Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 13th, 2012 #221
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Native Americans arrived to find natives already there, fossil poo shows

By Lewis Page

13th July 2012

The ancient people who have long been thought to be the first humans to colonise North America were actually johnny-come-latelies, according to scientists who have comprehesively analysed the ancient fossilised poo of their predecessor Americans.

The new revelations come to us courtesy of Copenhagen university, where some of the investigating boffins are based. The scientists say that their results demonstrate conclusively their somewhat controversial thesis: that the "Clovis" culture dating from around 13,000 years ago - which has long been thought to be the earliest human society in the Americas - was actually preceded by human habitation at the Paisley caves in Oregon.

"When we published the first DNA results from the Paisley Caves four years ago it caused an outcry," explains Dr Paula Campos, one of the prehistoric poo experts.

"Many archaeologists felt that our results must be wrong. They considered it an established fact that Clovis were the first Americans. People would come up with any number of alternative explanations to our data in order to repudiate our interpretation. Today we demonstrate that our conclusions were right."

The so-called "Clovis First" theory had until 2008 been accepted as unquestioned truth among archaeologists, who considered that the Clovis people - so called from 13,000 year old archaeological finds near the village of Clovis in New Mexico - were the true native Americans. When the still more ancient 14,000-year-old excrement was found at the Paisley caves, it was pointed out by disgruntled boffins that no stone tools or other evidence of the type seen at Clovis had been found, and that the DNA poo evidence could have been erroneous.

Dr Dennis Jenkins of Copenhagen uni was having none of that, however, and he continued to poke about in the caves. Now he and his team are back, this time packing stone artifacts including "Western stemmed" stone projectiles and new, more comprehensive DNA dating.

According to a Copenhagen uni statement:

The new study refutes every one of the critics’ arguments and uses overwhelming archaeological, stratigraphic, DNA and radiocarbon evidence to conclusively state that humans — and ones totally unrelated to Clovis peoples — were present at Paisley Caves over a millennium before Clovis.

"During our excavations in the Paisley Caves we’ve found a completely different type of dart points," enthuses Jenkins.

"These new points are of a completely different construction from those found in the Clovis culture. As our radiocarbon dating shows, the new finds are as old, or possibly older than the Clovis finds, this proves that the Clovis culture cannot have been the 'Mother technology' for all other technologies in America. Our results show, that America was colonized by multiple cultures at the same time. And some perhaps even earlier than Clovis."

"Humans were present in North America at least one thousand years before Clovis and these earlier peoples probably had no technological or genetic similarity to the iconic Clovis Culture," adds the prof's colleague Thomas Stafford. "The Clovis First debate has ended. The theory is now dead and buried."

So there. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07...ves_excrement/
 
Old July 13th, 2012 #222
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Even if White Europeans somehow arrived in the New World long before the Asiatic/Mongoloid ancestors of the Native Amerindian tribes - those Whites were not our ancestors, as all Whites living in America today are descended from White Europeans who came to America after the 16th century.

If the Solutrean hypothesis is correct, it means that those prehistoric Europeans that settlled in the New World were either A). Killed off my the Asiatic/Mongoloid ancestors of the Amerindians, or B). they were absorbed into the later immigrant Asiatic/Mongoloid population and thereby became the ancestors of the present-day Native Amerindians.
 
Old July 15th, 2012 #223
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,438
Crowe
Default

The former White tribes that migrated ended up race mixing with the Asian/Mongoloid tribes, and as White men, became extinct. Just like them, we can go extinct in a similar way.
 
Old July 15th, 2012 #224
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe View Post
The former White tribes that migrated ended up race mixing with the Asian/Mongoloid tribes, and as White men, became extinct. Just like them, we can go extinct in a similar way.
Exactly - they became the ancestors of the Native American Indians, they were never our ancestors, as our ancestors remained in Europe.
 
Old August 8th, 2012 #225
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Mexico finds hundreds of bones in Aztec burial

August 7, 2012

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Archaeologists in Mexico say they have found an unprecedented human burial in which the skeleton of a young woman was found near Mexico City's Templo Mayor surrounded by piles of 1,789 human bones.

Experts say the Aztecs usually cremated the remains of high-ranking members of their society, and even among buried commoners they haven't found such a large aggregation of bones.

The National Institute of Anthropology and History says some of the human bones show what may be cut marks.

Archaeologist Susan Gillespie said Tuesday that the find is unprecedented for the Aztec culture.

Researchers say they also found the buried trunk of what may have been one of the sacred trees that the Azetcs believed held up the firmament.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/M...al-3769771.php
 
Old January 9th, 2013 #226
N.M. Valdez
SMASH THE FASH
 
N.M. Valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,382
N.M. Valdez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe View Post
The former White tribes that migrated ended up race mixing with the Asian/Mongoloid tribes, and as White men, became extinct. Just like them, we can go extinct in a similar way.
The problem with idiots like you is that you simply ignore evidence that contradicts your fantasies.

Linder was definitively refuted in post #182, and since he had no response to it, he just ignored it and went on posting links that he foolishly thought supported his position.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.
 
Old January 9th, 2013 #227
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez View Post
The problem with idiots like you is that you simply ignore evidence that contradicts your fantasies.

Linder was definitively refuted in post #182, and since he had no response to it, he just ignored it and went on posting links that he foolishly thought supported his position.
The problem is your side suppresses evidence and alternative views and then turns around and claim its own views are "science."

I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much. What I do know is that the side you defend lies about literally every single matter that touches on its politics, and as this touches its agenda, it lies about this too. Of course, anyone could reason that from the way the Clinton administration buried the Kennewick discovery site - a point you don't have the balls to address though I've brought it up repeatedly.

You are doing exactly the same thing as those defending the Big Lie that muslims were behind 9/11: your side prevents honest men from studying the evidence and then claims its own views are the only 'science' and 'truth.'
 
Old January 9th, 2013 #228
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
The question of "Caucasoid" affinities for the Kennewick remains can be addressed, depending on how the term "Caucasoid" is defined. In the strictest sense, this refers to populations of western and southwest Eurasia-- peoples that live or lived in what is now Europe, the near East, and India. When defined in this way, Kennewick is clearly not a Caucasoid. Although one European group, Zalavar (1/25 = 4%) was included among the five nearest "neighbors" to Kennewick (Tables 7 - 12), the majority of nearest neighbors are from Polynesia (16/25 = 64%) and east Asia (24%). The Ainu, which we have described as "east Asian", occur as a nearest neighbor three times (12%), while Native Americans occur as neighbors just twice (8%). Although Kennewick exhibits some features that typically (but not exclusively) occur in modern American Whites (Caucasoids), these same features also occur in moderate to high frequency among Polynesian populations (Gill 1986). If the Ainu are considered to be "Caucasoids," as they were first described in 19th-century anthropological literature, this might explain reports of "Caucasoid" features in the Kennewick skull. However, we follow Brace and Hunt (1990) and Turner (1990) in viewing the Ainu as a southeast Asian population derived from early Jomon peoples of Japan, who have their closest biological affinity with south Asians rather than western Eurasian peoples. Thus Kennewick appears to have strongest morphological affinities with populations in Polynesia and southern Asia, and not with American Indians or Europeans in the reference samples.
The above is not science, it's argument.

Quote:
Going back to the original null hypothesis, we can reject this hypothesis for the craniometric data, for cranial discrete traits, and for dental discrete traits. The data are inconclusive for anthroposcopic traits, and the null hypothesis cannot be rejected for the odontometric data. [B]The Kennewick skeleton can be excluded, on the basis of dental and cranial morphology, from recent American Indians.
So then why does the left side with the red niggers when they want this NON-INDIAN's remains turned over to them precisely so they can prevent their being studied? For one reason: they are afraid of what will or might be found.

Since the bones aren't related to the red niggers of the last 10k years, they decide to draw the baseless conclusion they are related to some earlier asian populations.
 
Old January 9th, 2013 #229
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Even the biased leftists you cite say:

Typicality probabilities were all zero for the Howells comparative samples, suggesting again that the Kennewick skeleton morphologically is unlike any modern human population. A plot of the principal component scores places Kennewick in a peripheral position relative to the bulk of Polynesians and southern Asians,

Wait...he's supposed to BE a polynesian. So how can he be "peripheral" to them?

He's peripheral, according to 'science'

yet they can absolutely reject he's white and absolutely state he's Polynesian.

Yeah, they don't use the term 'absolutely,' they just don't allow any debate.

The only thing that has ever interested the leftists 'studying' or in other ways talking about Kennewick Man was to deny he was white.
 
Old January 9th, 2013 #230
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
One additional point to note is that with the non-reconstructed variables, two so-called "Caucasoid" groups-- Ainu and Zalavar-- were indicated as most similar to Kennewick in multivariate space, while none of the American Indian samples were close to the Kennewick skeleton. This is not to say that the Kennewick remains are those of a "Caucasoid" individual. It does, however, confirm the work of other researchers (Steele and Powell 1992, 1994; Jantz and Owsley 1997, in press) which indicate that early New World populations have some features shared by some modern Polynesian and European groups. The cranial nonmetric and dental data confirm the Polynesian morphology of the Kennewick skeleton, but do not suggest a morphological similarity of this individual to modern populations of Europe.
That sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.

The bottom line is that leftists in academia assert but cannot prove that K-man traces back to Polynesia.
 
Old January 9th, 2013 #231
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Clearly the Kennewick individual is unique relative to recent American Indians, and finds its closest association with groups of Polynesia and the Ainu of Japan.

Yet no mention was made of this when red nigger tribes in the US wanted the bones turned over.
Quote:
The question of "Caucasoid" affinities for the Kennewick remains can be addressed, depending on how the term "Caucasoid" is defined. In the strictest sense, this refers to populations of western and southwest Eurasia-- peoples that live or lived in what is now Europe, the near East, and India. When defined in this way, Kennewick is clearly not a Caucasoid. Although one European group, Zalavar (1/25 = 4%) was included among the five nearest "neighbors" to Kennewick (Tables 7 - 12), the majority of nearest neighbors are from Polynesia (16/25 = 64%) and east Asia (24%). The Ainu, which we have described as "east Asian", occur as a nearest neighbor three times (12%), while Native Americans occur as neighbors just twice (8%). Although Kennewick exhibits some features that typically (but not exclusively) occur in modern American Whites (Caucasoids), these same features also occur in moderate to high frequency among Polynesian populations (Gill 1986). If the Ainu are considered to be "Caucasoids," as they were first described in 19th-century anthropological literature, this might explain reports of "Caucasoid" features in the Kennewick skull. However, we follow Brace and Hunt (1990) and Turner (1990) in viewing the Ainu as a southeast Asian population derived from early Jomon peoples of Japan, who have their closest biological affinity with south Asians rather than western Eurasian peoples. Thus Kennewick appears to have strongest morphological affinities with populations in Polynesia and southern Asia, and not with American Indians or Europeans in the reference samples.
"However, we follow" ...based on what?

Based on nothing.

Based on politics.
 
Old January 10th, 2013 #232
N.M. Valdez
SMASH THE FASH
 
N.M. Valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,382
N.M. Valdez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The problem is your side suppresses evidence and alternative views and then turns around and claim its own views are "science."
That must be why the individuals you cite are employed at the Smithsonian (major government institution) and featured on the Discovery Channel (major media institution). You don't have a "side" any more than creationists do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.
This is the most accurate statement you've ever made on the forum, worthy of being my new signature quote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
What I do know is that the side you defend lies about literally every single matter that touches on its politics, and as this touches its agenda, it lies about this too. Of course, anyone could reason that from the way the Clinton administration buried the Kennewick discovery site - a point you don't have the balls to address though I've brought it up repeatedly.
Kennewick Man isn't in the possession of any Indian tribe; the remains are held by the U.S. government at the Burke Museum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The above is not science, it's argument.
I guess you think you can ignore evidence by calling it "argument." Even if it was "argument," and not "science," whatever purpose that rhetorical distinction is even supposed to serve, you have no counter-argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
So then why does the left side with the red niggers when they want this NON-INDIAN's remains turned over to them precisely so they can prevent their being studied? For one reason: they are afraid of what will or might be found.

Since the bones aren't related to the red niggers of the last 10k years, they decide to draw the baseless conclusion they are related to some earlier asian populations.
How is that a "baseless conclusion"? It was a conclusion based on morphological and genetic analyses that you have not refuted and cannot refute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Wait...he's supposed to BE a polynesian. So how can he be "peripheral" to them?
Kennewick Man is peripheral to both modern-day Polynesians, and to some extent, modern-day Native Americans. However, the genetic relationship to Western Europeans is far more distant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
That sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.
Is this a joke? How does calling evidence "a bunch of bullshit" constitute a refutation of that evidence? Have you personally studied the cranial nonmetric and dental data in question? Of course not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The bottom line is that leftists in academia assert but cannot prove that K-man traces back to Polynesia.
Nobody claimed that Kennewick Man definitely came from Polynesia or a Polynesian population.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.
 
Old January 10th, 2013 #233
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Nobody claimed that Kennewick Man definitely came from Polynesia or a Polynesian population.
Yeah...but that's sure what's reported. Above all, the message coming out of the media is an hysterical "he's certainly not white." When in fact, if the study is correct, all they can say for sure is he's not lol/ Native American /lol. They sure don't like mentioning that, though.

I still haven't read the book Across Atlantic Ice.

I'm not expert in anthropology.

What I am an expert in is the way leftists lie about race, and the fact, not opinion, but fact that they will lie about racial data -- see Steven J. "jew" Gould and dozens of others -- means that nothing they claim can be taken at face value, particularly in a case such as Kennewick Man's, where they admit they don't know anything for sure - except that he's NOT a 'native American.'
 
Old January 10th, 2013 #234
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,833
andy
Default

The proto nazi philosopher Thomas Carlyle was convinced that the cree and later melungeons were the result of Scottish settlers pre dating Columbus.The Cree physique hair decorations and method of waging war and penchant for oatmeal convinced him of this.That said he was a British propagandist
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old January 28th, 2013 #235
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Viking site on Baffin Island

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...s/pringle-text
 
Old February 7th, 2013 #236
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

review of Across Atlantic Ice
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-atlantic-ice/
 
Old February 7th, 2013 #237
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default



Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture. Dennis J. Stanford and Bruce A. Bradley. University of California Press, Berkeley, 2012, 319 pages.

The Palaeoblog occasionally gets sent books to review which we get around to doing eventually. This one, dealing with the origins of the first Americans, falls more under archaeology than palaeontology, so I've asked the Cleveland Museum of Natural History's John Otis Hower Chair of Archaeology, Dr. Brian Redmond, to review this for us. Thanks Brian!

Who were the first Americans? When did they come to the New World and by what routes? These questions have maintained a featured place in archaeological inquiry since the era of Thomas Jefferson, the recognized father of American Archaeology. This much-awaited book by two leading Paleoindian scholars argues for an origin, not from northeastern Asia as conventionally proposed, but across the north Atlantic from Iberia during the late glacial maximum, some 20,000 years ago. Using detailed, but not overly technical, presentations of late Pleistocene stone tool assemblages from Siberia to Chesapeake Bay, the authors state their case for the origin of the classic Clovis tool kit in eastern North America from Upper Paleolithic, Solutrean, migrants from Europe. Bradley uses his substantial experience as a stone tool analyst and flint-knapper to point out the intriguing similarities between bifacially-flaked spear and knife points found on both sides of the Atlantic. But most previous scholars have judged such a connection untenable due to the three to twelve thousand years that separated Solutrean from Clovis hunters. To fill the gap, Stanford and Bradley cite a growing body of archaeological evidence for a “pre-Clovis” occupation of eastern North America as early as 25,000 years ago. This overview of the evidence is highly informative, well-illustrated, and brings to print the newest data for Clovis progenitors in the mid-Atlantic region. The authors even make a good case that Solutrean seal hunters from Europe could have migrated north and west along the north Atlantic ice front and ended up in North America. Much less convincing is their claim for real historical affinity between Solutrean, pre-Clovis, and Clovis. In the end, the still sketchy pre-Clovis data base severely weakens the argument. But the book remains a fascinating and informative read for all students of the earliest American history.

http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2012/...ce-origin.html
 
Old March 6th, 2013 #239
N.M. Valdez
SMASH THE FASH
 
N.M. Valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,382
N.M. Valdez
Default

Here's three important studies that your non-geneticist authors Stanford and Bradley have published no response to.

1. Mitochondrial Population Genomics Supports a Single Pre-Clovis Origin with a Coastal Route for the Peopling of the Americas, American Journal of Human Genetics, 2008 March 3; 82(3): 583–592: "Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models such as the Solutrean hypothesis."

2. Distinctive Paleo-Indian Migration Routes from Beringia Marked by Two Rare mtDNA Haplogroups, Current Biology, 13 January 2009 (Vol. 19, Issue 1, pp. 1-8): "Phylogeographic analyses at the highest level of molecular resolution (69 entire mitochondrial genomes) reveal that two almost concomitant paths of migration from Beringia led to the Paleo-Indian dispersal approximately 15–17 kya. Haplogroup D4h3 spread into the Americas along the Pacific coast, whereas X2a entered through the ice-free corridor between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets."

3. Mitochondrial haplogroup C4c: a rare lineage entering America through the ice-free corridor?, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2012 Jan;147(1):35-9: "Taking into account that C4c is deeply rooted in the Asian portion of the mtDNA phylogeny and is indubitably of Asian origin, a scenario in which C4c and X2a are characterized by parallel genetic histories definitively dismisses the controversial Solutrean hypothesis of an Atlantic glacial entry route into North America for X2a (Stanford and Bradley,2004; Straus et al.,2005)."

Since there don't seem to be any population geneticists who support the "Solutrean hypothesis," I guess there won't be any response.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.
 
Old March 11th, 2013 #240
N.M. Valdez
SMASH THE FASH
 
N.M. Valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,382
N.M. Valdez
Default

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:24 AM.
Page generated in 0.12333 seconds.