areas were unglaciated at this time, providing opportunities for landfall along the way. Several early sites along the coast of Canada, California, Peru, Ecuador, and Chile date between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago. Many potential coastal sites are now submerged, making investigation difficult.

If the Clovis people were not here first, then who was? Clovis points are found in many sites in North and Central America with a significant early cluster in the southeastern United States. Points similar to Clovis but without fluting and dating more than 12,000 years ago have been found in stratified archaeological sites in the eastern United States, such the Cactus Hill, Virginia. These finds have occurred because archaeologists are no longer halting their digging at the bottom of the Clovis level.

So far scientists have found no technological affinities to relate Clovis to the Asian Paleolithic. However, Europe may have possible lithic precursors to Clovis. The Solutrean culture of western Europe, dating between 24,000 and 16,500 years ago, shows a similar lithic technology to that used to produce Clovis tools. The two cultures also share bone-shaping techniques, pebble-decorating artistry, the unusual tradition of burying stone tools in caches filled with red ocher, and other traits.

In addition to archaeological research on ancient human sites, ancient skeletal remains show a range of physical attributes suggesting separate migrations of different populations of modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) from Asia. The handful of human skeletons dated over 8,000 years ago show some regional variation, but as a group their skulls differ markedly from the broad faces, prominent cheekbones, and round cranial vaults that characterize modern–day American Indians. These ancient specimens have long and narrow cranial vaults with short and relatively gracile faces. Two examples are the 9,400-year-old Spirit Cave Man from Nevada and the most recently discovered 8.900-year-old Kennewick Man found in Washington State in 1996. Physical anthropologists see a greater similarity in these crania to certain Old World populations such as Polynesians, Europeans, and the Ainu of Japan. Only one early specimen, Wizards Beach Man, a Nevada skeleton dated to 9,200 years ago, falls within the range of variability of contemporary American Indians, an exception that requires further scientific validation. Crania with American Indian morphology appears by at least 7,000 years ago.

The similarity of the ancient crania to Polynesians suggests that one early source of migrants to the Americas was Asian circumpacific populations. These populations were succeeded in Asia by the recent expansion of modern Mongoloids (i.e., Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, etc.), and in America by the ancestors of recent Native Americans. Whether individual skeletons or specific early groups were directly related to later peoples is unknown. Early migrants may have been replaced through competition or changed through gene flow by later arrivals. At this time, scientists are not ruling out the possibility of a migration from Europe.

Evidence for diverse migrations into the New World also comes from Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) research on living American Indian populations. These studies have consistently shown similarities between American Indians and recent populations in Asia and Siberia, but also unique American characteristics, which the very early crania have also shown. Evidence for only four mtDNA lineages, characterizing over 95 percent of all modern American Indian populations, may suggest a limited number of founding groups migrating from Asia into the New World. Recently, however, a fifth mtDNA lineage named "X" has turned up in living American Indians and in prehistoric remains for which there does not appear to be an Asian origin. The first variant of X was found in Europeans and may have originated in Eurasia. Naturally, generations of conflict, intermarriage, disease, and famine would influence the genetic makeup of modern Native Americans. Further work with mtDNA, nuclear DNA (which is more representative of the entire genome), and Y-chromosome data, the male-transmitted complement of mtDNA, will permit better estimates of the genetic similarities between Old and New World groups and help to determine when they would have shared a common ancestor.

Studies of the native languages of the Americas have shown them to be extremely diverse, representing nearly two hundred distinct families, some consisting of a single isolated language. Further research is expected to reduce this number, but the degree of diversity is thought to have required tens of millennia to develop through a combination of immigration into the New World and diversification through the accumulation of normal linguistic changes through time. Claims that these languages descend from only three (or even fewer) separate linguistic stocks at a time depth of only a dozen millennia are regarded by most specialists as extremely unlikely. Newer proposals have explored deep structural affinities among American Indian languages with circum-Pacific Old World languages. Unraveling the linguistic history of the New World poses a highly complex set of problems that will be under investigation for years to come.

In summary, scientists are examining archaeological, biological, and linguistic evidence to determine who the first Americans were, when they arrived in the New World, and what happened subsequently. New discoveries in one field of study can cause reinterpretations of evidence not only from the same field but also from other fields. There is no doubt that future discoveries and analyses, unbound from the Clovis limit, will shed more light on a changing picture of New World prehistory.

http://www.si.edu/encyclopedia_si/nmnh/origin.htm

[Suska]

I know that may seem weird, but this is a forum meant specifically for debates based on western traditions

Not weird, it's a cop-out. Please tell us.

As I understand it we have evidence of several very distinct populations, the earliest dated to around 30,000, most dated to around the glacial period. Note that we have found evidence of humans all around the world significantly older and this is one of the main reasons for the conclusion that the migrations were fairly recent - none were found here, also there is a pattern of dies offs to account for, mammoths, horses etc.

(just gonna ignore that big lump Oxy just dropped for now XD)

[yiwahikanak]

Oxy, it might be helpful to, in addition to providing your link, create a brief summary of its points. It's a lot easier to follow that way.

[yiwahikanak]

Not weird, it's a cop-out. Please tell us.

Absolutely not, it's not even remotely your business. This thread is specifically about western theories and western evidence, something you should keep in mind if you actually intend to participate. I will not address any more of your posts that do not provide external evidence, as you are notorious for merely opining.

[Suska]

Yeah, I'm sorry that I studied enough to know things without having to look them up, my bad. Also, I really don't see why you gotta be so cagey, you only have to visit the Agora now and then to see how I open up. Anyway, it's totally relevant and interesting and I wish you would just take that at face value.

[yiwahikanak]

Shit, I forgot to also post this:

To help you out, Oxymoron, in case you are relying on Wiki, here is a great Wiki article outlining some of the major problems and controversies within the migration theories alone (note the plural...the Bering Strait theory is but one), highlighting why your particular claim about eradication is problematic when presented as anything resembling 'fact'.

[Maxim Litvinov]

The out of Africa theory is pretty much confirmed through mitochondrial DNA. The data strongly suggest that migration to North America across the Bering Strait occurred about 15,000 years ago, with people first arriving in the central US more like 12,000 years ago. Then, finally, Central and Southern America more like <10,000 years ago. There is some scholarship to suggest these figures are slightly out, although there are three principle possibilities here (1) that the minority scholarship which pegs the dates more like 30,000 years is wrong (2) that out of Africa is right, but has its dates wrong (3) that out of Africa is right, but that there was more than one wave of migration. In case (3), the likelihood is often that the newer wave comes to either dominate or obliterate earlier waves.

yiwahikanak seems to want to have it both ways - supposedly using the Western science to suggest that the 12,000 year estimate is wrong, before saying that the Western theory doesn't hold anyway.

[Oxymoron]

Lol ok sorry, basically its saying there isevidence that the Clovis people of America are related to European people. It also says there were multiple waves of migrants etc etc.

[yiwahikanak]

Yeah, I'm sorry that I studied enough to know things without having to look them up, my bad.

Unacceptable on a topic that undergoes such frequent revisions from multiple disciplines. You cannot be 'studied' enough. You absolutely must continue your studies, and provide evidence for all of your claims, as this is an area which is deeply conflicted, contested and unsettled.

See you when you post some evidence.

[yiwahikanak]

The out of Africa theory is pretty much confirmed through mitochondrial DNA.
The data strongly suggest that migration to North America across the Bering Strait occurred about 15,000 years ago, with people first arriving in the central US more like 12,000 years ago. Then, finally, Central and Southern America more like <10,000 years ago. There is some scholarship to suggest these figures are slightly out, although there are three principle possibilities here (1) that the minority scholarship which pegs the dates more like 30,000 years is wrong (2) that out of Africa is right, but has its dates wrong (3) that out of Africa is right, but that there was more than one wave of migration. In case (3), the likelihood is often that the newer wave comes to either dominate or obliterate earlier waves.

These are a lot of assertions...they'd be easier to address if you sourced them.

yiwahikanak seems to want to have it both ways - supposedly using the Western science to suggest that the 12,000 year estimate is wrong, before saying that the Western theory doesn't hold anyway.

I am here to point out the holes in the various theories. In particular, I am here to challenge the widespread acceptance of theories that are not even particularly supported by experts in the field. I think that many people are taught certain things, and because it isn't an area that necessarily impact their lives, it is not something they keep up on. Which means that outdated information is often retained, and even passed on unthinkingly as 'truth' in conversations. I hope this is making sense...how many 'average' people do you know who simply accept the Bering Strait theory, full stop? I run into them constantly. That is indeed how this conversation began...

The topic is fascinating. It is complex. It is not anywhere as simple as many people believe it is, and I think this is a great opportunity to explore that. I am confining this conversation on my end to western science because I think it is easier to do this than attempt to introduce indigenous beliefs/histories/etc. There is no single 'western theory', so I am not claiming 'it' doesn't hold.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I am here to point out the holes in the various theories.

You just seem to be here to take advantage of the fact that all theories are disputed to proclaim that you somehow 'know' that native Americans have been on the continent for at least 50,000 years. I find that ridiculous.

I'm not sure how many average people follow the Out of Africa theory, but as far as I know it is particularly supported by experts and the majority of archaeological challenges to an estimate like 12,000 years ago come from findings that want to push this figure out by only around 1,000 years and certainly not the 40,000+ you suggest.

I can agree that the topic is fascinating though, but I still don't see your evidence for the 50,000 number, nor how that figure can explain the mitochondrial DNA tree.

[yiwahikanak]

Lol ok sorry, basically its saying there isevidence that the Clovis people of America are related to European people. It also says there were multiple waves of migrants etc etc.

Thanks...it's a lot easier to check your source, address this, and allow others to follow along.

You'll note...your source is fond of coastal migration theories. As well, your source does not actually claim there is strong evidence that the Clovis were related to Europeans. The only evidence is:

...Europe may have possible lithic precursors to Clovis. The Solutrean culture of western Europe, dating between 24,000 and 16,500 years ago, shows a similar lithic technology to that used to produce Clovis tools. The two cultures also share bone-shaping techniques, pebble-decorating artistry, the unusual tradition of burying stone tools in caches filled with red ocher, and other traits.

Which is quite weak.

As important is the final paragraph:

In summary, scientists are examining archaeological, biological, and linguistic evidence to determine who the first Americans were, when they arrived in the New World, and what happened subsequently. New discoveries in one field of study can cause reinterpretations of evidence not only from the same field but also from other fields. There is no doubt that future discoveries and analyses, unbound from the Clovis limit, will shed more light on a changing picture of New World prehistory.

This highlights how much this field has changed as new evidence is unearthed. However...the theories that the average person remembers learning have phenomenal lasting power, despite these advances and clear-cut references to lack of certainty.

I'll be back tomorrow, but I wonder...how do you feel about the Bering-Strait theory right now?

[yiwahikanak]

You just seem to be here to take advantage of the fact that all theories are disputed to proclaim that you somehow 'know' that native Americans have been on the continent for at least 50,000 years. I find that ridiculous.

That's nice. Your beliefs about my motivations are not the topic of this thread. If you stay in context, you'll note exactly how the 50,000 years information was used, and in regards to what specific claim. Please do not extrapolate from that in order to assign other meaning to it.

This thread is not just about where we came from, but also how we 'got to the Americas'. It began with a claim about the latter.

I'm not sure how many average people follow the Out of Africa theory, but as far as I know it is particularly supported by experts and the majority of archaeological challenges to an estimate like 12,000 years ago come from findings that want to push this figure out by only around 1,000 years and certainly not the 40,000+ you suggest.

I can agree that the topic is fascinating though, but I still don't see your evidence for the 50,000 number, nor how that figure can explain the mitochondrial DNA tree.

I've provided sources so far. I will absolutely provide more, when you do some work on your side. It is not difficult and shouldn't take you more than a few minutes.

[Maxim Litvinov]

yiwahikanak - you link to one article where an archaeologist claims to have radiocarbon dated material surrounding artefacts to 50,000 years ago. The evidence seems to be: ""Three radiocarbon dates were obtained from deep in the terrace at Topper with two dates of 50,300 and 51,700 on burnt plant remains. One modern date related to an intrusion".

Considering there are multiple different theories out there, having one just based on a carbon date doesn't seem to make it particularly persuasive. The mitochondrial DNA approach has established dates of emergence "out of Africa" for every region and these point out a grand narrative. We have the figures on Eastern Siberia and those on North America and they gel together nicely.

This thread is not just about where we came from, but also how we 'got to the Americas'.

How is that under debate? Whether there was one wave or more than one, no-one disputes that the human species came out of Africa at some point and I don't know of any theories that don't consider the Bering Strait as the only reasonable path for native Americans to have arrived on the continent.

[grassroots1]

My position is

Why have a position on historical fact?

[Suska]

Unacceptable on a topic that undergoes such frequent revisions from multiple disciplines. You cannot be 'studied' enough. You absolutely must continue your studies, and provide evidence for all of your claims, as this is an area which is deeply conflicted, contested and unsettled.

I am studied enough to summarize the current evidence off the top of my head, of course I'm interested in new developments. There you go with the evidence mantra, this STILL isn't Wikipedia, and what evidence we have is not all that controversial.

I think you'll find we can get along yiwa, all you gotta do is bring a pipe instead of a tomahawk. We might both learn something, but to be honest I'm much more interested in hearing about your cultural narrative than the archeological one.

[yiwahikanak]

How is that under debate? Whether there was one wave or more than one, no-one disputes that the human species came out of Africa at some point and I don't know of any theories that don't consider the Bering Strait as the only reasonable path for native Americans to have arrived on the continent.

I'll address the rest of your post tomorrow, I'm checking in quickly...

Thank you for establishing that people out there, including those who profess to have some knowledge in the area, still put forth the idea that the Bering Strait theory is "the only reasonable path..."

Seriously? Have you actually updated your knowledge of this subject at all in the past few years? You are regurgitating an outdated position.

The Bering Strait model of migration has been heavily challenged by the Coastal Migration theory. Watercraft Migration Theory has become increasingly supported by academics in various different disciplines, and is providing a very strong counterpoint to the Bering Strait theory. Oxymoron also provided a link which confirms that the 'traditional' theory is losing ground as the 'only possible route'.

So for you to make a statement that you "don't know of any theories that don't consider the Bering Strait as the only reasonable path for native Americans to have arrived on the continent" highlights precisely why this conversation needs to include the various theories about how people arrived in the Americas in the first place. All of them. Not just the traditional, and highly problematic Bering Strait theory which has come under extreme fire in the last few years.

Please re-read the OP again. This thread was not started as a challenge to the 'African origin' position...it is specifically discussing migration in particular, and 'origin' in the sense of WHO these migrants were (one group? Many? Asians? Europeans?)

I hope this answers your question of 'how is that under debate'.