Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Australian Aborigines reach America first?
Cosmo Online ^ | 30 Sep 2010 | Jacqui Hayes

Posted on 09/30/2010 2:04:50 PM PDT by Palter

Cranial features distinctive to Australian Aborigines are present in hundreds of skulls that have been uncovered in Central and South America, some dating back to over 11,000 years ago.

Evolutionary biologist Walter Neves of the University of São Paulo, whose findings are reported in a cover story in the latest issue of Cosmos magazine, has examined these skeletons and recovered others, and argues that there is now a mass of evidence indicating that at least two different populations colonised the Americas.

He and colleagues in the United States, Germany and Chile argue that first population was closely related to the Australian Aborigines and arrived more than 11,000 years ago.

Cranial morphology

The second population to arrive was of humans of 'Mongoloid' appearance - a cranial morphology distinctive of people of East and North Asian origin - who entered the Americas from Siberia and founded most (if not all) modern Native American populations, he argues.

"The results suggest a clear biological affinity between the early South Americans and the South Pacific population. This association allowed for the conclusion that the Americas were occupied before the spreading of the classical Mongoloid morphology in Asia," Neves says.

Until about a decade ago, the dominant theory in American archaeology circles was that the 'Clovis people' - whose culture is defined by the stone tools they used to kill megafauna such as mammoths - was the first population to arrive in the Americas.

Clovis culture

They were thought to have crossed the Bering Strait from Siberia into Alaska at the end of the last Ice Age, some 10,000 or so years ago, following herds of megafauna across a land bridge created as water was locked up in glaciers and ice sheets.

But in the late 1990s, Neves and his colleagues re-examined a female skeleton that had been excavated in the 1970s in an extensive cave system in Central Brazil known as Lapa Vermelha.

The skeleton - along with a treasure trove of other finds - had been first unearthed by a Brazilian-French archaeological team that disbanded shortly after its leader, Annette Laming-Emperare, died suddenly. A dispute between participants kept the find barely examined for more than a decade.

The oldest female skeleton, dubbed Luzia, is between 11,000 and 11,400 years old. The dating is not exact because the material in the bones used for dating - collagen - has long since degraded; hence, only the layers of charcoal or sediment above and below the skeleton could be dated.

"We believe she is the oldest skeleton in the Americas," Neves said.

Luzia has a very projected face; her chin sits out further than her forehead, and she has a long, narrow brain case, measured from the eyes to the back of the skull; as well as a low nose and low orbits, the space where the eyes sit.

These facial features are indicative of what Neves calls the 'generalised cranial morphology' - the morphology of anatomically modern humans, who first migrated out of Africa more than 100,000 years ago, and made it as far as Australia some 50,000 years ago, and Melanesia 40,000 years ago.

New finds in seven sites

When Neves first announced his discovery of Luzia in the late 1990s, he faced criticism from a number of archaeologists, who claimed the dating was not accurate. He has since returned to excavate four other sites, and is still cataloguing skeletons from the most recent dig.

In total, there are now hundreds of skeletons with the cranial morphology similar to Australian Aborigines, found in seven sites - as far north as Florida in the United States to Palli Aike in southern Chile.

In 2005, he published a paper in the U.S journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analysing the characteristics of a further 81 skeletons he recovered from one of four sites, in which he said strengthened his argument that there were migrations to the Americas from at least two major populations.

Not related to Native Americans

In June 2010 in the journal PLoS ONE, Neves and colleagues Mark Hubbe of Chile's Northern Catholic University and Katerina Harvati from Germany's University of Tübingen, showed that it was not possible for the Aborigine-like skeletons to be the direct ancestors of the Native Americans.

Nor was it possible for the two populations to share a last common ancestor at the time of the first entrance into the continent, they argued, based on the 57 cranial measurements that can be made on a skull.

So far, almost all DNA studies of Native Americans points to a single entry from Siberia. This may mean that the original population died out, or simply that DNA studies have been too narrow, argue a number of archaeologists.

Genetic evidence needed

"The lack of a perfect match between morphological and molecular information can be easily explained by a very frequent event in molecular evolution: loss of DNA lineages throughout time," Neves says.

"At first, I thought there had been a complete replacement of the population [in South America]," just as there was a replacement of a similar population in East Asia during the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary.

However, he now thinks that the original people were, at least partly, absorbed into the colonising groups. "I have not detected anything that could say they interbred [such as skulls exhibiting mixed cranial features].

"But I think we will. It would be unlikely if these people lived side-by-side for 10,000 years and did not interbreed," he added.

Neves is now calling on molecular archaeologists - experts in the recovery and analysis of DNA - to turn their focus to the question of who Luzia's Aborigine-like people were.


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: aborigines; ancientnavigation; australia; clovis; eugenics; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; navigation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last
To: Palter

for later


21 posted on 09/30/2010 3:32:04 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

This is a blank form to fill in for genealogy, laboriously handcrafted by yours truly. The leftmost column is for your great-great-great-great-grandparents. There were 64 of them (give or take any cousin marriages within that span of seven generations; I've never found any, and have a reasonable expectation that the currently unknown spaces on my own tree are not duplicated in a seven-gen span).

As each of us (well, most of us) have 46 chromosomes -- 23 from each side -- at least 18 of the gggggrandparents contributed no chromosomes to my genetic constitution. That doesn't mean that they aren't my ancestors.
ggggGrand gggGrand ggGrand gGrand Grand parents YOU
             
 
   
 
     
 
   
 
       
 
   
 
     
 
   
 
         
 
   
 
     
 
   
 
       
 
   
 
     
 
   
 
           
 
   
 
     
 
   
 
       
 
   
 
     
 
   
 
         
 
   
 
     
 
   
 
       
 
   
 
     
 
   
 

22 posted on 09/30/2010 6:16:16 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Democratic Underground... matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter; muawiyah; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; ...

· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach ·
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·

 
 Antiquity Journal
 & archive
 Archaeologica
 Archaeology
 Archaeology Channel
 BAR
 Bronze Age Forum
 Discover
 Dogpile
 Eurekalert
 Google
 LiveScience
 Mirabilis.ca
 Nat Geographic
 PhysOrg
 Science Daily
 Science News
 Texas AM
 Yahoo
 Excerpt, or Link only?
 


Thanks Palter. Nice choice! :') I tried to sweet-talk someone into posting that Russian story the other day, and alas, no dice. :')

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
 

· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword ·
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·


23 posted on 09/30/2010 6:20:45 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Democratic Underground... matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Ah, fun with tables. That would drive me crazy!


24 posted on 09/30/2010 6:27:03 PM PDT by rdl6989 (January 20, 2013- The end of an error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

I’d like to buy a vowel. j/k =)


25 posted on 09/30/2010 6:45:54 PM PDT by Redcitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Since most of our ancestors lived tribally or in small villages, and usually didn't go far for brides, those Great and ever so Greats should start showing up within 4 or 5 generations ~ I know ALL of mine do!

Bwahahahahahaha!

(except for some of the women ~ they get passed on to other families)

26 posted on 09/30/2010 7:05:14 PM PDT by muawiyah ("GIT OUT THE WAY" The Republicans are coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: blam

Jimmy Carvile.


27 posted on 09/30/2010 7:10:00 PM PDT by Tainan (Cogito, ergo conservatus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Palter
The original population just sort of "died out", accidentally, and their dying off has absolutely nothing to do with the arrival of the people from Northern Asia because humans never have anything to do with mass extinctions. They just sort of happy by themselves, coincidentally, just as humans show up.
28 posted on 09/30/2010 9:53:20 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Yet, the Eastern Europeans have no more ancestors from East Asian than do Western Europeans!

Ever hear of the Huns?

29 posted on 09/30/2010 9:56:42 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Palter; SunkenCiv
Uh-huh. The currents down that-a-way run from east to west, so let's try this on: The Aborigines came from South America, and those 11,000 year old skeletons are representatives of the last remnants of the Aborigine's New World ancestors.

They need to dig deeper, but the boys with the shovels are loathe to do that, because they have convinced themselves there isn't anything down there except dirt & rocks.

The only thing that is certain is that the taxonomists really screwed up our specie's designation. It should be Homo Meanderingcuss, because that is the one thing we have always done: meander all over the place; stop and maul a locality for a while, then move elsewhere, where the mooching is easier.

30 posted on 09/30/2010 11:09:43 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Made in America, by proud American citizens, in 1946.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
The fundamental problem of cranial analysis is that there are NO genes focused exclusively on cranial shape.

There are changes through time that literally mean nothing ~

You trying to say that the Science of Phrenology is a crock of corky cranberries? ;-)

31 posted on 09/30/2010 11:15:32 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Made in America, by proud American citizens, in 1946.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch
This is what happens when you dig deeper.

Topper (archaeological site)

32 posted on 10/01/2010 12:13:52 AM PDT by Palter (If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it. ~ Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Are you doubting the science of phrenology?


33 posted on 10/01/2010 3:35:49 AM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

They may designate them central Asians.

But it is a weird thing to say. Especially when obvious visually.


34 posted on 10/01/2010 6:19:35 AM PDT by Eldon Tyrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Round-headed vs long-headed is just one of the ways skull shapes are measured, as I'm sure you know. A great book, and one that I've had since high school is Early Man in the New World (1962) by Macgowan and Hester. They mention several South American skulls which had keeled vaults and/or heavy brow ridges - features that are largely lacking in Asian populations.
It's a fascinating subject and one that I wish had pursued. It's certainly been my main area of interest all my life.
35 posted on 10/01/2010 8:13:18 AM PDT by ComputerGuy (HM2/USN M/3/3 Marines RVN '66-'67)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Yeah, I've heard of the Huns. Now, have you heard of the Ice Age?

East Asian migration to Europe made a full 5% impact on ALL European populations. With small populations, the migration of a few mighty hunters, or the importation of a beautiful woman could have a massive impact.

The Huns added a very negligible amount ~ same for the Mongols, etc.

36 posted on 10/01/2010 8:25:08 AM PDT by muawiyah ("GIT OUT THE WAY" The Republicans are coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch
No, I didn't say that since there are multiple genes working together that can adjust facial identification points so that you look like your father.

But turning a long head into a round head appears to be beyond any identifiable genetic control.

37 posted on 10/01/2010 8:30:32 AM PDT by muawiyah ("GIT OUT THE WAY" The Republicans are coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Palter
Topper Site was just exactly what I had in mind. Have to love the last of the Wiki article, which corroborates what I said: Until the recent challenges to the Clovis theory, it was unusual for archaeologists to dig deeper than the layer of the Clovis culture, on the grounds that no human artifacts would be found older than Clovis.

We won't dig, because we won't find anything, because we believe there is nothing to find, so there is no reason to dig to try to find what we don't believe exists....

Same thing with the centuries of 'no pre-Columbus New World visitation' on the part of historians.

38 posted on 10/01/2010 12:54:31 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Made in America, by proud American citizens, in 1946.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: max americana

But only Columbus actually made it count.


39 posted on 10/01/2010 1:37:58 PM PDT by chesley (Eat what you want, and die like a man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
The B blood type, the most common in China for example, is more prevalent in Poland than Germany, France, or Britain and much more prevalent in Hungary than any of those suggesting stronger Asian ties. Look also, for example, at the distributions of haplogroup C3 as well as N, P, and Q.

And while it's true that a small migration can leave a larger genetic footprint on a small population, a relatively small group of military conquerers can leave a fairly large genetic footprint. A team of geneticists claim that 1 in 12 men in Asia carry a Y chromosome mutation that originated in Mongolia 1,000 years ago, the legacy of Genghis Khan's conquests.

40 posted on 10/01/2010 7:21:35 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson