But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

The Western Hemisphere. General term for the Americas following their discovery by Europeans, thus setting them in contradistinction to the Old World of Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15794
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

Post by Minimalist » Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:46 am

Wait....8k ybp and the wood remains wood? How come the "ark hunters" on Mt. Ararat always claim that it has already fossilized in a mere 4,000 years.

Something does not compute, here!
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin

User avatar
Farpoint
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:53 am
Location: Madison, Ohio

Re: But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

Post by Farpoint » Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:28 pm

Depositional settings do vary, which is what makes understanding the taphonomy so important.

On the other hand, they're just nuts.
I'm sorry, my responses are limited. You must ask the right question.

"The track of a glacier is as unmistakable as that of a man or a bear, and is as significant and trustworthy as any other legible inscription"
John Strong Newberry; 1873

Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15794
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

Post by Minimalist » Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:08 pm

I'll stick with the "other hand."
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin

countrcultur
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:29 pm

Re: But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

Post by countrcultur » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:19 pm

can someone explain to me what this means. "Indigenous Amerindian genetic studies indicate that the "colonizing founders" of the Americas emerged from a single-source ancestral population that evolved in isolation, likely in Beringia."

Does that mean the dna is linked to asia or anywhere else? Is the DNA connected to anywhere else?

I am currently in my first year of anthropology and any help would be greatly appreciated. The assignment is to pick any topic in prehistory and find 4 different views online and compare them. I picked the peopling of the americas and this quote is from wikipedia. Not looking for people to do the work for me, but if anyone has any links that I should consider in my comparisons that would be awesome. I also have a personal interest as people here know, this subject is the reason I came to this site in the first place and the main reason I am taking anthropology. I always thought there were concrete connections to asia, linguistic or DNA. Just wondering if this quote is saying different. Thanks again.

E.P. Grondine

Re: But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

Post by E.P. Grondine » Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:22 pm

countrcultur wrote:can someone explain to me what this means. "Indigenous Amerindian genetic studies indicate that the "colonizing founders" of the Americas emerged from a single-source ancestral population that evolved in isolation, likely in Beringia."

Does that mean the dna is linked to asia or anywhere else? Is the DNA connected to anywhere else?

I am currently in my first year of anthropology and any help would be greatly appreciated. The assignment is to pick any topic in prehistory and find 4 different views online and compare them. I picked the peopling of the americas and this quote is from wikipedia. Not looking for people to do the work for me, but if anyone has any links that I should consider in my comparisons that would be awesome. I also have a personal interest as people here know, this subject is the reason I came to this site in the first place and the main reason I am taking anthropology. I always thought there were concrete connections to asia, linguistic or DNA. Just wondering if this quote is saying different. Thanks again.
Hi counrculture - The geneticists come out with contradictory genetic analysis about once every two weeks, and they are presented as "big news".

In this case, it most likely reflects some team focused on Y DNA variants, which are nearly useless in tracking human populations.

My view is that right now it is most useful to look at the mt DNA distributions on a gross level, and forget about mt DNA alleles for the time being, until they sort them out better.

Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15794
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

Post by Minimalist » Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:50 am

E.P. is quite correct about the vagaries of genetics. As a new science it seems to "re-invent" itself constantly. They may be right but they certainly do little to instill confidence in their methods.

You might try looking up "Solutrean Hypothesis", "Clovis-First", "Monte Verde", "Meadowcroft" and "Topper Site." While Wikipedia is usually unreliable as a source it will frequently give references to other sources.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin

User avatar
Farpoint
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:53 am
Location: Madison, Ohio

Re: But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

Post by Farpoint » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:58 pm

countrcultur

You are welcome to visit my library, there are always cookies and drinks.

If that is not possible then try this paper Ice Age Atlantis? Exploring the Solutrean-Clovis 'Connection' by Straus et. aland the references contained therein.
I'm sorry, my responses are limited. You must ask the right question.

"The track of a glacier is as unmistakable as that of a man or a bear, and is as significant and trustworthy as any other legible inscription"
John Strong Newberry; 1873

countrcultur
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:29 pm

Re: But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

Post by countrcultur » Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:54 pm

thanks a lot guys.

countrcultur
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:29 pm

Re: But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

Post by countrcultur » Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:02 pm

One more thing about the land bridge theory making all migrations from asia, I was told in an anthro class that the last migration is the only one that can be linguistically linked to languages on the other side. So has language over there changed that much that earlier migrations wouldn't be linked linguistically? Is it reasonable that language would change that much in migration?

E.P. Grondine

Re: But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

Post by E.P. Grondine » Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:45 pm

Hi once again -

(Well, I see that the MacArthur Prize people have missed me yet once again. Oh well...
Copies of the first edition of "Man and Impact in the Americas" are still available.)

As you continue your studies, I am sure you will run into various conflicting morphologies as well.
Linguistic change is about as poorly developed as genetic change is right now.

I suppose about the only thing to do is to go to some meeting, get a drink, and simply enjoy watching these folks talk it out.

My own "apparat" right now is to focus on gross mt DNA distributions.
If any linguistic hypothesis agree with that, then they are likely to be correct.

countrcultur
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:29 pm

Re: But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

Post by countrcultur » Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:44 am

E.P. Grondine wrote:Hi once again -

(Well, I see that the MacArthur Prize people have missed me yet once again. Oh well...
Copies of the first edition of "Man and Impact in the Americas" are still available.)

As you continue your studies, I am sure you will run into various conflicting morphologies as well.
Linguistic change is about as poorly developed as genetic change is right now.

I suppose about the only thing to do is to go to some meeting, get a drink, and simply enjoy watching these folks talk it out.

My own "apparat" right now is to focus on gross mt DNA distributions.
If any linguistic hypothesis agree with that, then they are likely to be correct.
Any links to DNA distribution?

User avatar
Farpoint
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:53 am
Location: Madison, Ohio

Re: But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

Post by Farpoint » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:30 pm

The picture below was taken by Curtis in 1908 of Sitting Bear:

Image

I have always had doubts about a pure Asian influence, but of course European genetic influence started 400 years plus before this picture, none the less, they just don't look (metaphorically) Korean.

Edit: or 16000 years ago
I'm sorry, my responses are limited. You must ask the right question.

"The track of a glacier is as unmistakable as that of a man or a bear, and is as significant and trustworthy as any other legible inscription"
John Strong Newberry; 1873

countrcultur
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:29 pm

Re: But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

Post by countrcultur » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:09 pm

Farpoint wrote:The picture below was taken by Curtis in 1908 of Sitting Bear:

Image

I have always had doubts about a pure Asian influence, but of course European genetic influence started 400 years plus before this picture, none the less, they just don't look (metaphorically) Korean.

Edit: or 16000 years ago
I doubt sitting bull had european genetics. They moved west ahead of europeans and were in conflict or avoidance a lot. Compared to some tribes they mixed very little. I agree about the non-asian look. So what's left then? Regional continuity?

User avatar
Farpoint
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:53 am
Location: Madison, Ohio

Re: But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

Post by Farpoint » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:31 pm

Sinodonty and Sundadonty

The strong nasal appearance

The "red" skin tone

High cheek bones

The first and the last should be discernible in the fossil record, the other two, not.

If we are correct in supposing multiple migrations at different times and from different places, it would make sense that the descendant outcome would be unique, and that is what it looks like to me.
I'm sorry, my responses are limited. You must ask the right question.

"The track of a glacier is as unmistakable as that of a man or a bear, and is as significant and trustworthy as any other legible inscription"
John Strong Newberry; 1873

E.P. Grondine

Re: But Still Clinging to the "Land Bridge"

Post by E.P. Grondine » Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:23 pm

Hi countrcultur -

No links, but i think if you search for Etruscan DNA you'll find them.

Post Reply