History Clovis Mafia: The Debate Over 13,000 Years of History

[Andre]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/britainmexico;_ylt=Aon0rXpox4dKJnDRC2lKF7Os0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ

Somehow I'm not surprised at all. And then the rigidness and arrogance of the defence of the Clovis people and Beringia landbridge crossing 13,000 years ago, a.k.a. the Clovis mafia.

 

[hypatia]

Did you know there is a certain signature, to the shape of humans 2 front teeth? It has to do with the back side of the teeth.
Asians, S Pacific islanders have larger degree what is called shoveling, the marginal ridges may be especially prominent {which many eskemos, NE and west plains native americans have}.
South american natives have elongated, nearly uniform teeth, with very little shoveling{which the inca, mayans and many of our sw natives..including the clovis}
Ancient europeans have what is referred to as pegging. Shorter tooth lenth, a much stocker tooth. Which can also be found from in the tribes of the woodlands down to florida.

I did hundreds of tooth casts in mexico, and found 2 distinct types. I don't recall the break down, but some had major shoveling, while others had the elongated.
There is a high genetic component that minimizes the effect of environmental differences, sexual dimorphism, and age variations.
I do believe people crossed from the northern land bridge. And I do believe the S americans worked there way north. And in mexico is where they met.

 

[Smurf]

I wonder... where do Australian aboriginals fit in with your whole tooth thing?

 

[iansmith]

But the discovery of footprints provides new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago, Gonzalez said.

That quite a bold statement. It is just a foot print. It only provides evidence that someone was there 40,000 years ago. It does not provide evidence that these "settlers" were the genetic founder of the native americans of today.

Genetic evidence seems to point that native american are closely related to north-east asians. However, the inuit have a diffenrent genetic relationship but it has been establish that the inuit immigrated later than the rest of the native americans.

Interestingly, an indigenous population in North Japan, Ainu, was placed relatively close to Native Americans in the correspondence analysis...Moreover, relatively small genetic distances and the sharing of several HLA haplotypes between Ainu and Native Americans suggest that these populations are descendants of some Upper Paleolithic populations of East Asia.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11543902&query_hl=3

Differences in the frequencies of GM haplotypes among native peoples of the Americas support the hypothesis that there were three distinct waves of migration from northeast Asia into the Americas: Paleo-Indian, Na-Dene, and Inuit...These genetic findings are consistent with the controversial hypothesis of archeologist C. Borden (Science 203:963-971, 1979) that, following deglaciation about 13,000 years ago, British Columbia was repopulated by peoples from the north (?Na-Dene) and by culturally distinct peoples from the south (?Paleo-Indian). Caucasian admixture estimates suggested that the Haida and Bella Coola have also experienced moderate amounts (12-20%) of genetic input from European-originating peoples.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3414788&query_hl=3

However, genetics diversity, partly due to mixing and population movement, within native americans is quite great and it might be diffficult to trace some evolutionnary path.

1. The original homeland of the first Amerindians remains elusive, different results having been obtained using mtDNA, autosomal, sex-chromosome, or viral parasitic information; 2. Different waves of migration had been postulated on the basis of mtDNA, Y chromosome, and other types of genetic and non-genetic (for instance, linguistic) evidences. The suggested dates of their occurrence are also variable; 3. The level of genetic variability of Amerindians, as compared to other groups, cannot be easily ascertained. There is restriction of variability for some of the mtDNA and HLA markers, but this is not necessarily so for other genetic traits. On the other hand, interpopulation variation seems to be more marked in Amerindians than elsewhere, probably due to their population structure; 4. The most exciting differences between Amerindians and non-Amerindians are those related to the HLA system, with the indication of allele turnover and antigen-driven positive selection especially at the B locus, probably due to historical processes of population changes in number, and to diversified exposure to infectious agents; 5. Certainly, many genetic differences could be detected along the continent. Some of them are clinal, while others are more abrupt. In a way this would be expected, due to the varied amount of population movements and of distinct environments they had to face.

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scr...0001-37652002000200005&tlng=es&lng=en&nrm=iso

I wonder... where do Australian aboriginals fit in with your whole tooth thing?

Genetically, Australian natives are related to south-east asians such as melanesians and new-guineans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14533184
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11246466