Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Discovery of America

?? People got here prior to the Siberians coming to Alaska? Who? First I have heard of this. Have any cites to sources? This is interesting, would like to read more about it.

Genetic data shows 80% of native American Indians are actually direct descendants of the Clovis.

The first were the Siberians or paleo-Iindians or Clovis or whatever you want to call them. They came from Asia.

The first were the Siberians or paleo-Iindians or Clovis or whatever you want to call them. They came from Asia. They wandered in without inowing they had discovered a new continent.

There may have been other accidental landings but the first known "discovery" was the Norse, about 1000 AD. They made at least one settlement but were soon driven out. They had no lasting effect.

Columbus should get the credit for the real discovery America because his voyages had lasting effects. The "Columbian exchange" not only led to European settlement but a wide interchange of natural rexources and foodstuffs not known between the continents until then. Also diseases. European diseases, previously unknown in the Americas, wiped out almost all the Indians before the Americas were settled.

I always enjoyed the Solutrean idea but there is too much to show genetically the Siberian route is more prominent.

In my opinion, the DNA evidence alone is enough to conclude that some people from the old world came to the Americas, and a Solutrean crossing fits the genetic data the best.

Where do the genetic data to baseline Clovis people come from? There isn't any that I know of, and all that is being done is compare haplogroups of current populations and use that to guess at where Clovis came from. I think the tool evidence is much more diagnostic. Your second link says this about the DNA evidence:



Maybe you didn't read it?

Your other 2 links conflate, purposely I think, "Clovis First" and "Solutrean". They are not the same thing. Across Atlantic Ice includes an entire chapter acknowledging that nothing in their research shows that Clovis were the first here and some sites in the process of being analyzed when the book was written were showing human activity in pre-Clovis layers. The conflation is being done for political purposes, so that the argument that white men in America owe the people we call "natives" something because they were here first.

The only studies I have found linking the Clovis style of arrowhead link to the West coast influx.

I just don't agree that it must be the eastern, or Solutrean, side that settled first.

As a person trained in science with advanced degrees in human biology I have seen too much evidence to trust carbon dating to be the factual truth

Then you couldn't have read ad understood anything recent, or even the material cited in your second link. It directly points to, and includes a photo from, a presentation showing a Clovis diagnostic biface point found in Virginia that was produced from flint that came from France.



Luckily the Solutrean hypothesis does not make claims as do who settled first nor does its validity depend on Clovis doing that.



That is OK, the opinions of people with advanced degrees more relevant to this than yours have been shown to be wrong when new evidence came forward. Also, as I am sure someone with your training is aware, other dating methods than carbon were used on many of the recent excavations. Do you dispute the accuracy of them all or just carbon?

==

I don't dispute any of this. My first post said I didn't have all the answers. I would expect the clovis point may be found in many places in the future. There is a period of thousands of years with a moving population throughout all of this land mass. My comment as to carbon was to simply imply that any of these could be in error as to dating with that system. I personally don't care where the earlier people came from; east or west. But I do agree there are indications from both directions.

I have no problems with newer research. I do find much of what is called "research" today is cherry picked to fit preconceived hypothesis. Unfortunately for all of us the era of research merely showing the data found is; in this day and age; getting mixed with the idea it has to fit into some other model. It is just as likely that the first humanoids were neither of these migrations but only the future of discovering newer artifacts is going to answer that.

As a final comment - as the hunting public seems to be the cause of extinctions then we probably can just assume someone had to have been here. This due to the fact that over the past 20,000 years a lot of species have disappeared and people just had to be the cause of that.