Skip to comments.
New Study On Peopling Of Americas Confirms Some Theories, Unsettles Others
CSFA ^
| 9-2001
| Loring Brace
Posted on 11/07/2003 4:19:11 PM PST by blam
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
1
posted on
11/07/2003 4:19:15 PM PST
by
blam
To: farmfriend; RightWhale
The EuroAsians mentioned in the article (first-wave) are Paleo-Americans...the second wave of migrants are Paleo-Indians who arrived in the Americas less than 6,000 years ago.
Skeletons discovered in the Americas that are older than 6,000 years are not American Indian/Native American and should not be subject to their heritage claims.
I believe there were more than two waves, there are probably at least two waves that came down the Atlantic coast too.
2
posted on
11/07/2003 4:28:10 PM PST
by
blam
To: blam
Then the remains of the "Kenniwick" man can be studied after all?
3
posted on
11/07/2003 4:31:15 PM PST
by
Burkeman1
((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
To: Burkeman1
"Then the remains of the "Kenniwick" man can be studied after all?" Judge John Jelderks has ruled that they may...The Indians have appealed this ruling and I'm expecting another ruling any day on the appeal.
4
posted on
11/07/2003 4:43:15 PM PST
by
blam
To: blam
The settlers in the first wave, who walked across the Bering Land Bridge 15,000 years ago, were the forebears of present-day inhabitants south of the U.S.-Canadian border. The ancestors of linguistically distinct peoples including the Inuit, Aleut, and Na-Dene speakers made the watery crossing from Asia about 5,000 years ago.(The people are todays American Indian/Native Americans)
I assume that the parenthentical material was inserted yourself?
If so, you TOTALLY misunderstood the article and actually the parenthetical inserts are COMPETELY contradictory to the immediately preceeding text.
The Inuit and Aleut are Eskimos. Na-Dene peoples are a small portion of current American Indians (Navajos are the largest group, I believe.) The author is ACTUALLY saying MOST of the current American Indians, based on his study, came here 15,000 years ago and are more closely related to the Ainu, etc.
5
posted on
11/07/2003 4:44:16 PM PST
by
John H K
To: blam
I believe there were more than two waves, there are probably at least two waves that came down the Atlantic coast too.Sounds reasonable. It should be remembered that over even a hundred years of history, let alone thousands, an awful lot happens. A large group of people who were living in a certain place in 2800 BC might have been living 3,000 miles away in 2700 BC, then been almost wiped out by 2600 BC, and then come to dominate a continent by 2500 BC. Sometimes there was little intermarriage, sometimes lots. If anything, lack of a stable government like we have in the US today would have made for greater instability than we see today. Sadly, the study of preliterate people can only result in the crudest appoximations of what was really happenning.
To: blam
The settlers in the first wave, who walked across the Bering Land Bridge 15,000 years ago, were the forebears of present-day inhabitants south of the U.S.-Canadian border Does this say that Mexicans of Indian ancestry aren't Indians but from a variety of other Asian groups?
7
posted on
11/07/2003 4:47:25 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Close your tag lines)
To: blam
I believe there were more than two waves,..I believe you're right, IMHO. I have been around a lot of "Oriental Asians" (?), Native Americans and Latin Americans of limited European ancestry when they are infants. In a nursery, only their mothers could tell them apart. The common genetic relationship of these peoples is remarkable. I would guess that the Eastern NA Indian Tribes were a migration on their own. Perhaps related to the other two, but distantly.
Nevertheless, it's an interesting subject that has future implications. Especially for education.
8
posted on
11/07/2003 4:53:35 PM PST
by
elbucko
To: RightWhale
Does this say that Mexicans of Indian ancestry aren't Indians but from a variety of other Asian groups?Back up. According to statistical geneology, everyone living today is probably a decendent of every person living just 1,500 years ago (except for those people living 1,500 years ago who have no decendents today living). Have people live apart from others for a few hundred years, and the separated groups will soon having distinctive language, appearance, etc. Appearance will be related to predominent genetic backgrounds. But to say that today's this or that group of people is descended from some group living thousands of years ago is way overstated.
To: John H K
It is confusing. The Eskimos are clearly different physically and socially from the Athabascan. Did the Athabascan come over first-wave or second-wave?
10
posted on
11/07/2003 4:56:03 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Close your tag lines)
To: RightWhale
btt
11
posted on
11/07/2003 4:57:37 PM PST
by
tracer
To: John H K
"I assume that the parenthentical material was inserted yourself?" Yes.
The article is a little consfusing and I admit I have a pre-disposition to read it the way I've described it...based on loads of other articles I've read.
"The ancestors of linguistically distinct peoples including the Inuit, Aleut, and Na-Dene speakers made the watery crossing from Asia about 5,000 years ago."
Doesn't this statement confirm my 'reading' of the article? If I'm wrong...I'll be the first to admit it. I don't presently think I'm wrong.
12
posted on
11/07/2003 4:57:37 PM PST
by
blam
To: RightWhale
Does this say that Mexicans of Indian ancestry aren't Indians but from a variety of other Asian groups?Indians, of the North American kind, are Asians that moved at some time to North America. Mexicans have no excuse to do poorly in mathematics.
13
posted on
11/07/2003 4:58:31 PM PST
by
elbucko
To: Steve Eisenberg
"According to statistical geneology, everyone living today is probably a decendent of every person living just 1,500 years ago (except for those people living 1,500 years ago who have no decendents today living)." I don't believe this statement...
14
posted on
11/07/2003 5:03:44 PM PST
by
blam
To: blam
Maybe if they add the six degrees of relation so cousins are included.
15
posted on
11/07/2003 5:06:58 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Close your tag lines)
To: blam
Give America BACK to the Eurasians!!!
16
posted on
11/07/2003 5:10:52 PM PST
by
Map Kernow
("First...take a deep breath....then start yelling!")
To: blam
For whatever it is worth, there is a "cultural" link (seemingly) between the Ainu, living on the offshore islands of Japan, and the "Iroquois" in NY state.
Both have/had a New Year's tradition involving the ritual sacrifice of a household pet. With the Ainu, it was a bear cub; with the Iroquois, a white dog.Both would strangle the pet, and burn the carcass,for the same reason: the spirit of the sacrificed animal was supposed to tell the other animals how well it had been treated by its human hosts; thus insuring a good hunting season.
There was a secondary item, having to do with the fletching
of arrows, and the carving of a spiral around arrow shafts.
(Presumably it was believed this would impart a slight spin to the arrows, making them more accurate.) This was practiced by the Ainu,the woodland "Sioux", and the Iroquois.
ps: Although we use the names Iroquois and Sioux these days,both names were originally uncomplimentary nicknames bestowed by other tribes.If memory serves, both names suggest they were thought of as "dangerous vipers".
17
posted on
11/07/2003 5:11:30 PM PST
by
genefromjersey
(So little time - so many FLAMES to light !!)
To: John H K; blam
The Inuit and Aleut are Eskimos. Na-Dene peoples are a small portion of current American Indians (Navajos are the largest group, I believe.) The author is ACTUALLY saying MOST of the current American Indians, based on his study, came here 15,000 years ago and are more closely related to the Ainu, etc. Seriously, folks, see the thesis of the late Joseph H. Greenberg's "Indo-European and its Closest Relatives," positing a Eurasiatic super-language family, encompassing Indo-European, Finno-Ugric (Uralic), Altaic (Turkic etc.), Nivkh (Gilyak), Chukchi-Koryak-Kamchadal, Japanese-Korean, and Eskimo-Aleut. The Amerind languages (first wave of migrants as opposed to second) are in turn the languages most closely related to the languages of this "Eurasiatic superfamily," according to Greenberg.
18
posted on
11/07/2003 5:18:35 PM PST
by
Map Kernow
("First...take a deep breath....then start yelling!")
To: elbucko; RightWhale
"Indians, of the North American kind, are Asians that moved at some time to North America. Mexicans have no excuse to do poorly in mathematics." Australian?
First Americans Were Australian
19
posted on
11/07/2003 5:20:47 PM PST
by
blam
To: Map Kernow
Eurasiatic super-language family, encompassing Indo-European, Finno-Ugric (Uralic), Altaic (Turkic etc.), Nivkh (Gilyak), Chukchi-Koryak-Kamchadal, Japanese-Korean, and Eskimo-Aleut. Sounds like an early split between cold-climate groups and warm-climate groups.
20
posted on
11/07/2003 5:34:15 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Close your tag lines)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson