U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-16-2007, 05:35 AM
 
1,252 posts, read 727,285 times
Reputation: 107

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post

You shouldn't play in traffic.....


Funny thing about traffic, .....sometimes one can get 'stuck' in traffic.
.
.

Chard retired in 74, as his 'work' on theoretical origins was long before DNA testing, much of what Chard teaches is not so relevant to the understandings we are being shown through DNA testing and newer technologies available to us today.

Doug Wallace, a professor of genetics and molecular medicine at Emory University first demonstrated that mtDNA is passed on from the female line.

That's the maternal inheritance evidence that allows us to trace our origins.

Yep, Wallace is the guy who 'discovered' that we can trace ourselves back to a common ancestor.

In 81, Wallace also discovered that ethnicity could be determined or traced to a specific continent by looking at mutations patterns in the mtDNA, and determine how long ago these ethnic groups went their separate ways by 'following' those mutation patterns.

Wallace also discovered that mtDNA patterns of Amerinds show a large 'wave' of people 20 to 40 thousand years ago. So, though we can't prove that people came across Berengia in some mass rush, there was a large wave of people who came to the Americas many years earlier than the dates usually attributed to the Berengia crossings.

That also means Amerinds were in the America's long before Clovis point cultures.

As a side note, Wallace also found that the Na-dene only arrived 5 to 10 thousand years ago.

Wallace also found a mutation pattern inherent to Southeast Asia, which is not inherent in native Siberian peoples, so when this pattern showed up in Amerinds that shows that Amerinds with that mutation pattern did not come from native Siberians. It can't explain if that mutation was transfered through migration over the sea or whether it traveled up the Asian coast and across the land bridge, but that mutation pattern is found in a very few tribes of Amerinds in the far north.

Since you mentioned point technology:


Clovis points from New Mexico are said to be about 11,000 years old, yet Clovis points from the Eastern seaboard are aged a couple of thousand years older. And there is almost identical Clovis point technology in the Iberian Peninsula that are dated at 18,000 years ago. Since it's unlikely Clovis point technology arose in two different places, it's now thought by some that Clovis points originated in Eurasia.

What's more relative to the origins of the Amerinds in the Americas are what's known as triangle points, which are much older and they are found in older settlements both in North America and South America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
Ya know, it's the common sense factor that's missing from so many of these "debates"........
Much of what was once viewed as 'common sense' has since been found to be total folly.........

Your 'theory', which you appear to want to attribute to Chard, is very much up for debate.

Like I said, oral traditions and myths share some remarkable characteristics which carry over into cultures, religions, ceremonies, beliefs, language, art and most any other 'marker' you want to assign to various prehistoric tribes all over the world.

Those shared stories and myths carry a message just like DNA.
.
..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-16-2007, 09:52 AM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,693,544 times
Reputation: 3010
Quote:
Originally Posted by User 2 View Post
Funny thing about traffic, .....sometimes one can get 'stuck' in traffic.
.
.

Chard retired in 74, as his 'work' on theoretical origins was long before DNA testing, much of what Chard teaches is not so relevant to the understandings we are being shown through DNA testing and newer technologies available to us today.

Doug Wallace, a professor of genetics and molecular medicine at Emory University first demonstrated that mtDNA is passed on from the female line.

That's the maternal inheritance evidence that allows us to trace our origins.

Yep, Wallace is the guy who 'discovered' that we can trace ourselves back to a common ancestor.

In 81, Wallace also discovered that ethnicity could be determined or traced to a specific continent by looking at mutations patterns in the mtDNA, and determine how long ago these ethnic groups went their separate ways by 'following' those mutation patterns.

Wallace also discovered that mtDNA patterns of Amerinds show a large 'wave' of people 20 to 40 thousand years ago. So, though we can't prove that people came across Berengia in some mass rush, there was a large wave of people who came to the Americas many years earlier than the dates usually attributed to the Berengia crossings.

That also means Amerinds were in the America's long before Clovis point cultures.

As a side note, Wallace also found that the Na-dene only arrived 5 to 10 thousand years ago.

Wallace also found a mutation pattern inherent to Southeast Asia, which is not inherent in native Siberian peoples, so when this pattern showed up in Amerinds that shows that Amerinds with that mutation pattern did not come from native Siberians. It can't explain if that mutation was transfered through migration over the sea or whether it traveled up the Asian coast and across the land bridge, but that mutation pattern is found in a very few tribes of Amerinds in the far north.

Since you mentioned point technology:


Clovis points from New Mexico are said to be about 11,000 years old, yet Clovis points from the Eastern seaboard are aged a couple of thousand years older. And there is almost identical Clovis point technology in the Iberian Peninsula that are dated at 18,000 years ago. Since it's unlikely Clovis point technology arose in two different places, it's now thought by some that Clovis points originated in Eurasia.

What's more relative to the origins of the Amerinds in the Americas are what's known as triangle points, which are much older and they are found in older settlements both in North America and South America.



Much of what was once viewed as 'common sense' has since been found to be total folly.........

Your 'theory', which you appear to want to attribute to Chard, is very much up for debate.

Like I said, oral traditions and myths share some remarkable characteristics which carry over into cultures, religions, ceremonies, beliefs, language, art and most any other 'marker' you want to assign to various prehistoric tribes all over the world.

Those shared stories and myths carry a message just like DNA.
.
..

Chard's theories of multiple migrations from various parts of the world reflect the current Anthropological thought of today. Chard's was actually a rebel within the scholarly community at the time with his theories of multiple migration and water migration. I wouldn't write him off U2 - the man's research is still quite valid and has been validated by the community for the most part. His premise of multiple migrations by land and water is widely accepted by the anthropological community. I wish I could take credit for that particular theory, as you seem wont to atribute it to me, but alas, I came to the anthropology game far too late for that.

As far as your theory that Clovis originated in Eurasia--there has been one, that's right, exactly one, projectile point found on the East coast which could possibly be a link between Clovis and Solutrian, the ONLY Old World technology which bears more than a passing resemblance to Clovis. It could be a link--and it could be nothing more than an anomaly. There is nothing more to connect Solutrian technology with that of Clovis.

By the way, the accepted age for Clovis technology is approximately 13.5 kya, not 11 kya.

It has also been theorized by many in academia that Clovis technology in the New World evolved out of need and was not necessarily transported from somewhere else. The technology found in parts of modern day Siberia and through the Bering Strait bears no resemblance to Clovis. Since neither theory has been proved or disproved, I wouldn't put all of my eggs in one basket if I were you.

As far as your "triangle points" on the Iberian Peninsula--triangle refers to nothing more than the tip shape, i.e; the point is half as wide as it is long and so it roughly forms an isoceles triangle. On the European continent, this technology dates to the Mesolithic period. But here's the rub--these points are found generally in the Mississippi Valley and date to approximately 1,100 to 300 B.P., long after Clovis. These points are associated with Late Woodland cultures and the Mississippian/Oneota Traditions.

It is thought that it could be possible that this technology made its way to the New World with the Norse, who colonized Greenland at least 500 years before Columbus made his journey to the Americas. While nobody really knows what happened to the Norse, currently theory is that they simply up and left. As the climate deteriorated, their way of life became more difficult, so they did what people have done throughout the ages. They looked for a more comfortable place to live.The timeline for that particular technology in the Americas coincides nicely with the arrival of the Norse

The first stone tool technology originated in Africa 2.5 million years ago--while there were no projectile points at that time, mostly choppers and scrapers, when the need arose, the technology evolved.

Clovis points greatly resemble Acheulean hand-axes, both being bi-facially flaked, some notched, yet that technology is 100,000 years removed from the Paleoindian technology of the New World. The Acheulean period of technology covers a span of time from approximately 1.4 mya to 100 kya. Acheulean greatly resembles the Mousterian technology of the Neanderthal. But that doesn't say to me as an anthropologist, that French Neanderthals settled the New World, and in fact, the tradition of the bi-facially flaked lithic originated in the area of the Olduvai Gorge in Africa. So what does the similiarity in technologies say to the anthropologist? That through trade, migration, and needful evolution, stone tool technologies made their way through the world. That many are similar shouldn't surprise anyone. What would be surprising would be the discovery of technologies from the same time frame in which one culture was found to be far superior and advanced than another, guns, weapons of mass destruction, that sort of thing. That has yet to happen with tool technology.

Please don't preach DNA to me--you seem to think I'm some little first year student in this field. I"ve taken the Biology of Human Variation, Human Evolution, Hominid Evolution, Stable Isotopes in Bioanthropology, DNA in Forensic Science, and a course in Ancient DNA. I am well aware of who Doug Wallace is.

Wallace's theories have been highly contested as his findings regarding a non-Siberian genetic link can only be attributed to a very small population of Native Americans in the Northeast. In addition, there are no remains which pre-date 9 to 10 kya which can validate his theories, and whether you care to accept this or not, they are merely theories in an academic field that is full of supposition and thesis. DNA technology is so recent to the field of anthropology, that even those who perform it will tell you that they cannot be absolutely sure of their findings.

While I discount nothing in this field unless proven one way or the other, or unless it is completely ludicrous, such as the theory that the ziggurats of Sumeria were alien landing pads, I will reserve judgement on the validity of Wallace's theories until they have been thoroughly tested by forensic scientists in the field.

Once upon a time, all of our ancestors originated in the same place. However, they weren't content to remain there and branched out all over the world. Time and human evolution put a great deal of distance and difference between cultures. THAT is a scientific fact U2 - you should learn to accept it.

Last edited by Kele; 12-16-2007 at 10:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2007, 02:04 PM
 
1,252 posts, read 727,285 times
Reputation: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
While I discount nothing in this field unless proven one way or the other,

That's a funny thing to say, since you spent all the rest of your post trying to say otherwise.

Here's just one source which disputes your claim that only one Clovis point was found on the East coast that could possibly be linked to others.

http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/Re...Prehistory.asp

Oh, here's another with several points found in Texas on the Gulf Coast.

http://www.proctormuseum.us/Texas/McFadden-Beach/mcfaddenbeach.htm (broken link)

Golly, heres' another citing numerous East coast clovis points:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1118/p01s02-usgn.html

Quote:
Indeed, most of the known Clovis sites are found in the eastern US. Some researchers have suggested that spear points found on the East Coast bear a striking resemblance to points found in Europe, raising the possibility that Stone Age Solutrean culture from what is now southwestern France may have made their way west.
Seems as if you may be making assertions which many archeologists don't support, kele

I'll comment a bit later on your other suppositions, but it's plain to see there's agreement in the scientific community and in the archeological community that what you say about only one Clovis point being found is unsupported by many.

Perhaps you should be arguing your 'theory' with them.

Oh, .....here's another source.

Quote:
Altogether, some 50 Clovis spearpoints have been found along the approximately 250 miles of the river's drainage system in Georgia and South Carolina.
http://www.nps.gov/history/seac/beneathweb/ch2.htm

Gee, all these points and you say only one can be traced, where others say numerous points are related. Who to believe?
.
.

Last edited by User 2; 12-16-2007 at 02:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2007, 02:27 PM
 
1,252 posts, read 727,285 times
Reputation: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post

Wallace's theories have been highly contested as his findings regarding a non-Siberian genetic link can only be attributed to a very small population of Native Americans in the Northeast.

I didn't say anything about Wallace and Northeast Native Americans, you have a source for a Wallace theory that's disproven because of non-Siberian genetic links in Northeast Native Americans?

Wallace speaks of a Southeast asian genetic mutation that shows up in Amerinds in Alaska and parts of the West Coast of Canada.

Seems a small population of Native Americans from the Norheast have little to do with what Wallace found.
.
..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2007, 02:38 PM
 
1,252 posts, read 727,285 times
Reputation: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post

As far as your "triangle points" on the Iberian Peninsula
Who said anything even close to that?

I did not link triangle points to the Iberian peninsula, I referred to much older triangle points being found in North and South America.

What I said was,

Quote:
What's more relative to the origins of the Amerinds in the Americas are what's known as triangle points, which are much older and they are found in older settlements both in North America and South America.
It's easy to see that, coming after the discussion of Clovis points from the Iberian peninsula, that the point being made is rather than focus on Clovis points for older origins, triangle points should be looked at. And triangle points found in North and South America have been dated older than Clovis points.

If you want to make arguments against what I provided, you probably ought not argue something based on something only you posit, because what you posit and what you argue against, ........wasn't anything I said in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2007, 05:28 PM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,693,544 times
Reputation: 3010
Quote:
Originally Posted by User 2 View Post
I didn't say anything about Wallace and Northeast Native Americans, you have a source for a Wallace theory that's disproven because of non-Siberian genetic links in Northeast Native Americans?

Wallace speaks of a Southeast asian genetic mutation that shows up in Amerinds in Alaska and parts of the West Coast of Canada.

Seems a small population of Native Americans from the Norheast have little to do with what Wallace found.
.
..
You must delve deeper there U2. The Native American Indians in Alaska and Canada have been genetically linked to the Native Americans of the Northeastern U.S.

Wallace's work has been quoted in several scholarly videos which study that exact subject. I guess you just have to be in the right place (the classroom) at the right time in order to be privy to certain information in this discipline.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2007, 05:29 PM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,693,544 times
Reputation: 3010
Quote:
Originally Posted by User 2 View Post
Who said anything even close to that?

I did not link triangle points to the Iberian peninsula, I referred to much older triangle points being found in North and South America.

What I said was,



It's easy to see that, coming after the discussion of Clovis points from the Iberian peninsula, that the point being made is rather than focus on Clovis points for older origins, triangle points should be looked at. And triangle points found in North and South America have been dated older than Clovis points.

If you want to make arguments against what I provided, you probably ought not argue something based on something only you posit, because what you posit and what you argue against, ........wasn't anything I said in the first place.
Please provide me with an academic reference which states that triangular points older than Clovis technology have been found in the U.S.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2007, 05:52 PM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,693,544 times
Reputation: 3010
Quote:
Originally Posted by User 2 View Post
That's a funny thing to say, since you spent all the rest of your post trying to say otherwise.

Here's just one source which disputes your claim that only one Clovis point was found on the East coast that could possibly be linked to others.

http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/Re...Prehistory.asp

Oh, here's another with several points found in Texas on the Gulf Coast.

http://www.proctormuseum.us/Texas/McFadden-Beach/mcfaddenbeach.htm (broken link)

Golly, heres' another citing numerous East coast clovis points:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1118/p01s02-usgn.html



Seems as if you may be making assertions which many archeologists don't support, kele

I'll comment a bit later on your other suppositions, but it's plain to see there's agreement in the scientific community and in the archeological community that what you say about only one Clovis point being found is unsupported by many.

Perhaps you should be arguing your 'theory' with them.

Oh, .....here's another source.



http://www.nps.gov/history/seac/beneathweb/ch2.htm

Gee, all these points and you say only one can be traced, where others say numerous points are related. Who to believe?
.
.
Caches from the Clovis period are rare. Only seven examples from the western states have been found and scientifically described. The Anzick cache from Montana is the largest with 100 pieces. The five other caches, besides Drake, are Fenn (unknown provenance--either Utah or Wyoming, 1902?) Simon cache (Idaho, 1961), Busse cache (Kansas, 1963), Crook County cache (Wyoming, 1978) and the Richey cache (Washington, 1987), and the only Clovis point cache found in an eastern state, the Lamb cache (New York, 1965).

The vast majority of the anthropological community scoffs at the Solutrean connection. That said, I never said only one Clovis point was found on the east coast . I said only one point which could be considered intermediary between Clovis and Solutrean technology was found. You have to read a little more thoroughly in the future so that you don't get so confused.

I also stated that as with most other THEORIES (keep in mind, what you're posting are THEORIES, theories which have not been proven factual) I will reserve judgement until a positive case can be made one way or the other, unlike you who seem wont to run from internet source to internet source, hoping to find something that will give you some sort of intellectual edge.

Personally, I prefer the Wittgensteinian approach to anthropology. So far, I have posted on a variety of theories that are floating about the academic community. I know what I believe to be true, but until there is positive evidence to support theoretical supposition, I have merely posted imformation readily available in a variety of scholarly textbooks that I happen to have in my library.

By the way, I'd love to take credit for all of these "theories" you continue to attribute to me, but until I finish my Master's, I am still a simple undergrad. Even if I were out there, forming hypothesis after hypothesis, I doubt that the academic community would take me seriously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2007, 05:52 PM
 
Location: The world, where will fate take me this time?
3,162 posts, read 10,302,507 times
Reputation: 1423
guys, great dialogue, keep it coming!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2007, 05:53 PM
 
1,252 posts, read 727,285 times
Reputation: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
.....you just have to be in the right place (the classroom) at the right time in order to be privy to certain information in this discipline.
I guess you're saying you're part of the literate elite?

That information is only available to someone in your self described lofty position?

That may have been true in the Dark Ages, or in Medieval times, kele

It doesn't hold true today, ....there are data bases and university archives open to all.

Point of interest, you're not the only person who might be an archeology student.

Come back and tell me all about your doctoral thesis when it's accepted as universal truth.

In the meantime, you're arguing your 'theories' against many accredited professionals in the community.
.
.
..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top