Oops. Looks like DNA is again proving that the Americas were populated from people migrating across the Bering Strait. Apparently not from dish-like submarines (i.e. Jaredites) or in boats from the Middle East (i.e. Lehi's family).

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42555577

Yay Yay Yay !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wonder how they're going to explain this?

I never question Eske Willerslev... Of course since the remains are 11,500 years old, some of the "Pre-Clovis Champions" are going to have to incorporate that one. I'm too wiped out to give it a good reading tonight, but it's on my reading list...

(note to the pre-Clovis Crowd: Yes, I can see there's plenty of "wiggle room" for other ancient American populations; it'll be interesting to see this stuff sort itself out).

Give it a read. The article explains why the 11,500 date supports not Clovis but pre-Clovis.

Or tell me what I'm "reading wrong" in this statement...

>>"It's a population that is most closely related to modern Native Americans but is still distantly related to them. So, you can say she comes from the earliest, or most original, Native American group - the first Native American group that diversified.

On the other thread you noted, you were hesitant "to stake out too strong a position [on 'Clovis First'] given that I [you] don't have background in the field."

My "RFM Source" sent me the following links: The first is the abstract of the Nature paper, which is behind a paywall. I'll get a copy of that at some point from Simon Southerton, of whom you may have heard. The second link is a far better summary of the findings than either of the two "tabloid sources" that discuss the study. The NPR article is a little better, of course, but what is really needed--on a molecular science level--is an in-depth comparison of the new genome with, say, the Anzick Clovis child. Seriously, you can count on one hand the actual remains of such ancient individuals.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25173

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-reveals-evidence-population-ancient-native.html

>>As such, USR1 represents a distinct Ancient Beringian population. Using demographic modelling, we infer that the Ancient Beringian population and ancestors of other Native Americans descended from a single founding population that initially split from East Asians around 36 ± 1.5 ka, with gene flow persisting until around 25 ± 1.1 ka. Gene flow from ancient north Eurasians into all Native Americans took place 25–20 ka, with Ancient Beringians branching off around 22–18.1 ka. Our findings support a long-term genetic structure in ancestral Native Americans, consistent with the Beringian ‘standstill model.’

Note that phrase "we infer" (and yes, I realize this appears "patronizing" to you, but it's an issue I've looked at for 18 years, ever since Simon's first presentation at an Exmormon Conference. I have a lot of information "stored" on this subject).

BTW, there's an LDS scientist (Ugo Perego) who offered an article suggesting the DNA "evidence" suggested two separate but nearly identical migrations south from Beringia; Perego used mitochondrial DNA, suggesting that Haplogroup D4h3 was strong evidence for one "branch" since it is largely confined to South America. Unfortunately, Deborah Bolnick sequenced D4h3 in some pre-Columbian remains in Illinois, which isn't anywhere near South America.

I don't have a problem with the "Berngia standstill," BTW; to borrow a cliché, the devil is in the details.

A few weeks ago I summarized both sides of the Clovis, pre-Clovis debate, and I noted that Anna C. Roosevelt, both Haynes, C. Vance, and Gary (not related), Dina Dincauze, Stuart Fiedel, and others have rejected the "pre-Clovis claims" of Monte Verde, Paisley Caves, and elsewhere.

Obviously, Tom Dillehay, who excavated Monte Verde, has made his reputation on that site and its dates (while conveniently "ignoring" the 33,000 year old date he also found); the argument between Dillehay and Fiedel has been particularly acrimonious and heated.

Several years ago we had an archaeologists' conference here in Salt Lake, and with the police interceptor in the shop, I was driving a van and picked up six or seven people for a ride from downtown to the U of U Campus (I forget whether it was the Guest House or the U Park Marriot).

The subject of Monte Verde came up, and after the "ringleader" said to me, "Oh, you're one of us" (I'm not, but I can read the research really well, and I do understand DNA science), she polled the others, who agreed unanimously "the Monte Verde dates were legitimate."

I knew far less than I do now, but the other factor in the conversation was the conclusion the leader voiced, which was "They must've made a beeline to South America," referring of course, to the Monte Verde inhabitants and their Asian origins.

I find that "obvious reality" particularly problematic; these days invariably boats and "coastal hypotheses" are offered (see Erlandson), but my view of human settlements in they tend to "move east to west--or vice versa--much more quickly than north to south.

We'll have to see how this sorts out (in ten years or so, by my estimation), but my analysis right now is "Pre-Clovis is sexy," and "Clovis First isn't."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2018 12:36AM by SL Cabbie.

I know your interest in the subject and thought you would enjoy the article. I'm not sure why you are so sensitive as to infer an insult where none was intended.

You are correct that I said on the other thread that I was hesitant to reach conclusions since I don't have a background in the subject. That does not, I will now add, mean that I consider myself less informed on the topic than you; I doubt, for instance, that you are part of the "we" who sponsored the SLC conference and do not believe that driving the van is a relevant qualification. In my view it is always a good idea in a field like this to be tentative since new information is constantly forthcoming. Such skepticism regarding one's own views is something that characterizes most intellectuals and is a trait you may want to consider cultivating.

Indeed, I remember a year or two ago your vigorously contesting my statement that Winston Churchill was a narcissist. You were adamant on that point until you suddenly dropped it, perhaps after having bothered to look the question up. The source of your remarkable confidence in all things psychological? As you have several times said, incomplete grad work in the field and "hanging out with" actual practitioners. Which begs the question.

Many of us have noticed how you many times belittled the opinions of people on this site who questioned Clovis. It may be advisable to be a little more cautious regarding that sometime consensus. What is driving the changing science is not the boats and other logistical issues that you often criticize but rather DNA. If the DNA picture indicates a significant pattern of pre-Clovis settlements in various parts of the Americas, the travel questions become secondary matters to be be sorted out later. That, Cabbie, is where we are. The Clovis hypothesis is foundering, and if you continue obdurate your credibility may as well.

Study up on the Johari Window, seriously...

Your "reality" may be that you weren't being patronizing, but I was speaking from mine, and it definitely "feels" that way--as part of your one-upmanship "game" to me.

Hang onto that denial; I'm sure it's comforting and has "survival value."

You're welcome to claim that politics--which is all I see happening--is science, but I remain underwhelmed. One group has been hollering "Clovis First is Dead!" for over a decade now, but they still seem to feel a need to pummel the corpse...

You won't learn anything, IMO as a former teacher, until you "set aside the drama" and learn to do your own thinking and homework instead of parroting that of others.

As for that digression about Churchill--who's a personal hero of mine, IMO, the greatest "Englishman" in history (he was "half American," of course :-), I don't recall that conversation, which ought to tell you how absurd I regard the charges of "narcissism" against him are. Make that irrelevant... I understand he didn't suffer fools gladly, which can be seen as narcissistic.

I probably suffer similarly, particularly after a shift or two behind the wheel; I get paid to accommodate them at work, but other than an occasional lunch some posters have bought me, I pretty much work for free.

However, per Beck and Freeman: Narcissists are apt to get angry and vengeful with those who challenge their actions.

Thanks for our input, SLCabbie.

I learn things all the time; that is one of the great sources of joy in my life. I do, however, learn more from people who are both educated in their particular subject matter and capable of engaging with others without requiring that students metaphorically remove their shoes before entering. That almost all of your posts begin with "I'm buddies with X, Y, and Z, who call me 'one of us' and this is our considered view" seems suspiciously defensive. Seriously, do you have thoughts that don't require an appeal to Southerton's authority? Or Beck's or Freeman or whoever's?

Again, you don't' know who most of us on this site are. You don't know who has better education in your hobbyhorse fields; you don't know who has more extensive experience teaching. Perhaps there is even a person or two here who have followed the subject of American settlement for more than your 18 years and with closer contact with serious scientists.

And regarding Churchill's narcissism and what he did to, among others, Ralph Wigram, perhaps you should crack a book. The scholarly consensus is that Churchill was a textbook narcissist; it takes a willful blindness not to see that. What is perhaps more surprising is your failure--surprising given your psychological dabblings--to comprehend that people are complex beings and that someone can be both a narcissist and a great leader at the same time. Indeed, the one often presupposes the other as was assuredly the case with Churchill.

So go your merry way. Continue to argue that serious scientists and their rapidly multiplying discoveries of genetic evidence belying Clovis First is just politics. Seriously. Your qualifications are more authoritative than those scientists and their Ph.D.s and their positions at great research institutions. They contradict your views on American settlement, so we should take your word for it that their findings are uninformed and should be ignored.

But I am going to follow the research without requiring your filtration. I'll read the original publications and learn from them. If someone along the way proffers better information or judgment with substance rather than serial appeals to authority, I'll doff my hat, sit down, and learn. Until then, I'll remember that you have consistently ridiculed those who question Clovis First and evinced virtually no willingness to consider new evidence with an open mind. We'll see how that works out.

Hi Cabbie. I realize we are on different ends of the spectrum when it comes to pre-clovis. However, I wish to point out that Gary Haynes and Fidel Stuart may not accept Monte Verde, but that doesn't mean that they reject pre-clovis. From this article:

https://archive.archaeology.org/1201/trenches/clovis_buttermilk_creek_manis_mastodon.html

'"We've known there's pre-Clovis for a long time," says Gary Haynes of the University of Nevada, Reno.'

'"There's a logical expectation that somewhere in North America we are going to find something that can be called proto-Clovis," says Stuart Fiedel, an archaeologist at the Louis Berger Group in Richmond, Virginia.'

Just thought you might be interested.

I've also corresponded with Fiedel in the past. He doesn't "rule out" pre-Clovis, but he's established some criteria he doesn't see as being met.

You're misrepresenting their positions based on what they communicated to me.

As far as Clovis goes, in answer to "Was there pre-Clovis?" Haynes said, "Probably is the safest answer." He'd just retired and said he didn't have anything further to say at that point but obviously didn't think much of "the evidence."

I also recall your defending Dennis Stanford, he of the "Solutrean Silliness" hypothesis, and I recall he was one of those who "blessed" Monte Verde...

I'm only representing their positions by what they have publicly stated.

And I did defend Stanford, and still do, for his search for the predecessor of Clovis as a lithic technology. I don't support his Solutrean hypotheses. I've discussed it with him several times over dinner and drinks, and he is well aware that the "evidence" is speculative.

Thank you for this, Richard. It is balanced, nuanced, and tentative, as academic thought should be. The notion that Monte Verde could be wrong and Pre-Clovis right, for instance, shows an appropriate skepticism regarding all the evidence.

I would be grateful if you post as much on these topics as you can. I think I could learn from you.

Thanks Lot's (sorry, bad pun). Here is something that you might be interested in:

http://web.utk.edu/~dander19/clovis_continent_647kb.jpg

This map shows the known distribution of Clovis Points throughout N. America. It is interesting to note that the highest concentrations of Clovis are in the SE. What the map doesn't show, is that the Clovis finds in the SE are also the oldest, and get younger as you head west. Since N. America was peopled from Beringia, this is the exact opposite of what you should find if Clovis was first. While not conclusive, it is informative.

Thanks (Lots) for this, Richard.

I have read about problems with the distribution but never seen this graphic representation. It seems like one more piece of suggestive, if not yet dispositive, evidence that Clovis is incorrect.

The odds have certainly shifted in the last 10-15 years.

Hi Lot's Wife, I was thinking about paleo-indian sites in the SE and remembered the Page-Ladson Site. This site has been known for quite a while, but has gained more attention in recent years. It is a mastodon butchering site in Florida that dates back to 14,550bp. This is a nice synopsis:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/5/e1600375.full

Here is another nice resource you might be interested in. While you have to pay to access some of it, there is also quite a bit of free material:

http://csfa.tamu.edu

Hi Richard,

I remember this find. My view, given my limited experience in the field, is that any one site could be a false positive but that as evidence amasses under the auspices of serious scholars who publish in serious journals, the odds of pre-Clovis settlement go steadily up. My tentative surmise is that Clovis-First is no longer plausible.

What I remember from the specific find that you mention is the mastodons. I had not realized they ranged so far south. In any case, it would be great if there were a way to explore the human sites that were lost to rising sea levels. There must be an abundance of relevant evidence along the coasts.

Anyway, all great stuff. And it's nice to have a place to discuss it!

Your insistence Stuart Fiedel "doesn't reject pre-Clovis" isn't born out by the facts.

I'll allow you this opportunity to correct your misconception. This is from a presentation he gave two years after that bit of "quote mined" journalism in the link you cited. No prizes for guessing who the author is...

Yeah, this Bud's for you:

http://www.wennergren.org/events/stuart-j-fiedel-clovis-still-first

>>However, all of these pre-Clovis claims remain dubious. The most recent genetic, archaeological, and paleontological evidence shows that: 1) Native North, Central, and South Americans are all descended from a single founding population derived from northern Eurasia; 2) a child of that population was buried with Clovis tools at the Anzick Site in Montana 13,000 years ago; 3) interior Clovis-linked sites are older than any coastal sites; 4) a Clovis-derived population rapidly occupied South America 13,000 years ago; and 5) rapid human expansion caused an ecosystem catastrophe that entailed the extinction of some 80 genera of megafauna.

Over on the right corner is a little box with a button offering a recording of Fiedel's presentation. Those interested in an authentic evaluation rather than the propaganda from the pre-Clovisites are invited to listen. I mentioned in my piece summarizing Jennifer Raff's analysis in the Guardian article that Fiedel picked up an identical point I'd made over a year ago; this involved that silly "Manis Mastodon" claim that appeared in the "Migrating Away from Clovis" article which misrepresented Fiedel (and probably Gary Haynes as well). Here it is: A bone "projectile point" embedded in a mastondon shoulder is offered as evidence of "pre-Clovis hunters" even though it's less than a quarter of an inch in diameter.

Fiedel also discusses Dennis Stanford and his "partner in crime," Bruce Bradley... Full props to Jennifer Raff for being "more ladylike" in her skewering of the "Solutrean Silliness."

It gets better, folks. While I was doing actual research--and avoiding tabloids, of course--I ran across a reference to an article of Fiedel's titled, "The Anzick Genome proves Clovis is First," and well, you can imagine my reaction. After a bit more careful cabdriving out on the Internet highway...

https://independent.academia.edu/SFiedel

Scroll down to the third offering. I have an academia.edu membership (although at this point I'm not arrogant or grandiose enough to attempt publishing anything), and a copy of Fiedel's paper is on my iMac desktop.

>>The close relatives who buried the Anzick infant ca. 12,800 cal BP made classic Clovis tools and were unequivocally the lineal genetic ancestors of all the living Native peoples of southern North America, Central America, and South America. Clovis-derived Fell I fishtail points track the rapid southward migration of this ancestral population all the way to Tierra del Fuego. Any hypothesized earlier populations, if they (improbably) ever existed, must have been replaced or genetically swamped by these Clovis descendants.

© 2017

Fiedel also cites the presence of the dated elk antler artifacts and notes that wapiti presence in North America wasn't the result of a "coastal migration." From that I gleaned a "suggestion" that the opening of the "Ice Free Corridor" perhaps ought to be rolled back a few years.

>>Two decades later, when Eske Willerslev's team in Copenhagen extracted DNA from the skull, they found that from 72 to 99.5% ofthe DNA sampled from different locations was derived from invasive microbes (Rasmussen et al., 2014). What is remarkable and wondrous is that, despite this pervasive contamination, enough ancient human DNA could be extracted from the infant to determine his complete genome. Statistical analyses of the autosomal genes led Willerslev's team to an unambiguous conclusion: “Contemporary Native Americans are effectively direct descendants of the people who made and used Clovis tools and buried this child” (Rasmussen et al., 2014).

Finally, I see Dillehay has "upped his Monte Verde claims" to 18,000 years... What, the original carbon dating wasn't accurate? Anna C. Roosevelt doesn't think it was, either.

/crickets

I'll speak to that mastodon tusk in the Florida river at a later point. It's actually a "resurrected find" of an old story, and the possible stratigraphy must make allowances for it having been carried there by water currents.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2018 11:57AM by SL Cabbie.

Ok, so Fidel rejects pre-clovis. Some of his other statements had made it sound as if he was open to the concept.

And, yes, the Anzik burial was Clovis. That is common knowledge. That fact in no way, whatsoever, precludes pre-clovis. Nor does the existing DNA. I fully expect that if any pre-clovis DNA is located, that it will support a Beringian origin. However, DNA isn't the only line of evidence for, or against, pre-clovis. Particularly since Clovis, in and of itself, has nothing to do with genetics. It is a lithic technology.

Richard,

I'd suggest you read the Guardian article that Cabbie linked below. He claimed it supported his Clovis-First position but it in fact does the opposite.

Cabbie grudgingly acknowledges the divergence of his opinion from Jennifer Raff's informed judgment when he says, "she gave me the dignity of forming my own judgments and respecting my position even if she didn't agree with it."

He does so again when he writes that "I don't have to disagree with Jennifer Raff on the science--or Willerslev--however, in order to consider alternative and persuasive 'interpretations' of those facts."

Both of those are syntactically-challenged admissions that Raff thinks the balance of evidence is against the Clovis-First model. Stripped of Cabbie's gloss and his curious concern for his own "dignity," Raff and the article speak for themselves and in support of your general view.

Well Lot's Wife, I've been reading these exact same claims, and misinterpretations, here for years. Quite frankly it's like banging your head against a wall. Besides, Fidel's opinions don't really mean squat to me.

Richard the Bad, Professional Archaeologist since 1985

Hah!

Imagine me telling you what the Raff article says.

I hope you'll post more on this topic. Learning from those more intelligent than oneself is one of the great pleasures of life, and this is a topic that fascinates me.

SL Cabbie from above: "I've also corresponded with Fiedel in the past. He doesn't "rule out" pre-Clovis, but he's established some criteria he doesn't see as being met."

SL Cabbie from above: "Your insistence Stuart Fiedel "doesn't reject pre-Clovis" isn't born out by the facts."

Clarify please.

Still no reply?

Unfortunate.

I've mentioned Jennifer Raff before (and her mentor, Deborah Bolnick, who was victimized by Rodney Meldrum and Wayne May's selectively edited nonsensical claims about ancient Old World/New World contact with their "Lost Civilizations of North America" DVD offerings). Jennifer's blogsite "Violent Metaphors" has dealt extensively with the origins of Native Americans and what the DNA science can--and can't tell us.* She's pointed out DNA cannot tell a person their "tribal origin," only that they have Native American ancestry, and she's been working very carefully--and very sensitively--with ancient DNA in order to "tease out" what the science is telling us.

Here's her report on what the sequencing of the ancient DNA of the remains found in Alaska actually told us (answer: not much that we didn't know, except there were definitely people of Asian origin in Berengia 11,500 years ago; they obviously all didn't "go south" right away):

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/03/what-the-ancient-dna-discovery-tells-us-about-native-american-ancestry

(My general distaste for "tabloid journalism" has been well-established here, but I see Jennifer in a "can't beat 'em, join 'em" maneuver has opted move much of her science writings from her blog to the Guardian; I respect her decision, of course.)

>>A new genome from a Pleistocene burial in Alaska confirms a longstanding model for the initial peopling of the Americas

>>These children carried the history of their ancestors within their DNA, and with the permission of their descendants they are now teaching us about the early events in the peopling of the Americas. A new paper in Nature, Terminal Pleistocene Alaskan genome reveals first founding population of Native Americans by Moreno-Mayar et al., analyzes the complete genome of one of these children. This genome gives us a glimpse of the genetic diversity present in Late Pleistocene Beringians, the ancestors of Native Americans, and confirms a decades-old hypothesis for the early peopling of the Americas.

Dr, Raff also notes she was a co-contributor to an early peer-reviewed study of the same remains that involved identifying their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).

>>We hypothesized that they might represent the descendants of a remnant ancient Beringian population, but it was impossible to test this hypothesis without additional data from the nuclear genomes. Moreno-Mayar et al.’s nuclear genome results from one of the children (the other didn’t yield enough nuclear DNA for analysis) confirm that she belonged to a group that had remained in Beringia after Native Americans began their migration southward into the Americas. We know that because this child is equally related to all indigenous populations in the Americas. She did not belong to either of the two major Native American genetic groups (Southern and Northern), but was equally related to both of them. One interpretation of this result is that her ancestors must have remained in Alaska after splitting from the ancestors of Native Americans sometime around 20,000 YBP.

That's all it tells us; that "one interpretation" is hypothetical speculation--reasonable yes, but unproven--and alternative possibilities must "remain on the table." I also find that "equally related" observation particularly powerful in the way it identifies those people's relationship to all Native Americans.

Here, also, is the paper detailing the mtDNA results:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4653186/

The "Beringia Standstill Model" for the migration pattern is strongly supported by the science so far, and what I did find interesting--and new--was the information the area was reasonably temperate--for a near-polar environment--and able to accommodate human habitation.

That's enough on this post; I'll have more to say with some serious fact checking elsewhere on this thread.

_____________________________

*And a note to all who purchased the various "Whizbang 2010" DNA test kits that purport to identify one's ancestry via DNA cheek swabs. Even when accurate (and some have been particularly obtuse and obfuscatory), that information is limited to delineating a person's genome and showing where the markers present are believed to have originated. They have no relevance to ancient migration patterns; I note that one claim is being made--which I can't speak to--that the peoples of Europe have generally remained in their "ancestral homelands," and this forms the basis for much of the information offered.

Caveat emptor...

It's time to revise your thinking, apparently.

The author you like so much, Jennifer Roff, agrees with the basic standstill argument we presented in the preceding posts and agrees with the timing in the original discussion. You have wisely left yourself enough room to embrace those propositions as necessary to save your Clovis-First theory. But then she contradicts most of what you have contended on this bulletin board for years.

She describes your Clovis-First model as improbable. In her mind and, according to her, the minds of most of her colleagues, the coastal route, facilitated by the maritime technologies that you brushed aside as recently as the other day, is substantially more likely.

She thus writes that "The first peoples to enter the Americas from Beringia are thought to have done so shortly after a route opened up along the west coast, about 15,000 years ago. Travel by boat would have allowed very rapid southward movement, making it possible for people to establish themselves at the early site of Monte Verde in Chile by 14,220 YBP, as well as a number of other sites in North America of similar ages."

Then she goes further in steering readers away from Clovis, writing that "Whether there was southward travel by Clovis peoples via the ice-free corridor once it opened remains unresolved, but there is at least some evidence against it." To this extent she is closer to Richard's view that Clovis originated elsewhere, possibly in the Southeastern United States and may have spread north and west.

So let's summarize. Until now you have stubbornly defended Clovis-First, denounced Monte Verde, and rejected the coastal route as the original channel of migration. Roff, however, disagrees with you on all those points. She is, in fact, much closer to Richard's stance on the settling of the Americas and on the Clovis peoples.

You are correct that things in this field change dramatically from time to time, but the best place to be is with the scholarly consensus because changes usually occur from that base. This matters because the consensus, as described by your author, does not support your views. It's time to take a new look at the evidence and the analysis.

In the article cited, and you insisted--from your narcissistic prism, that it was there--and it wasn't; you promptly put your denial blinders on and now you're resorting to personal attacks, deflections, and pathological control tactics that are, quite frankly, asinine and symptomatic of a typical dysfunctional LDS upbringing.

You've also put your fundamental immaturity on display insisting somebody else "dance to your tune," and I'm sorry, I've been out of the church far longer than you have, and I correspond regularly with Jennifer--who, unlike you, gave me the dignity of forming my own judgments and respecting my position even if she didn't agree with it.

My good friend, the late Kerry aka flattopsf aka XYZ, mailed me a book on this subject about five years ago, and in it, no less than Anna C. Roosevelt said there "was no consensus," on this subject; one has to form one's own conclusions.

Your moniker is well-chosen, BTW; Lot's Wife was turned into a pillar of salt, and given the expression, "take something with a grain of it," your supply will likely be put to good use by others.

I have nearly 20 years of experience on this board, am well known to many, including the top ADMINs, while keeping my identity confidential for personal reasons, and I just sent Simon Southerton a link to an article on this subject that was exceptionally concise; I'm still processing it. I'll point out to you there's zero, repeat zero, genetic evidence for pre-Clovis people in either North or South America.

You're welcome to continue with your "pay no attention to the DNA behind the curtain" act, but you're going to be embarrassed, seriously. Well, that's assuming you're capable of actually understanding the subject...

DNA science is obviously above your pay grade, and seriously, it does not mean "does not apply." Moreover, as I said, "Recovery from Mormonism" means learning to think for one's self and freedom from the tyranny of others' thinking if one chooses and the evidence is available.

I don't have to disagree with Jennifer Raff on the scientific data--or Willerslev--however, in order to consider alternative and persuasive "interpretations" of those facts. Moreover, those ideas are mostly not original with me--although I was pleasantly surprised to see a nifty "bit of agreement"; I operate from a "journalistic perspective," but that also includes studying this subject for nearly 50 years,

One thing I won't be guilty of, however, is cherry-picking the evidence or dismissing alternative points of view without careful consideration. Now kindly grant me dignity of looking at further recent research--something you obviously haven't done--and spare me the distractions.

/Sputnik kid's voice off; also grad school voice

note on edit: I corrected the obvious typo in the subline while there was still time; I may make further editing--but not content-changes today since I wrote this at 2:00 a.m.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2018 02:33PM by SL Cabbie.

This is a remarkably revealing post, Cabbie. You may want to think twice about leaving it up.

The DNA sequences were composed in Reformed Egyptian, and, since Joey isn't around any longer, no one can accurately decipher them...