Where did the Native Americans come from?

[other one]

Interesting look at ocean depths and possibilities of the oceans being shallower when things were frozen.

 

http://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/bathymetry/

 

On the left hand side click the check mark to get rid of all the color lines, then in the upper left select options and select all of the boxes and you end up with a very good topo map of the world's oceans.

[other one]

 

Where did NA Indians build cities??

 

Well the "Anasazi" built in the four-corners area... but not much from what I understand.

Maybe that was just a rest-stop?

 

 

A trip to Mesa Verde is a most interesting history lesson on these people...     also a good place to meet photographers...

 

[ayin jade]

 

Where did NA Indians build cities??

 

Well the "Anasazi" built in the four-corners area... but not much from what I understand.

Maybe that was just a rest-stop?

 

 

Anasazi didnt build much? You havent been out west have you? 

 

 

This is a list of Anasazi major ruins. There are hundreds more minor ruins out there that are not listed and major ruins out there that are not open to the public and not on this list. Some of the ruins listed consist of multiple sites even though only 1 site is listed.

 

http://www.cliffdwellingsmuseum.com/anasazi/digging-deeper-into-the-anasazi/major-anasazi-region-and-sites

[OakWood]

Interesting look at ocean depths and possibilities of the oceans being shallower when things were frozen.

 

http://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/bathymetry/

 

On the left hand side click the check mark to get rid of all the color lines, then in the upper left select options and select all of the boxes and you end up with a very good topo map of the world's oceans.

 

That's an interesting map for other reasons too.

[Guest Teditis]

 

 

Where did NA Indians build cities??

 

Well the "Anasazi" built in the four-corners area... but not much from what I understand.

Maybe that was just a rest-stop?

 

 

Anasazi didnt build much? You havent been out west have you? 

 

 

This is a list of Anasazi major ruins. There are hundreds more minor ruins out there that are not listed and major ruins out there that are not open to the public and not on this list. Some of the ruins listed consist of multiple sites even though only 1 site is listed.

 

http://www.cliffdwellingsmuseum.com/anasazi/digging-deeper-into-the-anasazi/major-anasazi-region-and-sites

 

 

No I haven't been out there at all.

But I was referring to their cities in comparison to the great(er) cities

built by the Inca, Mayan, and Aztec (even the Olmec) cultures... all who supposedly sprang

up from peoples that migrated from Eurasian places (yet undefined) and traipsed

all the way up to the Being Sea bridge and then back down to the lower parts

of the two continents to build the large civilizations that they did.

 

In short, it makes no sense to me that there are no signs of any major civilizations congregating

further north than Mexico while so many are in the southern regions if they migrated from the north

as the claim supposes. It's counter-intuitive to natural inclinations of mankind during any epoch/era

not to settle in viable habitats.

And again in any expansion from the north to the eastern regions of the North American continent, the

building is relatively light and sparse.

I say "No, migration happened from multiple directions and predominately across the Pacific into South America

and then northward. With some occurring in the north but then more along the Oregon and California areas."

 

And the archaeological evidence supports this notion. As does historical revelation that building sea worthy

craft is older than traditional historians would like us to believe... consider what Noah built in his time period?

But others have built sea worthy craft since then and before Columbus and again archaeology supports this too.

The chain of building "mega-cities" is from south (or mid continent) to north... not the other way around.

 

The notion that Clovis people's are the sole migratory group is a fanciful tale.

[Willa]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-12000-year-old-skeleton-helps-answer-question-who-were-first-americans-180951469/?no-ist

 

This was an illuminating article concerning early inhabitants.  There is general disagreement.  Some say she and Kennewick Man resemble the Ainu of Japan, who appear caucasian but whose genetics are purely Mongolian like the Tibetan and Taiwan peoples.  Others say they resemble the polynesian and others the native Australians.  No one knows and no one agrees.   

 

I tend to go with the idea that just as different people arrived here from Europe at different times, different migrations from Asia occurred at different times and different ways..  But the Ainu fascinate me and could be a likely candidate for at least some of the earliest peoples here.  There could have even been other islands in the Pacific in earlier eras that were swallowed by earthquakes or changes in the sea floor that facilitated migration.  Who knows...  Native American, Australian and the Ainu all believe that they were in their lands from the beginning of time.  That I doubt. 

[ayin jade]

 

 

 

Where did NA Indians build cities??

 

Well the "Anasazi" built in the four-corners area... but not much from what I understand.

Maybe that was just a rest-stop?

 

 

Anasazi didnt build much? You havent been out west have you? 

 

 

This is a list of Anasazi major ruins. There are hundreds more minor ruins out there that are not listed and major ruins out there that are not open to the public and not on this list. Some of the ruins listed consist of multiple sites even though only 1 site is listed.

 

http://www.cliffdwellingsmuseum.com/anasazi/digging-deeper-into-the-anasazi/major-anasazi-region-and-sites

 

 

No I haven't been out there at all.

But I was referring to their cities in comparison to the great(er) cities

built by the Inca, Mayan, and Aztec (even the Olmec) cultures... all who supposedly sprang

up from peoples that migrated from Eurasian places (yet undefined) and traipsed

all the way up to the Being Sea bridge and then back down to the lower parts

of the two continents to build the large civilizations that they did.

 

In short, it makes no sense to me that there are no signs of any major civilizations congregating

further north than Mexico while so many are in the southern regions if they migrated from the north

as the claim supposes. It's counter-intuitive to natural inclinations of mankind during any epoch/era

not to settle in viable habitats.

And again in any expansion from the north to the eastern regions of the North American continent, the

building is relatively light and sparse.

I say "No, migration happened from multiple directions and predominately across the Pacific into South America

and then northward. With some occurring in the north but then more along the Oregon and California areas."

 

And the archaeological evidence supports this notion. As does historical revelation that building sea worthy

craft is older than traditional historians would like us to believe... consider what Noah built in his time period?

But others have built sea worthy craft since then and before Columbus and again archaeology supports this too.

The chain of building "mega-cities" is from south (or mid continent) to north... not the other way around.

 

The notion that Clovis people's are the sole migratory group is a fanciful tale.

 

 

You realize the age difference between the cultures you are talking about? Finding anything in archaeology is difficult to start with. It depends in part on what materials are used too. For instance, casa grande ruin in arizona is made of adobe. It is fairly recent, only around 1400 AD but it would be nothing more than a pile of mud if not for the protection given to it over the past few decades. There are numerous other "cities" in north american archaeological record too. Cahokia mound, Natchez mound are just two that readily come to mind. Archaeologists believe that the natchez people had a civilization as complex as any known from central or south america. 

 

As for the clovis people, their culture is only known by particular types of stone and ivory tools, especially a distinctive projectile point. Genetically they are related to 80% of all living native americans. Archaeologists currently believe that multiple waves of people came to the new world and spread out all over. Eventually developing their distinctive cultures. Im baffled that some folks think that there needs to be cities built all over north america in order to prove a migration towards the south. Clovis people were hunters/gatherers. That requires mobile type of living arrangements. Later on, when folks developed agriculture and could invest into a sedentary lifestyle then they built complex communities. The ones you mentioned, inca, maya, olmec, aztec, those people built ceremonial centers not the type of cities that folks lived in. For example, chichen itza, tikal and the other major sites of the mayan people were ceremonial centers only. The people lived away from them. The only site known for the olmec, la venta, since destroyed, was also a ceremonial center.

 

It is a common failing among westernized people to view the level of a civilization's advancement as relating to the size of their communities.  

[other one]

From the National Geographic:

 

 

"Great Surprise"—Native Americans Have West Eurasian Origins
Oldest human genome reveals less of an East Asian ancestry than thought.
Photo of a Native American mounted on his horse.

Native Americans may have a more complicated heritage than previously believed.

 

 

Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe, rather than entirely from East Asians as previously thought, according to a newly sequenced genome.

 

Based on the arm bone of a 24,000-year-old Siberian youth, the research could uncover new origins for America's indigenous peoples, as well as stir up fresh debate on Native American identities, experts say.

The study authors believe the new study could also help resolve some long-standing puzzles on the peopling of the New World, which include genetic oddities and archaeological inconsistencies. (Explore an atlas of the human journey.)

"These results were a great surprise to us," said study co-author and ancient-DNA specialist Eske Willerslev, of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

"I hadn't expected anything like this. A genome related to present-day western Eurasian populations and modern Native Americans as well was really puzzling in the beginning. How could this happen?"

So what's new?

The arm bone of a three-year-old boy from the Mal'ta site near the shores of Lake Baikal in south-central Siberia (map) yielded what may be the oldest genome of modern humans ever sequenced.

DNA from the remains revealed genes found today in western Eurasians in the Middle East and Europe, as well as other aspects unique to Native Americans, but no evidence of any relation to modern East Asians. (Related: "Is This Russian Landscape the Birthplace of Native Americans?")

A second individual genome sequenced from material found at the site and dated to 17,000 years ago revealed a similar genetic structure.

It also provided evidence that humans occupied this region of Siberia throughout the entire brutally cold period of the Last Glacial Maximum, which ended about 13,000 years ago.

Why is it important?

Prevailing theories suggest that Native Americans are descended from a group of East Asians who crossed the Bering Sea via a land bridge perhaps 16,500 years ago, though some sites may evidence an earlier arrival. (See "Siberian, Native American Languages Linked—A First [2008].")

"This study changes this idea because it shows that a significant minority of Native American ancestry actually derives not from East Asia but from a people related to present-day western Eurasians," Willerslev said.

"It's approximately one-third of the genome, and that is a lot," he added. "So in that regard I think it's changing quite a bit of the history."

While the land bridge still formed the gateway to America, the study now portrays Native Americans as a group derived from the meeting of two different populations, one ancestral to East Asians and the other related to western Eurasians, explained Willerslev, whose research was published in the November 20 edition of the journal Nature.

"The meeting of those two groups is what formed Native Americans as we know them."

 

 

What does this mean?

Willerslev believes the discovery provides simpler and more likely explanations to long-standing controversies related to the peopling of the Americas.

"Although we know that North Americans are related to East Asians, it's striking that no contemporary East Asian populations really resemble Native Americans," he said.

"It's not like you can say that they are really closely related to Japanese, Chinese, or Koreans, so there seems to be something missing. But this result makes a lot of sense regarding why they don't fit so well genetically with contemporary East Asians—because one-third of their genome is derived from another population."

The findings could also allow reinterpretation of archaeological and anthropological evidence, like the famed Kennewick Man, whose remains don't look much like modern-day Native American or East Asian populations, according to some interpretations.

"Maybe, if he looks like something else, it's because a third of his ancestry isn't coming from East Asia but from something like the western Eurasians." (Read about history's great migration mysteries.)

What's next?

Many questions remain unanswered, including where and when the mixing of west Eurasian and East Asian populations occurred.

"It could have been somewhere in Siberia or potentially in the New World," Willerslev said.

"I think it's much more likely that it occurred in the Old World. But the only way to address that question would be to sequence more ancient skeletons of Native Americans and also Siberians."

Intriguing questions also exist about the nature of the advanced Upper Paleolithic Mal'ta society that now appears to figure in Native American genomes.

The Siberian child "was found buried with all kinds of cultural items, including Venus figurines, which have been found from Lake Baikal west all the way to Europe.

"So now we know that the individual represented with this culture is a western Eurasian, even though he was found very far east. It's an interesting question how closely related this individual might have been to the individuals carving these figurines at the same time in Europe and elsewhere.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/

[disciplehelovestoo]

some say that the American Indians were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel; i don't know.  but i am certain that their ancestry can be reliably traced to Adam and Eve

 

and Noah too

Edited October 30, 2014 by disciplehelovestoo

[Guest]

Amen~!