"Show 'Ice Age Columbus: Who Were the First Americans?'" Topic

Did anyone see this Discovery Channel program, which aired tonight, Nov. 6, 2005?

Any opinions or comments?

CC

I should have also cross-posted to "What's on TV". Sorry.

CC

I saw it a while back. The evidence presented seemd pretty conclusive in terms of the stone tools similarity. I must admit that the theory to account for the east west crossing of the Atlantic did seem a little far fetched but then if you think about it the Polynesians and Inuit have done similar journeys in terms of distance and technlogy used so why not ?
The main prejudice we have to overcome with such theories is that accepting we are the epitome of mental and creative development today.

I am familiar with the theory, though I did not see it. This is based on the stone tool shapes in the Eastern US being quite similar to the Europe right? Then, they figured that they crossed the Atlantic at the ice border hunting seals etc. Right?

Anthropologically, it make great sense. In fact, living on the fringe of ice is not a bad deal for the skilled hunter. There are wonderful opportunities to capture game that way.

However, I do disagree with the title. It should not have been ICE AGE COLUMBUS. It should have been ICE AGE LEIF ERIKSON!

The most interesting piece of this puzzle is that many native Americans dispute the hypothesis. Even though it would tend not to take away their aboriginal rights, they contend that all Native Americans are Asian in ancestry; probably because they had such a negative experience recently with European immigrants. That said, the stone tools and common ice-hunter movement leads me to believe that the hypothesis is spot-on and that if the oceans had into risen we would know where these hunters had settled. Obviously, their settlements were swallowed by the rising oceans.

How come the distribution of blood types of North and South American Indians closely matches those of Northern Asians but not those of Northern Europeans?

Ralph

DNA tests demonstrated that the genes of the Stone Age Europeans carried on in the some Native American populations:

"In the DNA profile of the Ichigua Native American tribe he identified a lineage that was clearly European in origin, too old to be due to genetic mixing since Columbus' discovery of the New World. Instead it dated to Solutrean times. Wallace's genetic timelines show the Ice Age prompted a number of migrations from Europe to America. It looks highly likely that the Solutreans were one."

"In the DNA profile of the Ichigua Native American tribe he identified a lineage that was clearly European in origin, too old to be due to genetic mixing since Columbus' discovery of the New World. Instead it dated to Solutrean times. Wallace's genetic timelines show the Ice Age prompted a number of migrations from Europe to America. It looks highly likely that the Solutreans were one."

Can you really call any of them a Native American tribe, then?

PVO

[Can you really call any of them a Native American tribe, then?]

I'm sure they didn't suddenly or spontaneously appear on the North American continent, just as early humans didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere in Europe or Asia for that matter.

Recommend reading "1491" for those who are interested.

Dan

It's the #1 item on my Christmas list.

K

Looks like a good read…..

A few points:

I meant population genetics of gene distributions not pieces of DNA per se. I am aware that "European" DNA sequences are found in some North American Indians, whether that means the genes "travelled" across the North Atlantic ice flows is still being debated. But that sounds logical.

European blood phenotypes show that type O blood is close to 40% of the population with B type at 9%. I don't have any medical books handy but N.American Indian frequencies are roughly reversed. This is the same for Siberian natives also. What that means is that the majority of genetic influence still came from Asia. The population genetics are just too close.

Ralph

I think part if the point of this hypothesis is that there may have been people descended from those who had travelled from Europe into N. America when the first migrants arrived from Asia. And that the Asian line became dominant through the continent with only a few pockets displaying a possible Ice Age European heritage. I don't think anyone is disputing that the majority (or all?) modern Native Americans are of ultimately Asian descent (excluding post-Columbian admixture).
Part of the reason for the political dimension is that there are some who say that as the original occupants of the continent, the Native Americans deserve X, Y or Z. I think there is a fear in some quarters that other quarters will say something along the line of 'Europeans were here first so you shouldn't have X, Y, Z… as you stole the land first'.
I have no stance on the matter or axe to grind, so I hope I haven't appeared to be partisan.
S.

I had read a while back about the american indians of the north east and how they were usually taller and lighter in skin color then those in the western United States and the rest of the americas. I also noticed the eyes of the iroqois. More rounded then others. maybe this is explained by the european influence.

Discussed in "1491", and disproved using DNA. Read it and you'll understand. Uses the example of diease and how it spread in the Americas to demonstrate that the native peoples living in the Americas were nearly totally genetically different from the Europeans.

American Indians merely refuse to believe that any European types got here 15-30,000 years ago as a simple attempt by present day Americans to avoid guilt for what the Europeans did to the American Indians (i.e., if the existing American Inidians wiped out earlier peoples, then the Europeans are not any worse for having wiped them out, etc.).

Genetic testing shows nearly no possible way that any Europeans got to the Americas prior to Eric and Columbus.

Very touchy subject to Native Americans.

Dan

Dan,

Does "1491" deal with the more recent DNA testing which shows that there are (or may be) some "European" markers?

From the website about the show:

"In the DNA profile of the Ichigua Native American tribe he identified a lineage that was clearly European in origin, too old to be due to genetic mixing since Columbus' discovery of the New World. Instead it dated to Solutrean times. Wallace's genetic timelines show the Ice Age prompted a number of migrations from Europe to America. It looks highly likely that the Solutreans were one."

The question is not who came to America before Columbus, but who didn't.

Dan Cyr: "if the existing American Inidians wiped out earlier peoples, then the Europeans are not any worse for having wiped them out, etc.)."

There is no IF about it. Each successive wave came in contact with those who came before, many being wiped out in the process, down to the time when Europeans came in the 15th century. They were still doing that when the US expanded west.

Why the constant effort to depict them as above all others, without guile and pacifists. Evidence shows that they were the same as the rest of humanity.

CC

"1491" discusses the fact that there is no evidence to prove or disprove such a claim (i.e., that Europeans came first), but it does examine the data on DNA to show that the existing Native Americans don't have European DNA.

Now one could claim that that merely proves that the 'later' wave of Asian types killed off every single 'earlier' wave human, but knowing history as well as we do (right?), it would be hard to believe that.

If I recall right it does discuss if there were even any humans in modern day northern Europe (due to the last Ice Age) when humans were already settling in the Americas 20-30,000 years ago (assuming one thinks the European humans got to the Americas by way of a land bridge via Iceland & Greenland).

Would appear that there were several 'waves' of folks that came over from Asia, and no really accepted view of how they got here.

The book does a good job on everything except a chapter towards the end that attempts to pass on Native American political and philosophy thought to early European invaders. Got wacky there.

Excellent book, and I'd say it gives a fairly balanced view of the arugments on both sides for all issues. Will make you think.

Dan

Interesting info about European DNA in the Native Americans:
link
link
link

There are many more!!!

CC

Cacique Caribe, I don't suppose you've heard of the giant, red-haired, Indian mummies found in Nevada?

Guys,

It might please some to know that I have just submitted an Eureka 100 Club request for the following:

Dingoes (suitable also as Carolina Dogs – for those needing canine companions for their early Americans)

Description of Figure:
4-6 Dingo dog variants (suitable also as Carolina Dogs, for those who may want to have canines for their early Americans), in various poses (at least these four poses: walking, running, standing alert, sniffing ground).

References:
Please use the following links as a guide:
link
link
link
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo
Very similar (in general build, size and appearance) to the Carolina Dog:
link
link

Is anyone else interested?

CC
PS. As soon as Nic sets up an official listing, I will let everyone know.

Hi

A couple points:
1491 has a few "hobby horses" of its own to ride, and I would be skeptical of anything dramatic.

That being said, a great deal of the Iraquois confedeation philosphy of governement and politics did works it way into the the thinking of the "founding fathers" of the US. That has been discussed at length.

The "proof" of separate populations Europe versus asia, and the "links" have problems of their own.

Part of this is political, most American Indians (I dislike the "native" part…how much BORN here are you before you are "native"?) Most have a religious,cultural bias against dealing with dead bodies, making the the DNA part difficult.
And, as alluded to above, the "fear" is that if it turns out that white guys got here first and were wiped out, the "we were always here" becomes just another invasion.

MtDna demonstrates that there were at least 4 asian migrations. That particular approach is a lot simpler, easier to demonstrate than general DNA studies. But again, remember that "RACE" is a relatively modern contstruct. There is little or NOTHING you can point to that is specifically "white" or "indian" or whatever.

A shorter version of this is that "Humans are the species that goes for long walks". In order for the entire planet to be a single species that interbreeds means that no population is very isolated.

An example of "1491"s agenda and problem is demonstrating sensitivity to various diseases. It mistakes the idea. Simply, EUROPE was devistated by Small Pox as well. But only a few centuries earlier, not millennia. And WAS still suffering huge losses. The european population were less sensitive THEN just as american indians are NOW.

The other side also has problems. Drawing parallels between "clovis" and, variously, "Solothern" or "mousterian" stone work has the real problem that there are tens of thousands of years GAP between the two styles, and no demonstrable links!

Both groups argue that the "clovis barrier" cannot exist for the purposes of their agenda. Which is an interesting problem.

Right now, there just isn't enough data.

Rocky