Support this channel with a Super Thanks or become a channel member today for some behind-the-scenes perks! Or buy me a coffee at: www.ko-fi.com/flintdibble or subscribe at: www.patreon.com/flintdibble
Just to correct one misconception. They didn't come over chasing wooly mammoths. It was Chihuahuas using domesticated humans searching for a warmer climate. Chihuahuas hate the cold. So they rode humans across and down until they reached a snow free environment which happened to be the Chihuahuan Desert which of course is too close to be just coincidence. The eastern effort (Meadowbrook) was different as they also like to find new things to bark at, groundhogs being one example. You can use this in your next books if you like but I will need a box of extra small milkbones.
mulder here. scully, you have some proper insight. noice. (did not watch the vid, no time right now, but i assume it is all mindwashing). for sclly to ponder about something, did you know that ppl fknthousnds of years ago knew about plank length and I can show it. (not here, they do not allow me to share it here -- they hate the truth)
As a genealogist, ancient DNA and archeology is an interesting and exciting field to follow. Thanks for having Jennifer Raff as a guest. Her perspective was captivating. Bravo!
Oh man, I cannot tell you how cool this whole event was for me- just seeing all of these experts gushing about their areas of expertise, the openness and willingness to be proven wrong if it means we learn more about the world, it's everything to me!
I think the most parsimonious explanation for genetic evidence not accommodating these very early dates -- especially White Sands, but also Rimrock Draw in Eastern Oregon (~18kya) -- is that these very early people were relatively few in number compared to the later wave, and were replaced without having any current descendants. No or very little genetic contribution. This wouldn't be particularly unusual. The earliest _H. sapiens_ in Europe are not the direct ancestors of current Europeans. I suppose it will be sorted out when we eventually get a genome from 20k+ year-old remains.
Fabulous. I'm not American but I always find the work on the peopling of the Americas so fascinating. It was also interesting to hear about "double majoring" on a PhD in the US as this is something you can't do in the UK.
I fully understand the respecting native histories part, and why Dr Raff says it's not her job to decide which parts of it are "right" or "wrong", but I'm not sure how much good that actually does in the long run. For example in India where I'm from, the people and the culture of the Indus valley civilization is a "controversial" topic because it was British historians and archaeologists who proposed the "Indo Aryan invasion" theory, which was later discarded as colonialist nonsense. But recent genetic evidence clearly proves that there was maybe not an invasion, but definitely a migration of Indo Aryan peoples from the steppe, but now due to its similarities with the invasion theory and the prevailing nationalist narrative that Indians had the same religion from time immemorial (Hinduism), these legitimate findings and the researchers behind them aren't being given the proper funding nor permits from the authorities. Outside India, it is pretty much ubiquitously accepted in the scientific community that there were steppe migrations which contributed genetically to modern day Indians and also brought with them an early form of vedic hinduism which later fused with the local traditions to form the modern version of Hinduism. But according to many of my countrymen, and according to the "history" that much of our population believes, the Indus valley civ. was where everything related to Hinduism originated, and there were no migrations into India, but rather the reverse happened, where the people from the Indus valley migrated outside, carrying the vedic culture with them, which later became the Indo European and Iranian cultures. As a result, researchers who are seen as the pro "steppe migration" theorists are not given as much backing or are pressured to not reveal their findings, and making things harder for them in general. Even the unbiased ones who research this topic are under the pressure to not present their findings in any way alluding to the migrations to satisfy the prevailing sentiments of our population. I think it's really sad such priceless scientific discoveries in my country are being subjected to pressures from modern political ideologies, which haven't even existed for a hundredth of the duration that these remains have. I know Native Americans were really F'ed over by the colonisation, much much more than us, and I know the importance they place on their sovereignity as a result, but I can't help but think of the parallels between their situation and ours, and the potential ramifications of appearing to give equal validity/ respect to the "history" as believed by the descendant populations, and actual scientific discoveries.
I did the full sequence mitochondrial test my maternal grandmother was Creek. The Creeks are supposed to have came from Mexico or further south. My mtdna matches have many hispanic people.
Regarding a possible Viking genetic connection between Europe and North-American. I’m Icelandic and took my first DNA test 6 years ago and was a bit shocked by the number of DNA relatives I had in the US. There was quite a significant migration from Iceland to Canada in the late 19th century so part of it was certainly related to that but those were easy to separate from the rest and only represented a small percentage of those matches. Looking closer at those cousin matches I subsequently discovered that they all traced their lineages to Colonial America, Melungeons (culture that I only discovered because of researching these matches) and East Coast NA tribes… from Mi’kmaq in the north to Algonquin and Cherokee tribes in the south. Further research showed that it was coming through all my grandparents lines and I have found this connection between these same clusters/populations and all Icelanders who’s DNA cousin matches I have looked at in this detail. The segment sizes are usually not very large but quite numerous so this connection is likely to be 200-300 years old at least. Even though there are some larger shared segments with some of these matches, up to 16cM long but, then could very well to be an artefact of the endogamy in Iceland and many of these population groups. Now, there are many possible avenues for this unexplained genetic link. An unrecorded Icelander amongst the early colonists. The Basque whalers that frequented those costs on both sides of the Atlantic during the 16th and 17th centuries, English “pirate” traders during the same time, the Hernhutters (Moravian Church) that had missions with many of these tribes etc. etc. But none of those connections are documented. The more I’ve looked at it, based on how widespread this link seems to be within the Icelandic population and along the East Coast, I’ve begun to suspect that it is even earlier… either related to the Greenland Norse or those earlier voyages that either left some DNA behind on the North American East Coast or may have brought someone (or more) with them back from North America to Iceland. Magnified by endogamy in those population groups on both sides of the Atlantic. Might be an interesting topic for some future research 😊
I'm glad I somehow stumbled my way into the field of archaeology. Every archaeologist I've met has been super chill, down to earth, and just someone I could see myself getting a beer and having a chat with. Super amateur archaeologist myself with a hard case of imposter syndrome, but everyone I've met, from the fresh out of school shovel bums, to the 60 some odd year old scholar, has made me feel accepted, it's been wild. Sorry this is off topic, but keep up the good work doc.
36:42 On your point, I've made a few videos about how my DNA results changed since my initial results and I now understand that things change a lot. Luckily for me I've traced my family tree back to Rhys Ap Gruffudd, so I can confidently say that at least ONE line of my family goes back 1000 years in Wales but I can't say the same for ALL the other Lines. AND If you need a quick example of how "where you live now, doesn't translate to prehistory" You need only look to the USA. Spanish settlement around 1500 and English settlement around 1600. People who can trace your ancestry back to the original settlement, that does not mean you are English NOW, it means some of your ancestors WERE THEN.
Per your last sentence, some then does not equal one now. Yes. Some people will follow one line back and back, but ignore or deprecate the other 31 of their 32 G-G-G-Grandparents
It's claimed the Sahara desert oscillates between grassland and desert. Seems that should work as a pulse to move populations out of Africa. Every time the land of plenty turns to the valley of death, some of the population loses access to Sub-Saharan Africa. With population growth, the easier place to expand is Out Of Africa. It's the heartbeat of human dispersal. I'm really enjoying y'all's work.👏
Well, the best known example being the Egyptian dynasties along the Nile then maybe not necessarily being driven 'out of Africa' but also just moving to other areas inside Africa.
This is really interesting to me because I was raised Mormon and was taught that native Americans were Jewish emigrants from the Middle East. I don't believe that and there's no evidence anywhere that that's true
It is interesting that the LDS leaders now have changed that line of rhetoric with their essay on DNA. Most LDS will never read it bc it is hidden 3 clicks deep on the website. Simon Southerton a former LDS member and current DNA expert has done a few spots on the Mormon Stories Podcast talking about the DNA and the Laminates. We were lied to for sure.
@@SandraBonney the entire Book of Mormon is premised on the idea that the family of Lehi and Sarai in 600 BC left from Jerusalem and made it to the "new world" in the Americas and that is who the Laminites (today's First Nation people) come from. AND then DNA became a thing and the church has no idea how to circle that square. I can't believe I believed that for 45 years. Oh boy.
Really compelling interview, sir! *applause* When Dr Raff said "paradigm shift", I was so excited because its proof positive that archaeology maybe slow to change, but the field itself is always evolving with time. Paradigm shifts occur when we have to completely change our fundamental understanding. And I love that she is all about respecting indigenous rights in regards to her field. That is HUGE! Massive respect. Also glad the Trans Pacific link was discussed. yay! At least NZ is present on the map @57:24 - always nice to see! :D That diagram is fantastic. It really gives you a better perspective of the haplogroups movements. How do you account for the Monte Verde date (14.6 ka) if the Ice Free Coridoor only opens up circa 14 ka? That's alot of space in between yeah? 600 years or so?! Enough time for a group of people to travel from the top of the continent to the bottom or vice versa?!
Thanks! I think most scholars of the early Americas are starting to come around to a kelp highway model for migration into the continents. So, along the Pacific coast. This accounts for the speed of movement south and seems to line up with lots of the evidence
Thankyou both for a really interesting discussion, with the frisson of the 'population Y' stuff at the end. As said, things will change - either refining or overturning as more samples. both ancient and recent are added. Tangentially I've recently read the late Jean Manco's two books on Celts & Anglo-Saxons which seemed to try and pull together the separate strands of archaeology, DNA and linguistics into a coherent narrative (and well referenced, too) from as far back as we can identify their pre-historic roots. So this conversation fell nicely into things I'm interested as a layperson albeit in a different region and deeper depth of time. I will be getting a copy of Dr Raff's book to read. Dr Raff's comments on engaging with Native American peoples for the work was also interesting: Each group, each set of testing, having its own wants or interests that by the sounds of it vary very much from instance to instance. 'I'm sort-of familiar with the Tāmaki Makaurau Accord regarding display of Human remains, but I'm not sure how that impacts dealing with DNA material. Are there later international protocols for them specifically or does it fall within the overriding arch of it?
I am not an Americanist, so take this with me not having in depth knowledge on how it is governed everywhere On a legal level, all this is governed federally by NAGPRA which requires permission for study of any human remains or grave goods from a federally recognized tribe that is demonstrated to be descendants of the ancestors in question However there are also state laws that have additional impact. Because some tribes are recognized at state level but not federal level Finally there are ethical rules created by universities or archaeological institutions or even journals that guide the study and publication of such ancestors. These are important too
Thank you both for this! Regarding ethics, Al Jazeera's recent documentary about Eske Willerslev's journey with this in connection with Kennewick man is pretty interesting. Also, is my memory playing tricks on me or are there older theories arguing for a peopling of the Americas around 25,000 years ago? I remember being surprised when I heard about the Clovis first hypothesis as a young adult, because I could've sworn that growing up this is the figure I learned. And I'm older than both of you.
@@rdklkje13 from what I've gleaned after countless hours of listening to lectures on N. A. archeology and learning the general arc of professional knowledge, Clovis was radical concept to the old guard, especially the likes of Hrdlicka, who insisted on a settlement timeline of only a few millenia before present. Clovis pushed the date back way further than anyone prior dared to consider. Consequently there was a lot of pushback to the discovery and proposed dates for Clovis. I don't know of any contemporary theories that proposed anything older. You have to remember the prevailing attitudes among most American archaeologists in the early 20th century were strongly tied to the vestiges of scientific racism and often served a narrative used to justify manifest destiny.
My tribe the Ojibwe before contact lived on the east coast of Canada.. a few hundred years before contact we started another migration towards center of North American craton.. the reasons for this are related to present times.. I've also heard something about the Ojibway tribe having something interesting in their genome.. I've also heard of the possibility of a difference in their teeth.. some having more scalloped teeth n other more wedged.
Clovis First as a theory lasted decades longer that it should have. Tom Dillehay faced calls for his firing, his students couldn’t get work, or he refused to let his students work at Monte Verde in order to not ruin their careers. The debate around the Peopling of the America’s is a case study in academic gatekeeping. I think making the statement that the debate was rigorous is a bit of gaslighting. Careers were ruined, funding cut, invitations to speak at conferences were pulled or not issued. It’s a big black eye on the field that everyone today seems to want to pretend didn’t happen.
After watching this yesterday and thinking about it all evening, I had to come back and ask. Is it possible that we are misidentifying the location of this Berengian Pause, and that these first peoples got into North America before the LGM, and then the three way split that we are seeing is the ancient berengians moving back north and the NNA and SNA splitting somewhere in western North America? Maybe NNA were more inland like the Great Basin and followed the retreating glaciers and its familiar ecosystem, and the SNA living more coastally like California and continued that lifestyle while migrating south?
White sands New Mexico foot print's of humans along side of mastodons and giant sloth. Play carbonated seeds that were under the footprints of humans in carbon dated them to 23,000 years ago.
Fits nicely with the Solutrean hypothesis which they forget to mention in videos like this one. And this geneticist is saying how it does not match any of her data involving people arriving from the east........
Our tribe the Ojibwe have clans.. they each carry different teaching and responsibilities.. there is a story of the deer clan.. they started living in an immoral way.. intermarriage within the clan.. there is no more deer clan.. also a big part of indigenous society was intermarriage between different tribes.. this led to building better relationships and coexistence.
This episode was great! Am wondering, is there a list of the source papers you discussed in the interview? Would like to learn more, especially about the Population Y paper. Also, what are the best ways to keep up with new developments in this area? Thanks!
Jenny did not send me one, and unfortunately these weeks I am super busy. I'd suggest starting with her book and the suggested reading in there Or the review article that she did recommend that is in the details of the video and look at it's biblio
In the UK we know it was possible for our ancestors to walk across the North Sea to Scandinavia and mainland Europe up to 5,000 years ago. As the sea levels rose there was no time when the water became so wide it completely divided us from our mainland relatives. Up until the centuries immediately before the Roman's arrived we were using coins minted in Europe as currency on the island of Britain. As a sailor myself, it is self evident to me that trade via waterways is far far easier than trade over land. There is plenty of evidence of Neolithic sea going craft. I think today we really underestimate the difficulty of travelling and transporting goods overland without roads or even wheels.
Each time I see an episode I learn so much. I'm excited to see what the next one is going to be. A view on what we know about the domestication of animals would be very interesting. Especially the notion that it happened several times and by very different peoples. I often wonder where the first person lived that had the idea of climbing on the back of a horse...
@@FlintDibbleNot half as brave as the first hominin to open a crab & eat it! Probably without cooking at first. I suppose seeing other mammals eat them might've helped but even so, what with the dead men's fingers (gills) and all it's a right old goopy mess in there. As a kid growing up in a small Devon fishing port (Brixham) my first remote controlled toys were big cock crabs & a wooden spoon & opening them up, even after cooking, my first thought definitely wasn't "Om nom nom!" 😆🦀
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that all the great inventions and innovations made by human beings happened in many places and at many different times. Because we're all smart enough for that.
Thank you for the great content. A very good interview and exchange. Best regards from Germany. 🇩🇪 one question around 17:12 she talks about treating indigenous people right somehow- what does this means? I can not understand the relation of ancient DNA and that people topic? It feels like a mine field as you she talks a long and I just do not get it.
Thank you so much for a great talk. But I so much want to hear about the single person who is in a separate genome and I’m wondering if that information is available across the net, because that’s the first time I’ve heard of that.
Question. 🙋🏿♂️ I have done big y-700, full mtdna extensive family research. I want to know how I have a mtdna match who is Listed as Mexican! He shares the same Maternal Haplogroup as me. “L2a1a2a1a” his paternal haplogroup is “J” How is he Native American? Another thing I would like to know is where is the results for the ancient dna for East coast Native Americans? Who do they descend from?
A great discussion on a wonderful subject! Learned a lot of new information. Im surprised though that there wasnt any mention of Naia or HN5/48 found in Hoyo Negro. I heard she is the most genetically complete and oldest ancient American found. Thanks Jennifer and Flint!
Doctor Raff, I tend to agree with you about Asian DNA; however, from time to time I have friends that swear that at one time there was a group of Middle Eastern peoples that settled in the Americas from about 2,000 to I,OO0 BCE, forming a major civilization.. I do not believe them, as a result of my readings in genetics, but my present understanding does not preclude information I may have not heard of. Is there any evidence anywhere in the Americas of such a Middle Eastern settlement? Now 83, a retired professor, I try to learn history, archaeology, genetics, and linguistic from academically-trained professionals who are peer reviewed, so when I meet pseudo scientists who make such claims as those who almost testify that a Middle-Eastern civilization once existed in the Americas, I want to respond with the best scientific information presently available to me. My academic background is English, Spanish, and Reading. As a hobby, almost, I have studied the Romans in Europe, the Hopewell in the United States, and the Amerindians in most of the archaeological sites in Mexico, including Mesoamerica.
I personally have never heard of that. However I do know that sometimes people make up stories about history in order to justify their actions. Like if middle eastern people were in the Americas before any European, then that justifies their right to be in the Americas, and the right to spread Islam. And no, my native American relatives never heard of them ever being here.
This is perfect! Hopefully you can do a similar episode on ancient Egypt and pre dynastic DNA. Away from afrocentrics and Eurocentric. We need this kind of studies especially since there's lots of groups trying to claim to be related to ancient Egypt! A man in some state went to TV few years ago and claimed to be direct descentants of Ramses just because he has a parental haplogroup or something. We need actual science not strange therapeutic myth!
As a seven-year-old going as a tourist to Mesa Verde Historical site in Colorado I can recall a display of a female Native American skeleton which contained the fetus of an unborn child still within her skeleton. I am certain at this point those remains have been respectively removed from display and interred by the tribal group to which the skeleton belonged.
Do I remember wrong, or did they actually found some native american DNA that entered in Iceland some 1000 years ago? Wouldn't that mean that there was also genetic evidence of Vikings entering Americas? (Although not where you would expect to find it). Did they prove the found false, or did they find better explanation for the findings?
Around 1:04, Flint talks about how his work in Greece requires permission from the current Greek government and equates that to permission from the "descendant community", which might be true for Greece to some extent, depending on the age of the material he's dealing with. But even there, if you're going back far enough, aren't you really dealing with descendants of the people who replaced those you're studying? Or for another example with more a clear cut distinction: If you're looking in Anatolia, is the Turkish government really a meaningful descendant of even the Byzantines, much less the Hittites or the Tas Tepelar sites? Does that kind of conquest really convey more legitimacy than the US has? Around the world, isn't the basic rule the same as it is in the US? Permission for such research lies with government that has political control over the land. They may (and should!) consider the wishes of groups with cultural or genetic ties to the sites, but that's not really the common rule, is it?
Given that much of the research on Native American genetic ancestry is based on modern population DNA, how is our modern understanding affected by post-Columbian events like deadly pandemics of European diseases, migration and potential genetic mingling or division caused by displacement, etc.?
When we are retrieving human remains from archaeological sites in the UK we do not consider ethical issues of sovereignty of our ancestors. We already know, even if we are descendants of these people we have no claim over what their beliefs and values were and consequently no way of accomodating their "sensitivities". Perhaps these considerations are a case of "Presentism", giving contemporary indigenous people more sovereignty over their ancestor's remains than their ancestor's would have demanded? I think this is a case of standpoint epistemology, which is anti science and projecting contemporary issues onto a people that may have nothing to do with them. I have worked with Aboriginal people here in Australia. I have experienced first hand how assuming contemporary peoples have special insight into people they are told are their distant ancestors can put them into very intimidating positions. Indigenous political organisation once relied on cultural knowledge being held by 'elders'. If the elders are not present then science can be accused of unfairly pushing people into unearned or illegitimate positions that they can be criticised for by the remainder of their group I have seen the resentment and jealousy this assumption by liberalism can stir up in a people struggling to live as modern people..
Much of our history and world view is built right into the language.. check out indigenous linguist James vukelich.. he can provide much insight as well as connection to great cultural resources. He can talk about word origins of words that go back to ice age times.. words that are still in songs we sing to this day.
Isn't the native population of Australia evidence that people have been seafarers for something like 50,000 years? During the last glacial period, they wouldn't even have to get out of sight of land to get to California from Mongolia. Also, ice is fresh water. Fat is food and fuel. I'd think I wouldn't need my corridor to be particularly ice-free if I was headed south from Alaska. I'd just need it to be passable. I expect I'd rather pull a sled full of provisions on snow than on dirt even if there was plenty of dirt. Saying that to ask. Do archeologist always keep digging to 50,000 year old sediments when they are excavating wonderful places to hunt and gather? I'd want them to. (Can't find a Denisovan if you don't look:)
Would like to have seen a discussion of the Solutrean hypothesis and the South American anomalies such as origins of yams, chickens and 60,000 year old cooking fires in Chili which seek an much older demographic source of immigration…
1. “Things keep getting older” is not a reference to headlines. People barely know when a war starts from headlines. Hancock was referencing the rigidity of uniformity academics v/s catastrophist theory. 2. Fossils are very rare considering the millions of creatures who lived previously and the massive geologic changes have done their part to erase traces.
So, did Dr. Raff say that no research should be done if a native population is harmed? So this means that research that might lead to a more factual conclusion is not pursued so that a less factual conclusion is allowed to continue? I know that’s what she said. I know that’s what she means. Thus, to Dr. Raff, she would rather perpetuate myth over fact. I was going to read her book ‘Origin’. Now, however, I will not be doing so. I am so very disappointed if this represents the standard approach to advancing science and understanding; if tradition and myth is challenged, shit down the advancement of knowledge.
Permission from the descendent communities, and if it is demonstrated that there is no relevant descendant community then one needs permission from the custodial community. Not being biologically or culturally connected to the people who left traces on/in the land you occupy does not free one from treating those traces with culturally significant respect.
Can you imagine what the first people to cross the rockies thought! Those massive empty plains, the game! A very rare if not unique experience after years of hardship.
It's been suggested that some now extinct Indian tribes (the Mandans I've heard for one) were blonde and light eyed. Is field work being done in known home ranges of tribes to study their differences. Can you tell the difference genetically between an Inca and an Iroquois?
Far too apologetic. 'Native Americans' should be studied the same as anyone else. It seems to me that if the results were too controversial they'd be buried
I agree. And I can't study ancient Greek archaeology without permission from the modern Greek people, as represented by the modern Greek state. Can't study ancient British people without permission from those who are current stakeholders and caretakers of the land Same should be true for Indigenous Americans. They deserve to have a say in how their ancestors are studied just like other peoples around the world have such a say. And the US government specifically enacted legislation that has been around for about 3 decades in order to ensure that. It's a good thing
This argument reminds me of the Sapiens out of Africa argument: we have some dates...and then we keep getting some clues hinting or proving that there were more migrations than just Preneanderthals, and then Sapiens at around 70 000 BCE.
The bottom line is that the true indigenous of N.A. came during LGM from an ancient mix of ancient Siberian/Eurasian peoples who walked in from another continent. Period. How people make that controversial is just silly and motivated by money.
I’ve just watched a Bloomberg video on computer encryption and how difficult it is to crack a code into its constituent primary number components. I think it’s the same for DNA and I don’t trust how scientists are interpreting DNA, I think a lot more scrutiny needs to applied to this field of science, I don’t trust it yet. However it is on the right track. My uncertainty comes from the fact that native African DNA seems to be more rich and diversified than 2 populations on different ends of the planet. It doesn’t make sense that a population in one continent have far more diversification than continents separated by thousands of miles. That’s why I don’t trust this scientific process.
The diversity in Africa is because of the genetic bottleneck created when only a small percentage of the human population who lived in prehistoric Africa migrated out of africa, eventually to all corners of the world It's a well demonstrated and repeatedly tested fact that has been proven many times in the face of critics over the last few decades
It would be interesting to see you interview Native archaeologists instead of just more white "experts" who usually have very little contact or relationships with Native people. It gives the usual Eurocentric know-it-all that profits off of Native people bjt does nothing to actually promote real life Native people
For sure and Dr Raff is one of the best at collaborating and working closely with Indigenous people. We discuss that at length in the conversation I expect to be doing an interview with a native archaeologist later this month, and will continue to work hard at lifting up and empowering a diverse range of voices on archaeological topics
The natives of America killed, enslaved, subjugated, tortured, controlled territory, and terrorized each other long before the "white" people showed up. They were no more righteous or noble than the people with lighter skin tones that showed up and conquered the new world. Why should white people "promote" them?
@@ET3Roberts One, no one is claiming natives to be saints. They're human and are capable of atrocities like any other human society. Two, according to your own logic, don't you think that the same people who tortured, enslaved, and went to war with each other would be best equipped to talk about their history of committing such acts? To be clear, I see no problem with white people discussing the history of others if they know what they are talking about.
That is not maximum paranoia. The researcher still has skin exposed. They could wear a full-face mask. Maximum paranoia would be to tape the hood to the full-face mask.
Americans owe Native Americans a presidency. Native Americans originated from the Black Ball at the center of the Earth ,same as the Europeans.🧿 They came to America by rivers connecting the oceans 5,000 years ago.🦠🐡🐳🦭🦛👫
Support this channel with a Super Thanks or become a channel member today for some behind-the-scenes perks!
Or buy me a coffee at: www.ko-fi.com/flintdibble or subscribe at: www.patreon.com/flintdibble
Just to correct one misconception. They didn't come over chasing wooly mammoths. It was Chihuahuas using domesticated humans searching for a warmer climate. Chihuahuas hate the cold. So they rode humans across and down until they reached a snow free environment which happened to be the Chihuahuan Desert which of course is too close to be just coincidence. The eastern effort (Meadowbrook) was different as they also like to find new things to bark at, groundhogs being one example. You can use this in your next books if you like but I will need a box of extra small milkbones.
@@tscully1504 😄
It all started with chihuahuas.
😂😂😂
mulder here. scully, you have some proper insight. noice. (did not watch the vid, no time right now, but i assume it is all mindwashing). for sclly to ponder about something, did you know that ppl fknthousnds of years ago knew about plank length and I can show it. (not here, they do not allow me to share it here -- they hate the truth)
@@tscully1504
I love that image. Yap yap yap all day long.
As a genealogist, ancient DNA and archeology is an interesting and exciting field to follow.
Thanks for having Jennifer Raff as a guest. Her perspective was captivating.
Bravo!
Definitely. She rocks!
so you know you are working for the criminal demon chi11uminatt1, rite? if you dont, i have some bad news for you.
As a person whose passions are archaeology and genealogy/DNA. What a great interview! Thank you very much!
😊 thanks!
Oh you dabble in archeology? I Dibble.
Dibble Dabble?
@@peteybpb - Double Dibble in the family?
@@ihateyourmum1000 you ARE fruity, you know that?
I dribble, but I’m elderly. It’s an issue.
Groan
Oh man, I cannot tell you how cool this whole event was for me- just seeing all of these experts gushing about their areas of expertise, the openness and willingness to be proven wrong if it means we learn more about the world, it's everything to me!
I think the most parsimonious explanation for genetic evidence not accommodating these very early dates -- especially White Sands, but also Rimrock Draw in Eastern Oregon (~18kya) -- is that these very early people were relatively few in number compared to the later wave, and were replaced without having any current descendants. No or very little genetic contribution.
This wouldn't be particularly unusual. The earliest _H. sapiens_ in Europe are not the direct ancestors of current Europeans.
I suppose it will be sorted out when we eventually get a genome from 20k+ year-old remains.
Fabulous. I'm not American but I always find the work on the peopling of the Americas so fascinating.
It was also interesting to hear about "double majoring" on a PhD in the US as this is something you can't do in the UK.
I fully understand the respecting native histories part, and why Dr Raff says it's not her job to decide which parts of it are "right" or "wrong", but I'm not sure how much good that actually does in the long run. For example in India where I'm from, the people and the culture of the Indus valley civilization is a "controversial" topic because it was British historians and archaeologists who proposed the "Indo Aryan invasion" theory, which was later discarded as colonialist nonsense. But recent genetic evidence clearly proves that there was maybe not an invasion, but definitely a migration of Indo Aryan peoples from the steppe, but now due to its similarities with the invasion theory and the prevailing nationalist narrative that Indians had the same religion from time immemorial (Hinduism), these legitimate findings and the researchers behind them aren't being given the proper funding nor permits from the authorities.
Outside India, it is pretty much ubiquitously accepted in the scientific community that there were steppe migrations which contributed genetically to modern day Indians and also brought with them an early form of vedic hinduism which later fused with the local traditions to form the modern version of Hinduism. But according to many of my countrymen, and according to the "history" that much of our population believes, the Indus valley civ. was where everything related to Hinduism originated, and there were no migrations into India, but rather the reverse happened, where the people from the Indus valley migrated outside, carrying the vedic culture with them, which later became the Indo European and Iranian cultures. As a result, researchers who are seen as the pro "steppe migration" theorists are not given as much backing or are pressured to not reveal their findings, and making things harder for them in general. Even the unbiased ones who research this topic are under the pressure to not present their findings in any way alluding to the migrations to satisfy the prevailing sentiments of our population.
I think it's really sad such priceless scientific discoveries in my country are being subjected to pressures from modern political ideologies, which haven't even existed for a hundredth of the duration that these remains have. I know Native Americans were really F'ed over by the colonisation, much much more than us, and I know the importance they place on their sovereignity as a result, but I can't help but think of the parallels between their situation and ours, and the potential ramifications of appearing to give equal validity/ respect to the "history" as believed by the descendant populations, and actual scientific discoveries.
Thanks for posting. Always interesting guests and topics.
Hell yea!
I did the full sequence mitochondrial test my maternal grandmother was Creek. The Creeks are supposed to have came from Mexico or further south. My mtdna matches have many hispanic people.
Regarding a possible Viking genetic connection between Europe and North-American. I’m Icelandic and took my first DNA test 6 years ago and was a bit shocked by the number of DNA relatives I had in the US. There was quite a significant migration from Iceland to Canada in the late 19th century so part of it was certainly related to that but those were easy to separate from the rest and only represented a small percentage of those matches. Looking closer at those cousin matches I subsequently discovered that they all traced their lineages to Colonial America, Melungeons (culture that I only discovered because of researching these matches) and East Coast NA tribes… from Mi’kmaq in the north to Algonquin and Cherokee tribes in the south.
Further research showed that it was coming through all my grandparents lines and I have found this connection between these same clusters/populations and all Icelanders who’s DNA cousin matches I have looked at in this detail. The segment sizes are usually not very large but quite numerous so this connection is likely to be 200-300 years old at least. Even though there are some larger shared segments with some of these matches, up to 16cM long but, then could very well to be an artefact of the endogamy in Iceland and many of these population groups.
Now, there are many possible avenues for this unexplained genetic link. An unrecorded Icelander amongst the early colonists. The Basque whalers that frequented those costs on both sides of the Atlantic during the 16th and 17th centuries, English “pirate” traders during the same time, the Hernhutters (Moravian Church) that had missions with many of these tribes etc. etc. But none of those connections are documented.
The more I’ve looked at it, based on how widespread this link seems to be within the Icelandic population and along the East Coast, I’ve begun to suspect that it is even earlier… either related to the Greenland Norse or those earlier voyages that either left some DNA behind on the North American East Coast or may have brought someone (or more) with them back from North America to Iceland. Magnified by endogamy in those population groups on both sides of the Atlantic.
Might be an interesting topic for some future research 😊
I'm glad I somehow stumbled my way into the field of archaeology. Every archaeologist I've met has been super chill, down to earth, and just someone I could see myself getting a beer and having a chat with. Super amateur archaeologist myself with a hard case of imposter syndrome, but everyone I've met, from the fresh out of school shovel bums, to the 60 some odd year old scholar, has made me feel accepted, it's been wild.
Sorry this is off topic, but keep up the good work doc.
36:42 On your point, I've made a few videos about how my DNA results changed since my initial results and I now understand that things change a lot. Luckily for me I've traced my family tree back to Rhys Ap Gruffudd, so I can confidently say that at least ONE line of my family goes back 1000 years in Wales but I can't say the same for ALL the other Lines. AND If you need a quick example of how "where you live now, doesn't translate to prehistory" You need only look to the USA. Spanish settlement around 1500 and English settlement around 1600. People who can trace your ancestry back to the original settlement, that does not mean you are English NOW, it means some of your ancestors WERE THEN.
Per your last sentence, some then does not equal one now. Yes. Some people will follow one line back and back, but ignore or deprecate the other 31 of their 32 G-G-G-Grandparents
common Dibble W
Great conversation! Thank you for bringing around experts.
💯
Cool video, thanks for all the discussion!
Read the book not too long after it came out. Highly recommended!
It's claimed the Sahara desert oscillates between grassland and desert. Seems that should work as a pulse to move populations out of Africa. Every time the land of plenty turns to the valley of death, some of the population loses access to Sub-Saharan Africa. With population growth, the easier place to expand is Out Of Africa.
It's the heartbeat of human dispersal.
I'm really enjoying y'all's work.👏
Well, the best known example being the Egyptian dynasties along the Nile then maybe not necessarily being driven 'out of Africa' but also just moving to other areas inside Africa.
This is really interesting to me because I was raised Mormon and was taught that native Americans were Jewish emigrants from the Middle East. I don't believe that and there's no evidence anywhere that that's true
It is interesting that the LDS leaders now have changed that line of rhetoric with their essay on DNA. Most LDS will never read it bc it is hidden 3 clicks deep on the website. Simon Southerton a former LDS member and current DNA expert has done a few spots on the Mormon Stories Podcast talking about the DNA and the Laminates. We were lied to for sure.
Good for you for going with solid evidence!
@@nathanbigler what? That is so weird😜
most J are not J, but infiltrator kazaaamaff. like 95% of them. it has been a looooong war, that 99% of ppl refuse to understand
@@SandraBonney the entire Book of Mormon is premised on the idea that the family of Lehi and Sarai in 600 BC left from Jerusalem and made it to the "new world" in the Americas and that is who the Laminites (today's First Nation people) come from. AND then DNA became a thing and the church has no idea how to circle that square. I can't believe I believed that for 45 years. Oh boy.
Thanks for the excellent presentation!
Thanks!
Thank you for this great interview, especially the discussion at the end. Myths and oral tradition can give ideas and inspiration 😊
Thanks Chris!
Really compelling interview, sir! *applause*
When Dr Raff said "paradigm shift", I was so excited because its proof positive that archaeology maybe slow to change, but the field itself is always evolving with time. Paradigm shifts occur when we have to completely change our fundamental understanding. And I love that she is all about respecting indigenous rights in regards to her field. That is HUGE! Massive respect.
Also glad the Trans Pacific link was discussed. yay!
At least NZ is present on the map @57:24 - always nice to see! :D
That diagram is fantastic. It really gives you a better perspective of the haplogroups movements.
How do you account for the Monte Verde date (14.6 ka) if the Ice Free Coridoor only opens up circa 14 ka? That's alot of space in between yeah? 600 years or so?!
Enough time for a group of people to travel from the top of the continent to the bottom or vice versa?!
Thanks!
I think most scholars of the early Americas are starting to come around to a kelp highway model for migration into the continents. So, along the Pacific coast. This accounts for the speed of movement south and seems to line up with lots of the evidence
@@FlintDibble Totally makes sense, better food options while on the move! Great interview, keep em coming! and Congrats on 25K
@@FlintDibble Though as she suggested here, possibly not as an explanation for the earliest sites.
Thankyou both for a really interesting discussion, with the frisson of the 'population Y' stuff at the end. As said, things will change - either refining or overturning as more samples. both ancient and recent are added.
Tangentially I've recently read the late Jean Manco's two books on Celts & Anglo-Saxons which seemed to try and pull together the separate strands of archaeology, DNA and linguistics into a coherent narrative (and well referenced, too) from as far back as we can identify their pre-historic roots. So this conversation fell nicely into things I'm interested as a layperson albeit in a different region and deeper depth of time. I will be getting a copy of Dr Raff's book to read.
Dr Raff's comments on engaging with Native American peoples for the work was also interesting: Each group, each set of testing, having its own wants or interests that by the sounds of it vary very much from instance to instance.
'I'm sort-of familiar with the Tāmaki Makaurau Accord regarding display of Human remains, but I'm not sure how that impacts dealing with DNA material. Are there later international protocols for them specifically or does it fall within the overriding arch of it?
I am not an Americanist, so take this with me not having in depth knowledge on how it is governed everywhere
On a legal level, all this is governed federally by NAGPRA which requires permission for study of any human remains or grave goods from a federally recognized tribe that is demonstrated to be descendants of the ancestors in question
However there are also state laws that have additional impact. Because some tribes are recognized at state level but not federal level
Finally there are ethical rules created by universities or archaeological institutions or even journals that guide the study and publication of such ancestors. These are important too
Solid work. Great show
Thanks!
Soo interesting that there are more archaeological finds than genetic sequences of them; yay, more informations will turn up! Thanks for your work!
Thanks!
Jenny is great. She’s smart and personable, and a great science communicator. Her whole family is that way.
Thank you both for this!
Regarding ethics, Al Jazeera's recent documentary about Eske Willerslev's journey with this in connection with Kennewick man is pretty interesting.
Also, is my memory playing tricks on me or are there older theories arguing for a peopling of the Americas around 25,000 years ago? I remember being surprised when I heard about the Clovis first hypothesis as a young adult, because I could've sworn that growing up this is the figure I learned. And I'm older than both of you.
The recently discovered footprints at White Sands National Park date to 23,000 years ago.
@@MossyMozart I know. But I learned that figure more than 40 years ago, when we didn’t know about those 🤔
Not sure. As I'm not an Americanist and when I was an undergrad, Clovis first was already on its way out
@@rdklkje13 from what I've gleaned after countless hours of listening to lectures on N. A. archeology and learning the general arc of professional knowledge, Clovis was radical concept to the old guard, especially the likes of Hrdlicka, who insisted on a settlement timeline of only a few millenia before present. Clovis pushed the date back way further than anyone prior dared to consider. Consequently there was a lot of pushback to the discovery and proposed dates for Clovis. I don't know of any contemporary theories that proposed anything older. You have to remember the prevailing attitudes among most American archaeologists in the early 20th century were strongly tied to the vestiges of scientific racism and often served a narrative used to justify manifest destiny.
My tribe the Ojibwe before contact lived on the east coast of Canada.. a few hundred years before contact we started another migration towards center of North American craton.. the reasons for this are related to present times.. I've also heard something about the Ojibway tribe having something interesting in their genome.. I've also heard of the possibility of a difference in their teeth.. some having more scalloped teeth n other more wedged.
Clovis First as a theory lasted decades longer that it should have. Tom Dillehay faced calls for his firing, his students couldn’t get work, or he refused to let his students work at Monte Verde in order to not ruin their careers. The debate around the Peopling of the America’s is a case study in academic gatekeeping. I think making the statement that the debate was rigorous is a bit of gaslighting. Careers were ruined, funding cut, invitations to speak at conferences were pulled or not issued. It’s a big black eye on the field that everyone today seems to want to pretend didn’t happen.
After watching this yesterday and thinking about it all evening, I had to come back and ask. Is it possible that we are misidentifying the location of this Berengian Pause, and that these first peoples got into North America before the LGM, and then the three way split that we are seeing is the ancient berengians moving back north and the NNA and SNA splitting somewhere in western North America? Maybe NNA were more inland like the Great Basin and followed the retreating glaciers and its familiar ecosystem, and the SNA living more coastally like California and continued that lifestyle while migrating south?
I definitely think with more evidence in time and space, the picture will be refined
White sands New Mexico foot print's of humans along side of mastodons and giant sloth. Play carbonated seeds that were under the footprints of humans in carbon dated them to 23,000 years ago.
Fits nicely with the Solutrean hypothesis which they forget to mention in videos like this one. And this geneticist is saying how it does not match any of her data involving people arriving from the east........
@@forestdweller5581 But it doesn't. The White Sands footprints would predate the Solutreans in Europe.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Not at all. The Solutrean period is from 28 thousand years ago.
Our tribe the Ojibwe have clans.. they each carry different teaching and responsibilities.. there is a story of the deer clan.. they started living in an immoral way.. intermarriage within the clan.. there is no more deer clan.. also a big part of indigenous society was intermarriage between different tribes.. this led to building better relationships and coexistence.
This episode was great! Am wondering, is there a list of the source papers you discussed in the interview? Would like to learn more, especially about the Population Y paper. Also, what are the best ways to keep up with new developments in this area? Thanks!
Jenny did not send me one, and unfortunately these weeks I am super busy. I'd suggest starting with her book and the suggested reading in there
Or the review article that she did recommend that is in the details of the video and look at it's biblio
In the UK we know it was possible for our ancestors to walk across the North Sea to Scandinavia and mainland Europe up to 5,000 years ago.
As the sea levels rose there was no time when the water became so wide it completely divided us from our mainland relatives.
Up until the centuries immediately before the Roman's arrived we were using coins minted in Europe as currency on the island of Britain.
As a sailor myself, it is self evident to me that trade via waterways is far far easier than trade over land. There is plenty of evidence of Neolithic sea going craft.
I think today we really underestimate the difficulty of travelling and transporting goods overland without roads or even wheels.
I read Dr. Raff's book. I just have one question. What happened to the polar bear who was hunting her Point Barrow dig?
Each time I see an episode I learn so much. I'm excited to see what the next one is going to be.
A view on what we know about the domestication of animals would be very interesting. Especially the notion that it happened several times and by very different peoples. I often wonder where the first person lived that had the idea of climbing on the back of a horse...
Thanks filososabke! Yes, I will definitely cover that topic, probably several times
@@FlintDibbleNot half as brave as the first hominin to open a crab & eat it! Probably without cooking at first.
I suppose seeing other mammals eat them might've helped but even so, what with the dead men's fingers (gills) and all it's a right old goopy mess in there.
As a kid growing up in a small Devon fishing port (Brixham) my first remote controlled toys were big cock crabs & a wooden spoon & opening them up, even after cooking, my first thought definitely wasn't "Om nom nom!" 😆🦀
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that all the great inventions and innovations made by human beings happened in many places and at many different times. Because we're all smart enough for that.
Thank you for the great content. A very good interview and exchange. Best regards from Germany. 🇩🇪 one question around 17:12 she talks about treating indigenous people right somehow- what does this means? I can not understand the relation of ancient DNA and that people topic? It feels like a mine field as you she talks a long and I just do not get it.
Thank you so much for a great talk. But I so much want to hear about the single person who is in a separate genome and I’m wondering if that information is available across the net, because that’s the first time I’ve heard of that.
Question. 🙋🏿♂️ I have done big y-700, full mtdna extensive family research. I want to know how I have a mtdna match who is Listed as Mexican! He shares the same Maternal Haplogroup as me. “L2a1a2a1a” his paternal haplogroup is “J” How is he Native American? Another thing I would like to know is where is the results for the ancient dna for East coast Native Americans? Who do they descend from?
A great discussion on a wonderful subject! Learned a lot of new information. Im surprised though that there wasnt any mention of Naia or HN5/48 found in Hoyo Negro. I heard she is the most genetically complete and oldest ancient American found. Thanks Jennifer and Flint!
How many generations do you estimate to our common ansestor?
VIVA LA SCIENCE ✊
Loved this ❤
Doctor Raff, I tend to agree with you about Asian DNA; however, from time to time I have friends that swear that at one time there was a group of Middle Eastern peoples that settled in the Americas from about 2,000 to I,OO0 BCE, forming a major civilization.. I do not believe them, as a result of my readings in genetics, but my present understanding does not preclude information I may have not heard of. Is there any evidence anywhere in the Americas of such a Middle Eastern settlement? Now 83, a retired professor, I try to learn history, archaeology, genetics, and linguistic from academically-trained professionals who are peer reviewed, so when I meet pseudo scientists who make such claims as those who almost testify that a Middle-Eastern civilization once existed in the Americas, I want to respond with the best scientific information presently available to me. My academic background is English, Spanish, and Reading. As a hobby, almost, I have studied the Romans in Europe, the Hopewell in the United States, and the Amerindians in most of the archaeological sites in Mexico, including Mesoamerica.
I personally have never heard of that. However I do know that sometimes people make up stories about history in order to justify their actions. Like if middle eastern people were in the Americas before any European, then that justifies their right to be in the Americas, and the right to spread Islam.
And no, my native American relatives never heard of them ever being here.
None. No Middle Easterners 2000-1000 BCE
This is perfect!
Hopefully you can do a similar episode on ancient Egypt and pre dynastic DNA. Away from afrocentrics and Eurocentric. We need this kind of studies especially since there's lots of groups trying to claim to be related to ancient Egypt!
A man in some state went to TV few years ago and claimed to be direct descentants of Ramses just because he has a parental haplogroup or something. We need actual science not strange therapeutic myth!
Can you do more Roman stuff? I'd love to learn more about the road you excavated and other topics from that time period.
I will for sure do some stuff on that! Trying to grow a bit and establish a hub for the field more widely before presenting my own research
It would seem that people get around, and models are as good as the data that is not yet understood.
As a seven-year-old going as a tourist to Mesa Verde Historical site in Colorado I can recall a display of a female Native American skeleton which contained the fetus of an unborn child still within her skeleton. I am certain at this point those remains have been respectively removed from display and interred by the tribal group to which the skeleton belonged.
Do I remember wrong, or did they actually found some native american DNA that entered in Iceland some 1000 years ago? Wouldn't that mean that there was also genetic evidence of Vikings entering Americas? (Although not where you would expect to find it). Did they prove the found false, or did they find better explanation for the findings?
Couldn't that equally be evidence of a Native American people reaching Iceland around 1000 years ago?
Around 1:04, Flint talks about how his work in Greece requires permission from the current Greek government and equates that to permission from the "descendant community", which might be true for Greece to some extent, depending on the age of the material he's dealing with. But even there, if you're going back far enough, aren't you really dealing with descendants of the people who replaced those you're studying?
Or for another example with more a clear cut distinction: If you're looking in Anatolia, is the Turkish government really a meaningful descendant of even the Byzantines, much less the Hittites or the Tas Tepelar sites? Does that kind of conquest really convey more legitimacy than the US has?
Around the world, isn't the basic rule the same as it is in the US? Permission for such research lies with government that has political control over the land. They may (and should!) consider the wishes of groups with cultural or genetic ties to the sites, but that's not really the common rule, is it?
This content is so great, it makes me sad we have to debunk conspiracies.
Given that much of the research on Native American genetic ancestry is based on modern population DNA, how is our modern understanding affected by post-Columbian events like deadly pandemics of European diseases, migration and potential genetic mingling or division caused by displacement, etc.?
Did y'all know flint dibble stars in a movie it's called "onyx the fortuitous and the talisman of souls" look it up your welcome
She has a big brain 🧠💪🏼💪🏼👍🏼👍🏼🌎🌍💚
Yay!
40:00 results.
Oh hey my professor is friends with Dr Raff
When we are retrieving human remains from archaeological sites in the UK we do not consider ethical issues of sovereignty of our ancestors.
We already know, even if we are descendants of these people we have no claim over what their beliefs and values were and consequently no way of accomodating their "sensitivities".
Perhaps these considerations are a case of "Presentism", giving contemporary indigenous people more sovereignty over their ancestor's remains than their ancestor's would have demanded?
I think this is a case of standpoint epistemology, which is anti science and projecting contemporary issues onto a people that may have nothing to do with them.
I have worked with Aboriginal people here in Australia.
I have experienced first hand how assuming contemporary peoples have special insight into people they are told are their distant ancestors can put them into very intimidating positions.
Indigenous political organisation once relied on cultural knowledge being held by 'elders'. If the elders are not present then science can be accused of unfairly pushing people into unearned or illegitimate positions that they can be criticised for by the remainder of their group
I have seen the resentment and jealousy this assumption by liberalism can stir up in a people struggling to live as modern people..
White people are indigenous to the UK.
This documentary is more about the doctors life story and general gossip than about the subject.
Much of our history and world view is built right into the language.. check out indigenous linguist James vukelich.. he can provide much insight as well as connection to great cultural resources. He can talk about word origins of words that go back to ice age times.. words that are still in songs we sing to this day.
I'm so old, that my DNA is classified in the domain of archaea. Mitochondria wasn't even invented yet ! Is that ancient enough DNA for you ?
😂😂😂
Isn't the native population of Australia evidence that people have been seafarers for something like 50,000 years?
During the last glacial period, they wouldn't even have to get out of sight of land to get to California from Mongolia.
Also, ice is fresh water. Fat is food and fuel. I'd think I wouldn't need my corridor to be particularly ice-free if I was headed south from Alaska. I'd just need it to be passable. I expect I'd rather pull a sled full of provisions on snow than on dirt even if there was plenty of dirt.
Saying that to ask.
Do archeologist always keep digging to 50,000 year old sediments when they are excavating wonderful places to hunt and gather?
I'd want them to. (Can't find a Denisovan if you don't look:)
Would like to have seen a discussion of the Solutrean hypothesis and the South American anomalies such as origins of yams, chickens and 60,000 year old cooking fires in Chili which seek an much older demographic source of immigration…
"If I were helicase I could unzip your genes"
-Gene Hackman
I tried to look up this quote and then I realized ... geneius. Very well done.
1. “Things keep getting older” is not a reference to headlines. People barely know when a war starts from headlines. Hancock was referencing the rigidity of uniformity academics v/s catastrophist theory. 2. Fossils are very rare considering the millions of creatures who lived previously and the massive geologic changes have done their part to erase traces.
So the Siberians remigrated from the American continent? That's interesting!
Flint, you are paving a path for modern archeology. You’re doing “sciences” work 😂 keep it up
So, did Dr. Raff say that no research should be done if a native population is harmed? So this means that research that might lead to a more factual conclusion is not pursued so that a less factual conclusion is allowed to continue?
I know that’s what she said. I know that’s what she means. Thus, to Dr. Raff, she would rather perpetuate myth over fact.
I was going to read her book ‘Origin’. Now, however, I will not be doing so. I am so very disappointed if this represents the standard approach to advancing science and understanding; if tradition and myth is challenged, shit down the advancement of knowledge.
You should send this to one Mr. Hancock
Humans are inquisitive following their food.
Archeology & genetic dating plus a little bit of linguistic evidence of mastodons near white sands.
Well, I guess this works for some people but for me, too much personal stuff and musings and not enough about findings.
Permission from the descendent communities, and if it is demonstrated that there is no relevant descendant community then one needs permission from the custodial community. Not being biologically or culturally connected to the people who left traces on/in the land you occupy does not free one from treating those traces with culturally significant respect.
🤩
🐧Dibble me!
The genes don't lie !
Can you imagine what the first people to cross the rockies thought! Those massive empty plains, the game! A very rare if not unique experience after years of hardship.
It's been suggested that some now extinct Indian tribes (the Mandans I've heard for one) were blonde and light eyed. Is field work being done in known home ranges of tribes to study their differences.
Can you tell the difference genetically between an Inca and an Iroquois?
@@Ferengiprofiteer those suggestions were wrong
It makes sense that before the Clovis culture there was a small, growing population of people throughout the Americas.
Lamp😂
Far too apologetic. 'Native Americans' should be studied the same as anyone else. It seems to me that if the results were too controversial they'd be buried
I agree. And I can't study ancient Greek archaeology without permission from the modern Greek people, as represented by the modern Greek state.
Can't study ancient British people without permission from those who are current stakeholders and caretakers of the land
Same should be true for Indigenous Americans. They deserve to have a say in how their ancestors are studied just like other peoples around the world have such a say. And the US government specifically enacted legislation that has been around for about 3 decades in order to ensure that. It's a good thing
American giants ?????
This argument reminds me of the Sapiens out of Africa argument: we have some dates...and then we keep getting some clues hinting or proving that there were more migrations than just Preneanderthals, and then Sapiens at around 70 000 BCE.
The bottom line is that the true indigenous of N.A. came during LGM from an ancient mix of ancient Siberian/Eurasian peoples who walked in from another continent. Period. How people make that controversial is just silly and motivated by money.
I’ve just watched a Bloomberg video on computer encryption and how difficult it is to crack a code into its constituent primary number components. I think it’s the same for DNA and I don’t trust how scientists are interpreting DNA, I think a lot more scrutiny needs to applied to this field of science, I don’t trust it yet. However it is on the right track. My uncertainty comes from the fact that native African DNA seems to be more rich and diversified than 2 populations on different ends of the planet. It doesn’t make sense that a population in one continent have far more diversification than continents separated by thousands of miles. That’s why I don’t trust this scientific process.
The diversity in Africa is because of the genetic bottleneck created when only a small percentage of the human population who lived in prehistoric Africa migrated out of africa, eventually to all corners of the world
It's a well demonstrated and repeatedly tested fact that has been proven many times in the face of critics over the last few decades
"That’s why I don’t trust this scientific process."
@@TheDanEdwards lmao true
It is mandatory to state that the Mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell, otherwise you may be "👆 Presenting to the emergency room"
It would be interesting to see you interview Native archaeologists instead of just more white "experts" who usually have very little contact or relationships with Native people. It gives the usual Eurocentric know-it-all that profits off of Native people bjt does nothing to actually promote real life Native people
For sure and Dr Raff is one of the best at collaborating and working closely with Indigenous people. We discuss that at length in the conversation
I expect to be doing an interview with a native archaeologist later this month, and will continue to work hard at lifting up and empowering a diverse range of voices on archaeological topics
If your problem with science and history is race you should probably look into religion
@@gnostic268 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The natives of America killed, enslaved, subjugated, tortured, controlled territory, and terrorized each other long before the "white" people showed up. They were no more righteous or noble than the people with lighter skin tones that showed up and conquered the new world. Why should white people "promote" them?
@@ET3Roberts
One, no one is claiming natives to be saints. They're human and are capable of atrocities like any other human society.
Two, according to your own logic, don't you think that the same people who tortured, enslaved, and went to war with each other would be best equipped to talk about their history of committing such acts?
To be clear, I see no problem with white people discussing the history of others if they know what they are talking about.
That is not maximum paranoia. The researcher still has skin exposed. They could wear a full-face mask. Maximum paranoia would be to tape the hood to the full-face mask.
Americans owe Native Americans a presidency.
Native Americans originated from the Black Ball at the center of the Earth ,same as the Europeans.🧿
They came to America by rivers connecting the oceans 5,000 years ago.🦠🐡🐳🦭🦛👫
Flint dibble😂😂😂imout
Problems with data driven discussions perchance?
We want to hear about the DNA Not your mothers history. Why can’t you people to stay on topic and your video would be probably half as long.
You could go and read the papers and studies instead, if you'd prefer the information without a human element in a conversation.
We want to hear about the DNA Not your mothers history. Why can’t you people to stay on topic and your video would be probably half as long.