This months Smithsonian has a really interesting article on Paleo Indian sites along the Pacific Coast of Canada. Interestingly, the genetic evidence is pushing the dates back earlier than the archaeological evidence.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-humans-came-to-americas-180973739/

Indeed interesting.
Thanks for posting.

As it so happens, I just read the same article. Yes, indeed, it was very interesting.

That's a great article, RtB. Thank you.

The DNA of the "Anzick Clovis Child" says otherwise.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/02/native-americans-descend-ancient-montana-boy

>> The sequencing effort, led by ancient DNA experts Eske Willerslev and Morten Rasmussen of the University of Copenhagen, comes to a dramatic conclusion: The 1- to 2-year-old Clovis child, now known to be a boy, is directly ancestral to today’s native peoples from Central and South America. “Their data are very convincing … that the Clovis Anzick child was part of the population that gave rise to North, Central, and Southern American groups,” says geneticist Connie Mulligan of the University of Florida in Gainesville.

They were able to date the Anzick child via C-14 dating; techniques to date stone artifacts are particularly problematic.

>>Fedje and his colleagues had discovered more than 1,200 artifacts, mostly stone flakes, a few as old as 12,800 years.

The Anzick Child was radio-carbon dated to 13,000 years ago

This is an old argument here, folks. When Willerslev also sequenced the mitochondrial DNA of Kennewick Man, shown to be X2a and quite ancient (although not as old as the Anzick remains), I had the pleasure of sending that information to Simon Southerton.

I've noted before a romantic "love of seafaring" that seems to "steer" (pun intended) some individuals' thinking into believing it was possible to navigate the North Pacific in spite of the sub-zero Ice Age temperatures. The closest Asian origins of populations ancestral to Native Americans are in Siberia (probably the Altai people), not the coastal regions of Russia, and Dr. Edward Vajda is credited with discovering the first linguistic link between Asia and North America.

https://westerntoday.wwu.edu/features/wwus-ed-vajda-to-discuss-the-ancient-language-link-between-siberia-and-north-america-nov-8

You seem incapable of learning. Willerslev and Rasmussen and Vajda are not on your side.

How do you explain the fact that Willerslev is cited in the Smithsonian article as doing some of the research that supports the pre-Clovis hypothesis that you imply he rejects? Perhaps because you don't understand him. If you had read the actual scientific article instead of a secondary summary of it, you would have realized that it directly contradicts you. Thus. . .

"Our data are compatible with the hypothesis that Anzick-1 belonged to a population directly ancestral to many contemporary Native Americans. Finally, we find evidence of a deep divergence in Native American populations that predates the Anzick-1 individual." So despite your assertions to the contrary, the child was NOT "directly ancestral" to all Native Americans. The child represented one of multiple branches of the population that had diverged long before his birth.*

As for Vajda, you again misunderstand his work. He does NOT believe that the Native Americans arose in Siberia: he is an advocate of the back-migration analysis performed by geneticists using Bayesian techniques. Again, that is the "standstill" model, not your Clovis-First hypothesis.

You really should stop citing in support of your views researchers who believe the opposite.


*Here's the scientific original if you are interested in perusing it. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13025



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2019 07:22PM by Lot's Wife.

> https://westerntoday.wwu.edu/features/wwus-ed-vajd
> a-to-discuss-the-ancient-language-link-between-sib
> eria-and-north-america-nov-8

Oh, come on. That isn't even a source. It's the announcement that Vajda will give a speech on November 8th. Did you attend the lecture? Hear a recording of it? Read a synopsis? Do you have any clue what he actually said?

An announcement of a future event is not evidence.

Yes, Anzick is Clovis, and related to modern Native Americans.

What is your point?

And, no. Dating of stone artifacts in direct association with datable remains is not problematic.

I've got a copy of Smithsonian magazine right in front of me, and there's nothing in it to support the statement, "Interestingly, the genetic evidence is pushing the dates back earlier than the archaeological evidence."

Willerslev--whom I greatly admire, have followed, and cited here in past posts--does give a date of around 15,000 years for people entering Alaska. That's all there is, honest.

That is consistent with the Anzick dates, and its population being ancestral to Native Americans...

The rest of the article consists of what one wag I followed termed, "the usual suspects." One of those was Quentin Mackie whom I followed for a time until one contributor to his column, pointed out some problems, and Mackie was pretty abrupt (/senior moment, sorry. I don't remember the details); as I recall it had to do with some DNA that didn't belong to the critter it was claimed to be. The other was the "Mantis Mastodon" where a "bone splinter" was interpreted as a projectile point that helped take down a mastodon. The splinter in question was about a quarter inch in diameter, and I was onerous enough to question its suitability as a weapon for slaying a proboscine.

And now a blast of the old exhaust pipe to LW for that whine about Edward Vajda... I simply included an article about him that was easily accessible and gave the pertinent background information as an introduction. I won't be responsible if you're not willing to engage in some elementary research; Vajda's finds are interesting and seminal, and I even left you an "out" because he discovered connections between Athabascan (Dené) languages in this hemisphere and the Ket people in Siberia. I'm well aware there's another Amerindian population that is not all that closely related. They are, however, probably descended from the population that gave rise to the Anzick child.

I do like this from the Smithsonian article:>>But Potter thinks that these and other news stories have been too definitive. "One of the problems with the media coverage is its focus on a single hypothesis--a pre-16,000 year old migration along the northwest coast--that is not well-supported by the evidence."

> Willerslev--whom I greatly admire, have followed,
> and cited here in past posts--does give a date of
> around 15,000 years for people entering Alaska.
> That's all there is, honest.

You are the gift that keeps on giving. In 2018 Willerslev and colleagues wrote a paper saying that ancestors of the Native Americans entered the Americas between 25,000 and 20,000 years ago.* Honest.


----------------
> That is consistent with the Anzick dates, and its
> population being ancestral to Native Americans...

Not in the way you mean. You think Native Americans appeared in Alaska some 15,000 years ago and showed up at the Anzick site in Clovis times. Willerslev, however, reckons the original migrants arrived in the Americas millennia earlier than that by coming down the Pacific Coast--just as RtB's article states. So when you dispute RtB's source, you are implicitly saying that Willerslev is wrong.

If that were not enough to indicate that you have not read the original Willerslev article, you claim that the Anzick child was "directly ancestral" to today's Native Americans in North, Central and South America. But that is not at all what the authors wrote; you are merely repeating what the journalist regurgitated. The truth is that Willerslev found "evidence of a deep divergence in Native American populations that predates the Anzick-1 individual." So again we see a story that occurred thousands of years before you think there were people in Alaska let alone further south.


-----------------
> And now a blast of the old exhaust pipe to LW for
> that whine about Edward Vajda... I simply included
> an article about him that was easily accessible
> and gave the pertinent background information as
> an introduction.

Seriously? You gave us an advertisement for an event that occurred some six weeks ago and hoped no one would actually follow the link. As a matter of fact, you don't even know what he said in that speech.


--------------------
> I won't be responsible if you're
> not willing to engage in some elementary research

Excellent. Do you remember the last time we went through this? You linked to a couple of youtube videos which you hadn't even watched from start to finish, and when I confronted you with some of Vajda's publications you were stumped. Cabbie, you haven't evinced evidence of having read an academic publication within the last five years.


----------------
> Vajda's finds are interesting and seminal, and I
> even left you an "out" because he discovered
> connections between Athabascan (Dené) languages
> in this hemisphere and the Ket people in Siberia.

You don't understand his research, which is not a surprise because your reading is limited to the aforementioned advertisement. Show us what you know, Cabbie. When and where did the Athabascan and Yeniseian languages diverge? What does that tell us about the dates for the peopling of the Americas?


---------------------
> I'm well aware there's another Amerindian
> population that is not all that closely related.

If you had known that, you wouldn't have said the Anzick child was "directly ancestral" to today's Native Americans.


--------------------
> They are, however, probably descended from the
> population that gave rise to the Anzick child.

Uh, yeah. No one disputes that. The problem is that you think the Anzick boy was 1) part of the original migration and 2) "directly ancestral" to all of today's Native Americans in North, Central and South America. Neither of those assertions is true.




*https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4105016/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2019 02:57AM by Lot's Wife.

<<The other was the "Mantis Mastodon" where a "bone splinter" was interpreted as a projectile point that helped take down a mastodon. The splinter in question was about a quarter inch in diameter, and I was onerous enough to question its suitability as a weapon for slaying a proboscine.>>

You've brought this up a number of times now. First, the bone had regrown around this point tip, indicating that the Manis Mammoth had lived for some time after being struck. It didn't help bring down the mammoth. It's cause of death is unknown as far as I know.

Second, the point is a fragment of a much larger point. Bone, and ivory, points are very common during the paleolithic throughout the world. Generally used on a spear as a thrusting weapon. Given the commonality, they must have been effective or they wouldn't have been used so much.

A quick primer on organic points can be found here:

http://www.lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/2012decemberporganicpointspage1.htm

My above post is in the wrong spot. Oops.

<<I've got a copy of Smithsonian magazine right in front of me, and there's nothing in it to support the statement, "Interestingly, the genetic evidence is pushing the dates back earlier than the archaeological evidence.">>

From the article, quoting Willerslev:

'After that period of genetic separation "the most parsimonious explanation", he says, is that the first Americans migrated into Alaska well before 15,000 years ago, and possibly more that 20,000 years ago."

And this:

'"Five years ago I would have told you that you were full of crap if you were suggesting that there were humans in Alaska or far Northeast Asia 20,000 or 25,000 years ago", says Goebel. "But the more we hear from geneticists, the more we really have to be thinking outside that box."'

My statement stands.

Present in the Americas, but was speaking of their presence in Alaska 15,000 years ago (which I have no problem with). This is from the article:

>>There was basically an exchange between the populations across eastern and western Beringia," Willerslev said in a phone interview from Copenhagen. "So you had these groups hanging around Beringia and they are to some degree isolated--but not completely isolated from each other... You had those groups up there on both sides of the Bering Land Bridge, around 20,000 years ago. I think that is very likely."

(edited for typo)

What I do have a problem with is a willful refusal to acknowledge that the population the Anzick Child belonged to was shown--via solid DNA evidence--to be ancestral to Native Americans. The age of the Anzick Child has been firmly established; he was Clovis.

And please spare me the obfuscatory tactics on the Manis Mastodon information. The claim was made it was a projectile point, and I pointed out it was silly to suggest 1/4 of an inch would've been large enough in diameter to have been used in such a fashion.

Finally, here's a little bit about the Cooper's Ferry article:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/16000-year-old-site-in-idaho-indicates-people-sailed-around-the-ice-sheet/

>>Stone tools suggest the first Americans came from Japan

Japan eh? See Ocean, Pacific



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2019 12:59PM by SL Cabbie.

<<What I do have a problem with is a willful refusal to acknowledge that the population the Anzick Child belonged to was shown--via solid DNA evidence--to be ancestral to Native Americans. The age of the Anzick Child has been firmly established; he was Clovis.>>

Seriously? Dude, everybody and their dog acknowledges that. Do you even read what we write?

<<Japan eh? See Ocean, Pacific>>

Agreed. The Japan bit is amazingly speculative BS.

Compare the subject of Cabbie's post--Willerslev wasn't speaking to the genetic evidence--with the sentence to this passage from the article:

"According to Willerslev, sophisticated genomic analyses of ancient human remains—which can determine when populations merged, split or were isolated—show that the forebears of Native Americans became isolated from other Asian groups around 23,000 years ago. After that period of genetic separation, 'the most parsimonious explanation,' he says, is that the first Americans migrated into Alaska well before 15,000 years ago, and possibly more than 20,000 years ago. Willerslev has concluded that 'there was a long period of gene flow” between the Upward Sun River people and other Beringians from 23,000 to 20,000 years ago.'"

What Willerslev said here is PRECISELY about genetics. It is absurd to deny that.

"The claim was made it was a projectile point, and I pointed out it was silly to suggest 1/4 of an inch would've been large enough in diameter to have been used in such a fashion."

So, you're suggesting that the tip of a point, designed for penetration, shouldn't be as sharp as possible?

>>So, you're suggesting that the tip of a point, designed for penetration, shouldn't be as sharp as possible?

Spare me the circular reasoning and straw man tactic. I questioned the interpretation of it being a "projectile point," and you haven't addressed the issue of its diameter.

Gary Haynes agreed with me:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2011/10/20/early-hunters-killed-mastodons-with-mastodons-also-you-can-chuck-a-bone-spear-through-a-car-who-knew/

"“It’s not definitely proven that it is a projectile point,” says Prof Gary Haynes from the University of Nevada, Reno. “Elephants today push each other all the time and break each other’s rib so it could be a bone splinter that the animal just rolled on.”

Waters disagreed:

>>“A bone projectile point is a really lethal weapon,” says Waters. “It’s sharpened to a needle point and little greater than the diameter of a pencil. It’s like a bullet. It’s designed to get deep into the elephant and hit a vital organ.” He adds, “I’ve seen these thrown through old cars.”

A bone point thrown through an old car?

Right... Thanks for the holiday giggle, honest.

<<Spare me the circular reasoning and straw man tactic.>>

I am attempting neither. Just putting out facts.

<<I questioned the interpretation of it being a "projectile point," and you haven't addressed the issue of its diameter.>>

It may or may not be a "projectile point", as I've noted earlier it may have been a thrusting weapon. And I did address the issue of it's diameter. The distal end of a projectile, thrusting point, or other penetrating weapon will be narrow. Otherwise it will not penetrate.

<<A bone point thrown through an old car?

Right... Thanks for the holiday giggle, honest.>>

You've obviously never thrown an atlatl. But if you want to continue making arguments from incredulity, laugh away in your ignorance.

>>You've obviously never thrown an atatl...

And I'll bet the price of a cab fare to Alaska you never have, either...

(Cabbie Technical Note: An atatl is a throwing device that functions as an "extension of the arm," and a spear or dart is thrown, not the device)

SLC



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2019 11:22AM by SL Cabbie.

<<And I'll bet the price of a cab fare to Alaska you never have, either...>>

Fantastic, I would really like to go next July and do some Halibut fishing in Kachemak Bay.

I built my first Atlalt in 1989, after attending the Atlatls in the Quakies event at Silver Jack Reservoir in Western Colorado, where I had the good fortune to camp next to Atlatl Bob. I'm also a member of the Wyoming Atlatl and Social Club, as well as the World Atlatl Association.

If I didn't want to maintain a bit of privacy on this site, I could provide a link to a newspaper article with a picture of me throwing one.

When: Wed 1 Jan 2020

Sounds 10 x better than the polar bear club.

You should get an atlatl to use against those who try to steal your pumps.

No, you silly, not the ones in your closet.

https://worldatlatl.org

"Do you throw atlatls? Never heard of an atlatl but like throwing things? Do you like to make things with your hands? Do you like competitive throwing sports? Then you’re in the right place."

Unrelated, pumps are a tool of the patriarchy meant to keep a woman down or up on painful feet.

Note that the spelling is NOT "atatl" but "atlatl," as Richard stated. Also that the conventional usage is indeed to "throw" an atlatl.

As for pumps, I think you are safe as long as you store them on the riverbank!

Chain them up? Sounds good.

Here - we can nerd out and try to spear fish.

https://worldatlatl.org/about-atlatls/atlatl-literature/

Seriously - nerd heaven.

Hey, using atlatls to spear Carp in Seminoe Reservoir is serious fun!

My name is RichardtheBad, and I'm a prehistoric nerd.

It's interesting!

If you really want to nerd out on this, you need to check out Atlatl Bob. He's the guy who showed me how to throw one 30 years ago. He's rather an eccentric character, but he has done extensive research on the math and physics involved.

Here is a taste of it.

http://www.atlatl.com/mechanics.php

Beth, you might also like this. I've made a few based on these designs. The northern plains designs work best for me. But different ones work better for others.

http://www.thudscave.com/npaa/designs/index.htm

Bookmarked! :-)

/remedial schoolteacher voice on

Methinks you were throwing a spear or something similar using an atatl, but not throwing the device itself.

<<Methinks you were throwing a spear or something similar using an atatl, but not throwing the device itself.>>

Youthinks correctly. A dart to be precise. Although I have thrown an atlatl out of frustration more than once. That said, in the vernacular of those who play with atlatls, to say "throwing an atlatl" is correct. As is "throwing sticks".

Or "throwing a party" or "throwing a game."

Stick to a subject you have some education in and don't try to school me on the English language.

And a moment of silence for Jim Kjelgaard; his book "Fire Hunter" was my first "exposure" to atatl's (in 1963), and even though he wrote a "sympathetic book" on the Mormons, "Fire Hunter" helped keep me from the LDS Church.

Kjelgaard committed suicide in 1959...

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I've noted before a romantic "love of seafaring"
> that seems to "steer" (pun intended) some
> individuals' thinking into believing it was
> possible to navigate the North Pacific in spite of
> the sub-zero Ice Age temperatures. The closest
> Asian origins of populations ancestral to Native
> Americans are in Siberia (probably the Altai
> people), not the coastal regions of Russia, and
> Dr. Edward Vajda is credited with discovering the
> first linguistic link between Asia and North
> America.

Also you could take a look at the Ainu of Hokkaido as a potential transitional migration location between Asia and America

When his remains were first discovered, that was a popular hypothesis involving Kennewick Man; his DNA was shown to be Native American, however.

There does seem to be this "romantic love" for seafaring (hey, even Joseph Smith used that yarn). The Cooper's Ferry site is claimed to have a "Japanese Connection":

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/16000-year-old-site-in-idaho-indicates-people-sailed-around-the-ice-sheet/

>>Stone tools suggest the first Americans came from Japan

Except the DNA shows close ties with Siberia, not Japan.

<<The Cooper's Ferry site is claimed to have a "Japanese Connection">>

By the journalist, not the archaeologist. The archaeologist noted the similarity in lithic technology, which needs further study. He wouldn't have been making full disclosure without noting the similarity.

As you have noted before, and I am in full agreement, journalists tend to go for the sensational. As you have also noted before, and I fully agree, it's best to wait until you can read the actual report before reaching a conclusion.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/16000-year-old-site-in-idaho-indicates-people-sailed-around-the-ice-sheet/

>>Other aspects of the stone tools at Nipéhe also resemble the ones being made and used on Hokkaido at around the same time and slightly earlier. Davis and his colleagues claim that similarity is no coincidence. They suggest that the similar stone tool technology is evidence of a cultural link between the earliest Americans—who arrived on the Pacific coast and migrated southward before moving inland south of the ice sheets—and people in Northeastern Asia.

You're implying the author is misquoting him? That would amount to journalistic malpractice, honest.

<<You're implying the author is misquoting him? That would amount to journalistic malpractice, honest.>>

Either that or didn't understand what he was hearing, and the nuance of it. The definition he gives of a "biface" is total BS. I've been quoted in the newspaper numerous times and not one sentence, not one, has been accurate.

Here is a better discussion of the issue:

https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/30_august_2019/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1515317#articleId1515317

Pardon me, "she". My mistake.

The scientists are in disagreement! Clearly, that means that the Book of Mormon is true!!!!

Thank you for being the Voice of Reason!

At best, the Earth is 6,020 years old, and I can prove it via the holy scriptures!

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this the War Room!"

Atlatls at ten paces. My money is on RichardtheBad.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/02/native-americans-descend-ancient-montana-boy

That's a bit misleading, but the article points out the Anzick Child (Clovis) belonged to a population that was ancestral to Native Americans.

Circa 13,000 years ago...

From the Smithsonian article: "Fedje and others note that humans walking across the Bering Land Bridge could have traveled by boat down these shorelines after the ice retreated. 'People were likely in Beringia early on,' says Fedje. We don't know exactly, but there certainly is the potential to go back as early as 18,000 years.'"

Show me the DNA... Honest, I understand the difference between a nucleotide and a nitwit.

<<That's a bit misleading, but the article points out the Anzick Child (Clovis) belonged to a population that was ancestral to Native Americans.

Circa 13,000 years ago.>>

Duh. That horse is dead. Quite beating it.

> . . . the article points
> out the Anzick Child (Clovis) belonged to a
> population that was ancestral to Native
> Americans.

Why can't you just admit an error? You used to say that the Anzick Child was the direct ancestor of all Native Americans. We proved that is incorrect, and then in this thread you said the child was ancestral to North, Central and South Americans. When challenged to be more precise on that, you switch to "ancestral to Native Americans," which is of course true of almost all people alive in the Americas at 1300 BCE. You have thus arrived at a position which is meaningless.

Your argumentative techniques resemble those of the LDS church, which originally said the BoM peoples were the ancestors of the 19th century Native Americans but then diluted their claims by opting for "the principal ancestors" only subsequently to retreat still further to "among the ancestors."

Why not just acknowledge that you have finally agreed to the obvious: that the Anzick Child represented a Native American population that left its genetic legacy in large parts of the New World? There is nothing left to argue about with regard to that boy.


--------------
When then confronted by the archaeological and anthropological evidence that there were people in the Americas before Clovis, you say you need to see genetic evidence to that effect.

> Show me the DNA... Honest, I understand the
> difference between a nucleotide and a nitwit.

There are, however, mountains of such evidence. Genetic analysis has proved 1) there was a standstill for several thousand years perhaps in Beringia, 2) there were multiple waves out of that area and into the Americas, and 3) the Anzick child was part of one of those waves and that the wave left genetic traces among some of the descendant American populations. It is in fact the genetic evidence that has forced you to retreat from your initial argument that the Anzick child was a "direct ancestor" of modern Native Americans.

In your desire to deny or minimize the existing genetic evidence, you resemble Mormon apologists who insist that one day researchers will find Middle Eastern DNA in the Americas. Surely you can do better than that.

Gotta love that straw man fetish of yours; I said a child was the direct ancestor of all Native Americans?

Honest, I understand the birds and the bees. What I said was the population the Anzick child belonged to was ancestral to Native Americans (including those in South America); I never said all Native Americans; there were later migrations, obviously; the jury is out whether there were earlier ones, but as noted, Willerslev only said it was "likely," and his expertise is genetics. And actually it wasn't me saying things; it was an individual I was quoting from the article: "One of the problems with the media coverage is its focus on a single hypothesis--a pre 16000 year migration along the northwest coast--that is not well supported by the evidence." These views are shared by actual scientists (like Anna C. Roosevelt); per Richard: Archaeology is not a science, and he's not a scientist. Neither am I, but I do understand science journalism, and as noted, I've helped Simon edit his past contributions on the subject to peer-reviewed publications.

From my mailbox (I have another poster who is up to speed on the subject):

>>As carefully as you tried to explain that the evidence doesn't support the timeline that Richard is hinting at, she is like a Book of Mormon defender, arguing otherwise and lobbing out personal attack. I could have stayed Mormon and had all that. Wow.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gotta love that straw man fetish of yours; I said
> a child was the direct ancestor of all Native
> Americans?

1) on July 24, 2019 at 9:30 AM. You wrote that "the Clovis child . . . is directly ancestral" to Central and South American native populations. That statement was false because the child died at age two and did not reproduce as well as because there were previous waves of settlement into the Americas.

2) When confronted by the patent illogic of that claim, you retreated on July 27, 2019 to the argument that "80% of all present-day native populations in North and South America are direct descendants of the Clovis boy's family." But that statement is equally fatuous because his family was not ancestral to other families in his community at the time and because of the earlier waves of peoples into the Americas.


-------------------
> Honest, I understand the birds and the bees.

Apparently not. For contrary to your claims a boy that died at age two was not "directly ancestral" to anyone.



-------------------
> What
> I said was the population the Anzick child
> belonged to was ancestral to Native Americans
> (including those in South America). . .

Yes, that was your third position, adopted after you retreated from your two previous ones. I guess third time is a charm--although it is silly now to deny your previous statements.


-----------------
> there were later migrations,
> obviously; the jury is out whether there were
> earlier ones, but as noted, Willerslev only said
> it was "likely," and his expertise is genetics.

You would be well-advised to stop quoting Willerslev in 2014 to disprove Willerslev in 2019. In the interceding five years he has done a lot of research, and his position based on that research is the one Richard (and, less significantly, I) embraces.


---------------
> And actually it wasn't me saying things; it was an
> individual I was quoting from the article: "One of
> the problems with the media coverage is its focus
> on a single hypothesis--a pre 16000 year migration
> along the northwest coast--that is not well
> supported by the evidence."

Who is the individual and what is the source? Are we to assume the credibility of someone you won't even identify?


------------------
> These views are shared
> by actual scientists (like Anna C. Roosevelt)

Roosevelt is not on your side. She hasn't been for over a decade.


----------------
> per
> Richard: Archaeology is not a science, and he's
> not a scientist. Neither am I

And yet you would have us believe that your judgment is superior to that of a trained professional archaeologist.


----------------
> I've helped
> Simon edit his past contributions on the subject
> to peer-reviewed publications.

Then you can show us the articles and the published acknowledgements of your contributions. Will you provide them?


-------------------
> From my mailbox (I have another poster who is up
> to speed on the subject):
>
> >>As carefully as you tried to explain that the
> evidence doesn't support the timeline that Richard
> is hinting at,

Excellent. Your first authority was yourself, whose opinions you consider superior to those of Richard, Roosevelt, and Willerslev. Your second was an unidentified writer in an unidentified publication. And now you add the sterling credentials of an anonymous RfM poster who may in fact be a figment of your Walter Mitty imagination.


-------------------
> she is like a Book of Mormon
> defender, arguing otherwise and lobbing out
> personal attack.

And yet it was you who called me, Richard, others, and even Nightingale "narcissists." What is it that renders your psychological assaults acceptable and my questioning of your opinions unseemly? Oh yes. . .


-------------------
> I could have stayed Mormon and
> had all that. Wow.

It's remarkable how many ex-Mormon men, and others from the same instinctively patriarchal cohort, feel that critique of their opinions is improper--particularly when it comes from an uppity woman. But ultimately what does it matter? Your friend is just another timid and possibly imaginary poster lobbing rhetorical wads of paper from the safety of anonymity.


----------------------
By the way, Cabbie, do you remain unwilling to venture into Vajda's territory? You brought him up months ago, yes? And yet you can't explain how and when he thinks the Yeniseian peoples and the proto-Native Americans split up. That's a very important point for a man with the expertise you claim to ignore, is it not?

LOL @ this piece of atheistic bullchip propaganda ~


in b 4 ~ some atheistic scientist finds some piece of Lamanite chiseled piece of bullchip in the god-forsaken frozen wilderness of god-less Canada ~


brb ~ "OMG ~ this piece of bullchip is over 12000 years old !!!" ~


in b 4 ~ god-less atheistic scientists discover something else new they never seen b4 ~


just LOL @ god-less atheistic scientist discoveries ~




just LOLOL out loud ~

Then I feel all stupid because I have no idea what you're talking about. And I *want* to know what you're talking about.

ziller, the enigma, WTF are you talking about?

dear beth,


wait ~


¿ wut is this thred about ? ~


brb ~ oh ~


some atheistic canadian scientist finds a piece of a frozen Lamanite chiseled rock ~


an then decides that everything all the atheistic canadian scientists thought / taught is now wrong ~


an then proceeds to use the piece of frozen Lamanite chiseled rock like a magic rock-in-a-hat to discern exactly what the ancient Lamanites were getting up to ~


in b 4 ~ another atheistic canadian scientist finds a piece of a frozen Lamanite chiseled rock ~


an "discovers" ~


that everything all the atheistic canadian scientists thought / taught is now wrong ~



an now all the exmos are fighting about it ~


seems wrong / sad ~



that is wtf ziller thinks he was talking about ~

Fen is from North Carolina, and I have no idea what god/s he worships or doesn't.

See? All is well <3

https://www.fenmontaigne.com/about

Daryl Fedje. He can't help being from CanadiaLand. I have no idea what he believes or does not believe in. Don't blame Canada, zill.

https://www.uvic.ca/socialsciences/anthropology/people/faculty/other-faculty/fedjedaryl.php