Posted by:
elderolddog
(
)
Date: July 16, 2018 07:35PM
> "And never mind that the DNA from the "Anzick
> Clovis Child" showed that it belonged to a
> population that was ancestral to all Native
> Americans..." is relevant, and arguably must
> be addressed. In short, how is it possible
> that DNA analysis shows that all native American
> populations have identifying Clovis markers,
> notwithstanding contrary speculations and
> theories from archeology?
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzick-1The way I read it, Anzick Boy is related to some Native Americans, principally those in Central and South America. This is not the same as being "ancestral" to all Native Americans.
"A team of researchers throughout the United States and Europe conducted paleogenetic research on the Anzick-1 skeletal remains. They sequenced the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), the full nuclear DNA, and the Y-chromosome, and compared these sequences to those of modern populations throughout the world.[1] The results of these analyses allowed the researchers to make conclusions about ancient migration patterns and the peopling of the Americas.
"These analyses revealed that the individual was closely related to Native Americans in Central and South America, instead of being closely related to the people of the Canadian Arctic, as had previously been thought likely.
"(The people of the Arctic are distinct from Native Americans to the south, including in lower North America and Central and South America.)
"The infant was also related to persons from Siberia and Central Asia, believed to be the ancestral population of indigenous peoples in the Americas. This finding supports the theory that the peopling of the Americas occurred from Asia across the Bering Strait. For more than 20 years, some anthropologists have debated whether the first settlers who came to the New World did so by crossing a land bridge through the Bering Strait, or by sea from the southwest of Europe, in what is called the Solutrean Hypothesis."
Anzick Boy was between one and two years of age. It can be concluded that his parents were not born in Asia, and while that conclusion might be challenged, the trip from Asia to Montana took awhile, what with foraging and all...
How many generations preceded Anzick Boy there in Montana? This question can't be answered, but simple contemplation does give pause. Anzik Boy is dated from between 12707 & 12556 years before the present. The Gault site, down in Texas, is dated to a minimum of 16,000 years before the present.
If the mechanics of the dating procedure are in error, that's another story. And it's either that, or the Clovis era had at least one precursor.