Posted on 11/08/2007 6:24:59 AM PST by blam
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Blam. That Adovasio book got much more interesting as I've approached the end. His view on NAGPRA is nearly identical to mine, so I'm probably just basking in the light of my own ego. But anyway, his anecdote about that Pennsylvania ossuary might be illuminating here. |
||
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
Well, even that is irrelevant.
Most Amerindian tribes moved around a lot. To assume that a tribe currently or even historically occupying an area in the U.S. was there several thousand years ago is patently absurd.
And, as the law specifically states, it was designed to protect “graves” of immediate ancestors or relatives, not archeological remains.
I guess it is left ot common sense. I’d say anrything older than several hundred years is an archeological remain.
I think that the relationship to the Ainu is one of the most significant discoveries and could add much to the puzzle regarding who were the first Americans.
Genetic studies have indicated that most genetic markers are tied to people living in Central Asia.
They have also indicated that there might have been contributions to the Amerindian gene pool from Europe and Africa.
South American Indians do not have the factor.
I really don't think the Sa'ami or the Berbers made it to East Asia.
What is hypothesized to have happened 6,000 years ago (which is several thousand years AFTER Clovis culture was pretty much destroyed by what seems to have been a comet that hit Canada) really doesn’t change the legal basis of the treaties between the Indians and the United States.
"The first migration into the Americas was about 26-34 thousand years ago, the second was about 12-15 thousand years ago, and the third was about 7-9 thousand years ago. The data also demonstrates a possible 4th migration the actually took place about 15 thousand years ago when Scandinavian Vikings crossed the Atlantic and mixed with Native Americans that crossed the Bering Strait (haplogroup X)."
There is now evidence that at least one of the early coastal migrations, Alaska to the tip of South America, included the D4h3 founding group (see the article I linked a few posts above). It was a different D (D1) that went inland.
Recent DNA studies have dispelled the idea that the Anglo-Saxons committed any sort of genocide in the British Isles.
See this book: Origins Of The British for the details.
"Now Stephen Oppenheimers groundbreaking genetic research has revealed that the Anglo-Saxon invasion contributed only a tiny fraction to the English gene pool. "
If what Oppenheimer states is true, then the written histories on both the English and British/Welsh sides describing mass slaughter in the 5th and 6th Centuries are inaccurate. Additionally, I have read other information that indicates a great deal of genetic difference between the English and the Welsh. The general observation in Britain also indicates a greater degree of fair hair and eyes in the eastern parts, with darker hair and eyes more common in the west, especially Wales and Cornwall. This would seem to agree with the concept that a great amount of German and Scandinavian ancestry can be found in eastern England and Scotland, while the older inhabitants, perhaps with ties to northern Spain and western France, are better represented in western Britain.
Correct.
English And Welsh Are Races Apart
I highly recommend Oppenheimer's book.
Also, Bryan Sykes latest: Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland is a goodbook.
If you choose between the two, choose Oppenheimer's.
"Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands".(Stephen Oppenheimer)
Occasionally you'd have somebody like The Great Law Giver come along and convince the Iriquois to organize a Confederation, and to use their slave tribes as tax farms.
Life was tough and cheap labor was hard to come by. As recent genetic research has revealed, the Angel and Saxon invaders who conquered Brittain really didn't exterminate the original people ~ they're still there ~ they just think they're English these days.
Compounding the confusion, William the Conqueror brought in tens of thousands of Bretons from Brittany to England, to replenish the blood-lines anyway.
The Indo-Europeans were still an undifferentiated mass over in the Middle East and along the Mediterranean.
The Refugia in what is now France and Spain, was the source of the people who crossed over on the winter ice in the North Atlantic. They are NOT the source of the Vikings who were Indo-European people speaking Gothic.
The original population of Fenno-Scandia were non-Indo-European people and they spoke a number of non-Indo-European languages.
Can you contact that guy to correct his error.
I think they ended up creating a new culture. For one thing it has no hereditary nobility and we look down on people who want to turn notables or politicians into the equivalent of nobility.
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.