It shouldn't be ignored that Peopling of Janese Archipelago had started since around 40,000 BP and reached Hokkaido, northern big land, by 30,000 BP. Sojin, indigenous proto people of Japan before Jomon, had started their life in the Archipelago, crossing Tsushima strait by raft and been seafarer initially. They had collected good quality obsidian from Kouzuisland far more than 25km by boat since 38,000 BP, not yet well known to the world. This should be paid attention in coastal migration theory of First Americans.-RGaPJ
Why were the oldest North American sites such as Meadowcroft, Coopers Ferry, Monte Verde, Gault/Freidken, and all the sites on the DelMarva peninsula left of the migration maps?
Meadowcroft is discussed in the Q&A at 1:25:00 (there may be some potential issues with dating methodology). Similar issues may apply to other sites theorized to be populated 16K BP.
@@qui-gonjay2944 This stuff gets pretty technical at this level of peer review. I'm personally optimistic about Coopers Ferry, and some of the other sites you referenced, but it may take some time before those are more firmly validated. Personally, I find the Coastal Migration Theory (including the use of inland rivers) compelling, but I think we need to let the underlying science play out before connecting the dots more definitively.
@@Ghengis415 I totally agree about the coastal migration theory as well as the ice free corridor. I just think there was definitely an older migration that explains the litany of east coast sites that are near 20k
Wondering why nobody ever mentions the Tim Rowe's Hartley mastodon butchery site in New Mexico, securely dated to 37kya. Lots of bone-chip tools, but not knapped stone.
Probably because there were no obvious cut marks on any of the bones that might have indicated the animal was butchered, and no stone tools were found at the bog site during the 2001 excavation. 5 stone tools were found about a 1/2 mile away from the Mastodon site in the 2 decades since.
It was mammoth, a mother and baby. This guy, if I understand correctly, doesn't believe that - see 28:45 in - the mammoths were butchered by humans. If he believes that today's native Americans are descendants of the first humans to enter the Americas, I think he'll wind up being proven wrong.
Excellent lecture on the genetic evidence of the peopling of the Americas and how it aligns with the archaeological evidence. Also provided clear explanations on issues pertaining to site dating and linguistics. Bravo!
Wonder if the White Sands footprints came from the Population Y (who might not have stayed/survived in North America) or Moreno-Mayar's Unsampled Population A who split off between the Ancient Paleosiberians and the Ancient Beringians & left genetic traces in Mesoamericans like the Mixe. In other words, a "pre-Amerindian" population that was largely replaced by later arrivals from Beringia but left genetic traces in *some* later Native American populations. See Moreno Mayar, Willerslev et al, "Early human dispersals within the Americas" Science362, 1128 (2018)...
To the organisers: learn to actually use the software properly: MUTE PEOPLE who are not the speaker forcibly during the presentation. There were numerous intrusions of background noise and indeed echo on occasion which were quite distracting. Entirely avoidable if you run things properly.
I think the reason he left out pre-Clovis locations like Cooper's Ferry, Meadowcroft, White Sands etc. are because the archeological evidence at those sites don't represent large-scale migrations. There are also a couple of lectures I was watching where some people who initially supported the ages of the White Sands footprint changed their minds after further carbon testing of the seeds embedded in the WS footprint. I'll try to find the lectures if I can, but I forgot if I watched them on TH-cam or other interviews elsewhere.
@@pseudoname3159 Meadowcroft is discussed in the Q&A at 1:25.00 (potential issues with the dating). White Sands is addressed in a few places - IMO (albeit amateur), we're going to have to wait until viable confirming artifacts, remains/genetic evidence can be linked to the people who left those footprints, before we theorize anything more definitive about who they were, and from where they originated.
@@Ghengis415 how come they don’t question any of the dating at Meadowcroft on anything above the Clovis layer? All I’ve ever seen is them trying to find a way to dismiss the oldest stuff. Is the site contaminated or not?
@@qui-gonjay2944He mentions that around 32000 YA there was some northern movement of a Siberian population that was not related to Native Americans and it is possible that the White Sands site (and possibly sites before the opening of the Cordilleran corridor) could be related to that population that was then replaced when the ancestors of Native Americans migrated here. It would be nice if we could find some human remains from these more ancient sites to test the theory.
Anzick - the kid was not proven to be the same date as the Clovis cache. Thys we still have zero Clovis people's remains and genetics. IMHO, Clovis was a technology, not a culture. I quote Dub Crooks on that and agree with him.
Well I don't have any first hand experience with the E.U. but the idea we've gotten here in the states is that The E.U. isn't currently "white" and hasn't been white in about 25-30yrs.
If you accept that people first came through Beringia, why are there older settlements in south America? I don't believe there is enough evidence to say the first people came through Beringia and that this hypothesis is just more of the Clovis 1st proponents not being able to let go of their prejudices. Clovis technology has no relationship to siberian technology. Clovis technology is more like salutrean lithic technology. No Clovis lithic technology found along the Beringian path right? My belief is that migration didn't just happen one way and at one time. Genetically, explain X2, Australasian and Denisovan DNA in South America. The rapid genetic activity could have been from more rapid admixture, not the FIRST migration. How did Solutrean lithic technology arrive on the east coast of NA? Artifacts didn't get there by being washed from Europe during a tsunami. That data cannot be ignored, it HAS TO BE ACCOUNTED for. There are many many Solutrean artifacts on the east coast and in fact most of the Clovis sites are on the east coast also. Having DNA doesn't mean they are the FAMs, only that DNA was found representing a certain people at a certain time. Although there are no time IDs for some of the smaller DNA contributions, they shouldn't be discounted.......didn't scholars learn anything from Clovis 1st debacle? Of course, earlier peoples like White Sands could have come by a different route. You are using the term FAM for people that came AFTER the White Sands people. Why are the White Sands people from 23,000 years ago not considered the FAMs? Its also interesting that there is no transitional lithic technology between ancient siberian people and Clovis people but the Clovis technology is so close to Salutrean technology. There is mitochondrial X2 European DNA found in small amounts in North America. How did that arrive?
![[안방1열 직캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'DRIP' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) @SBS Inkigayo 241110](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tnlxo79cAqY/mqdefault.jpg)
It shouldn't be ignored that Peopling of Janese Archipelago had started since around 40,000 BP and reached Hokkaido, northern big land, by 30,000 BP. Sojin, indigenous proto people of Japan before Jomon, had started their life in the Archipelago, crossing Tsushima strait by raft and been seafarer initially. They had collected good quality obsidian from Kouzuisland far more than 25km by boat since 38,000 BP, not yet well known to the world. This should be paid attention in coastal migration theory of First Americans.-RGaPJ
Any sources? I can't find a Sojin entry in the wikipedia or even in Google search
Why were the oldest North American sites such as Meadowcroft, Coopers Ferry, Monte Verde, Gault/Freidken, and all the sites on the DelMarva peninsula left of the migration maps?
Good question???
Meadowcroft is discussed in the Q&A at 1:25:00 (there may be some potential issues with dating methodology). Similar issues may apply to other sites theorized to be populated 16K BP.
@@Ghengis415then why are there no issues with the dating at Meadowcroft above the Clovis levels
@@qui-gonjay2944 This stuff gets pretty technical at this level of peer review. I'm personally optimistic about Coopers Ferry, and some of the other sites you referenced, but it may take some time before those are more firmly validated. Personally, I find the Coastal Migration Theory (including the use of inland rivers) compelling, but I think we need to let the underlying science play out before connecting the dots more definitively.
@@Ghengis415 I totally agree about the coastal migration theory as well as the ice free corridor. I just think there was definitely an older migration that explains the litany of east coast sites that are near 20k
Informative, good speaker. Seems very knowledgable.
Rimrock Draw rockshelter, in Oregon, is solid at ~18kya. There were _certainly_ humans in N. America at 16kya; Cooper's Ferry is also solid.
Very interesting. Also your maps are excellent explanatory and didactical devices.
Wondering why nobody ever mentions the Tim Rowe's Hartley mastodon butchery site in New Mexico, securely dated to 37kya. Lots of bone-chip tools, but not knapped stone.
Probably because there were no obvious cut marks on any of the bones that might have indicated the animal was butchered, and no stone tools were found at the bog site during the 2001 excavation.
5 stone tools were found about a 1/2 mile away from the Mastodon site in the 2 decades since.
It was mammoth, a mother and baby. This guy, if I understand correctly, doesn't believe that - see 28:45 in - the mammoths were butchered by humans. If he believes that today's native Americans are descendants of the first humans to enter the Americas, I think he'll wind up being proven wrong.
@@sciptick it was blasphemy to claim people in the America’s that far back at the time of his discovery.
Excellent lecture on the genetic evidence of the peopling of the Americas and how it aligns with the archaeological evidence. Also provided clear explanations on issues pertaining to site dating and linguistics. Bravo!
Awesome slides.
Wonder if the White Sands footprints came from the Population Y (who might not have stayed/survived in North America) or Moreno-Mayar's Unsampled Population A who split off between the Ancient Paleosiberians and the Ancient Beringians & left genetic traces in Mesoamericans like the Mixe.
In other words, a "pre-Amerindian" population that was largely replaced by later arrivals from Beringia but left genetic traces in *some* later Native American populations.
See Moreno Mayar, Willerslev et al, "Early human dispersals within the Americas" Science362, 1128 (2018)...
Great presentation
A consuming treatise on early America.
Humans made it to Australia 60,000 years ago by boat. They made it to New Mexico 22,000 years ago. And I think these are conservative estimates.
To the organisers: learn to actually use the software properly: MUTE PEOPLE who are not the speaker forcibly during the presentation. There were numerous intrusions of background noise and indeed echo on occasion which were quite distracting. Entirely avoidable if you run things properly.
23k.footprints but hold on to your 15k theroy.
I think the reason he left out pre-Clovis locations like Cooper's Ferry, Meadowcroft, White Sands etc. are because the archeological evidence at those sites don't represent large-scale migrations. There are also a couple of lectures I was watching where some people who initially supported the ages of the White Sands footprint changed their minds after further carbon testing of the seeds embedded in the WS footprint. I'll try to find the lectures if I can, but I forgot if I watched them on TH-cam or other interviews elsewhere.
I heard him acknowledge White Sands was solid, and say maybe it was Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) who came earlier and left no genetic trace.
@@pseudoname3159 Meadowcroft is discussed in the Q&A at 1:25.00 (potential issues with the dating). White Sands is addressed in a few places - IMO (albeit amateur), we're going to have to wait until viable confirming artifacts, remains/genetic evidence can be linked to the people who left those footprints, before we theorize anything more definitive about who they were, and from where they originated.
@@Ghengis415 how come they don’t question any of the dating at Meadowcroft on anything above the Clovis layer? All I’ve ever seen is them trying to find a way to dismiss the oldest stuff. Is the site contaminated or not?
@@qui-gonjay2944He mentions that around 32000 YA there was some northern movement of a Siberian population that was not related to Native Americans and it is possible that the White Sands site (and possibly sites before the opening of the Cordilleran corridor) could be related to that population that was then replaced when the ancestors of Native Americans migrated here. It would be nice if we could find some human remains from these more ancient sites to test the theory.
Anzick - the kid was not proven to be the same date as the Clovis cache. Thys we still have zero Clovis people's remains and genetics. IMHO, Clovis was a technology, not a culture. I quote Dub Crooks on that and agree with him.
Not a video for the interested layman.
In correct. Some came through Alaska. But we've ben here over 30k years. Longer than white people have been in the EU
Well I don't have any first hand experience with the E.U. but the idea we've gotten here in the states is that The E.U. isn't currently "white" and hasn't been white in about 25-30yrs.
If you accept that people first came through Beringia, why are there older settlements in south America? I don't believe there is enough evidence to say the first people came through Beringia and that this hypothesis is just more of the Clovis 1st proponents not being able to let go of their prejudices. Clovis technology has no relationship to siberian technology. Clovis technology is more like salutrean lithic technology. No Clovis lithic technology found along the Beringian path right? My belief is that migration didn't just happen one way and at one time. Genetically, explain X2, Australasian and Denisovan DNA in South America. The rapid genetic activity could have been from more rapid admixture, not the FIRST migration. How did Solutrean lithic technology arrive on the east coast of NA? Artifacts didn't get there by being washed from Europe during a tsunami. That data cannot be ignored, it HAS TO BE ACCOUNTED for. There are many many Solutrean artifacts on the east coast and in fact most of the Clovis sites are on the east coast also. Having DNA doesn't mean they are the FAMs, only that DNA was found representing a certain people at a certain time. Although there are no time IDs for some of the smaller DNA contributions, they shouldn't be discounted.......didn't scholars learn anything from Clovis 1st debacle? Of course, earlier peoples like White Sands could have come by a different route. You are using the term FAM for people that came AFTER the White Sands people. Why are the White Sands people from 23,000 years ago not considered the FAMs? Its also interesting that there is no transitional lithic technology between ancient siberian people and Clovis people but the Clovis technology is so close to Salutrean technology. There is mitochondrial X2 European DNA found in small amounts in North America. How did that arrive?