Can somebody explain this to me parsimoniously?

>woah really? Regardless, the Americas have been inhabited for 30,000 years

Perhaps but that may have more to do with the Oceanian-like genetic signal found in the Amazon than X2.
>X2a'j is the only strictly North African branch.

Something is always better than the nothingness of indigenous European X.

Since Native Americans have a genetic component from Central Asia it's just much easier to associate X2 with it than something exotic which hasn't been detected at any level in Native American genomes

A tribe near Anatolia ventured out into the steppe, among them a few women with Hg X mitochondrial DNA. Centuries later some would cross the Bering strait and multiply in that region of Canada.

Atlantis

thanks for the links

>the studies on mtDNA control-region variation have been taken to support a pre-Clovis migration, between ∼20 and 30 kya, before the LGM, for the single (or the most ancient) migration.6,21
>There is evidence of human settlements in the artic around 30 kya.57
>Some of the earliest sites might occur along the much larger South American western coastal plain because large portions of its prehistoric coastline are still exposed.66

this is confirmed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde
>MV-I has been reportedly radiocarbon dated to 33,000 years before present.[30][31]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_peoples#Migration_and_dispersion
>there is a genetically distinct subpopulation of coconut on the eastern coast of South America which has undergone a genetic bottleneck resulting from a founder effect; however, its ancestral population is the pacific coconut, which suggests that Austronesian peoples may have sailed as far east as the Americas.[29]

>Oceanian-like
yeah, didn't mean to imply X2a was there -30,000. To my knowledge it's about 20,000 years old.

Monte Verde instruments are dated from 16000BC. That's the consensus. Geneticists already acknowledge the fact that polynesians arrived to America.

Yet the earliest human remnant in America is dated from 13500 IIRC and it's located in West USA.

The earliest confirmed evidence of human presence in America is dated from 25000BC in Alaska Bluefish Caves.

The migrations were probably like this:
First wave of ancient central asians, then polynesians reaching south-America, central asian admixture with western asian who populated siberia beforw they got replaced, and finally siberians. That would explain the location of the western-asiatic haplogroup, the extended area of central asiatic influence. The polynesian influence located in the amazonas may be explained by similar neolithic revolution as middle eastern people assimilated cromagnon, yet there are zones with pre-neolithic genes and post-neolithic central asiatic origin.

Neanderthal probably made it as well, somehow.

I don't think they were as versatile as humans to reach America. Yet we have to see evidence of that.

My guess is that polynesians arrived to America when clovis culture was flourishing and expanded through the continent 11000BC. The Monte Verde findings aren't related to Clovis 16000BC.

The polynesian migrants probably expanded through South-America mixing with natives. Yet it seems that "pure" natives with less admixture managed to start domesticating the potato and started rincreasing their population as the other tribes' genes were assimilated and became insignificant. Similar to what happened to cromagnon people against middle-eastern farmer migrants who started expanding through europe as they could support a huge population density thanks to crops. Yet the replacement already started before the neolithic revolution as the crop domestication process implied an early change of diets making it poaaible for them to already maintain higher population densities. It seems that the neolithic "revolution" was the pinacle of complete domestication, control and knowledge thanks to hundreds of generations experience.

tlr:darkness
Natives with less polynesian admixture started the potato domestication trend and overwhelmed natives with more polynesian admixture. Such people expanded to the andean geographic barrier. Making it possible for natives with more polynesian admixture (western amazonians) to adopt an agrarian lifestyle withouy being assimilated(like what happened to cromagnons who were assimilatrd by ME farmers).

It's interesting to know that incans managed to sail to polynesia too.

>My guess is that polynesians arrived to America when clovis culture was flourishing and expanded through the continent 11000BC
If you think that, you really need to learn about the history of Polynesian and their spread through the Pacific. Polynesians (as we would understand them) didn't even exist at that point, and wouldn't get anywhere near the Americas until at least 1000 years ago.

user. The sweet potato came to South America through Polynesia. It's confirmed. I'm on the phone but I think you can find the research easily.

>The sweet potato came to South America through Polynesia.
No, it hasn't. You're probably either misinterpreting or remembering something. Potatoes originated in America and appear to have started spreading through Polynesia about 1000 years (again, pretty much the earliest any contact with Polynesians could have happened).

nature.com/news/dna-shows-how-the-sweet-potato-crossed-the-sea-1.12257

when he says Polynesians, he really means Denisova carrying sundadont Austro-Melanesians akin to Ainu.

>incans managed to sail to polynesia too
doubt.png

How about the polynesian DNA found near Amazonas?
It seems they did.
Carving datings, names and even oral tradition supports this idea.

>I was astonished, not because it is so good but because it is so bad.
>Archaeologist Donald Grayson to BuzzFeed News

beta.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-cerutti-mastodon-20171222-htmlstory.html

>Sweetie-Pie 37 minute(s) ago
>Native Americans were the 1st to arrive on the land called America. They are a proud environmentally friendly people who lived with all life millions of years ago. They past on that legacy to the Latinos of today. All people descend from Native Americans

>“Because humans could have fractured the CML mastodon remains does not mean they did fracture them,”
Literally in the same arcticle.

Go back to your shithole, subhuman.

dumbass, the evidence literally points to the fact that they were fractured by humans

posting a journalistic quote out of context doesn't refute the academics it's talking about

this isn't old news either, it's been years

The distribution of Clovis points in America is almost entirely restricted to the East coast, X is only found in Ojibwe on the east coast, Clovis points look remarkably similar to Clovis points, and R1 is present in Native americans without later mutations associated with Colonial Europeans.

The age of some sites on the east coast being around 15,000 B.C. further supports the point. Calling it delusion without evidence is retarded.

Clovis points look remarkably similar to Solutrean points*

Both R1 and X are present in Ojibwe, They are native Americans with middle eastern and European DNA in eastern North America.

They did not come from Siberia and their DNA confirms that 100 fucking percent.

Archaeologists and anthropologists need to start learning genetics, because this shit is very straightforward in this context.

Ojibwe have ancient founding populations from Europe and the Middle east.

>e but if that had happened then surely there would be something unusual in the eastern Canadian natives genes yet they are exactly

>he had never heard about New Byzantium in arctic

oh boy

>X is only found in Ojibwe on the east coast
that wasn't always true

also I'm pretty sure it pops up in Navajo

huh?

>the evidence literally points to the fact that they were fractured by humans
Are you ignoring the parts of the article you posted that point out the numerous other explanations for the breaks, and how other archaeologists see no evidence for human breakage?

Cerutti found some broken bones, and that's pretty much it. He has no evidence hominins are responsible for the breakage, or that they were even living in the Americas at the time (and freely admits that). As every other qualified archaeologist says, that makes his argument pretty fucking flimsy. The more you read about his claim and less it will make sense; he doesn't even claim it's a kill or butchery site, which means he offers no explanation for the context. Literally all he has is some broken bones, and he expects people to buy a completely new paradigm based on a conclusion with no support or reasoning behind it.

Learn more about lithic technologies. The similarities are pretty superficial, and everyone with any training in lithics thinks Stanford's claims are completely laughable. And that's not even considering the thousands of years separating the usage of both point types.

Also, your understanding of the genetics is pretty off, too. Look at the links posted earlier about where X came from.

yeah, where Demere claims those spiral fractures could have also been made if it got stuck in the mud and broke it's own bones trying to free itself.

>he doesn't even claim it's a kill or butchery site
he clearly states they butchered a carcass for the marrow. Those bones have fractures indicating human activity, don't know how to break this to you.

>Literally all he has is some broken bones
what, did you forget about the used hammer stones on site?

>other archaeologists ... every other qualified archaeologist
lol, I think I quoted one who talked to ********
>no evidence hominins are responsible for the breakage, or that they were even living in the Americas at the time

maybe you don't get it. There's evidence hominins were responsible for the breakage, which if true is in itself strong evidence of their presence in the Americas. This is only the latest article I've come across on the issue.

You're going off of an article written to make Cerutti seem sympathetic. And even that article is pointing out a lot of valid counter-arguments that you seem to be completely ignoring. Read more. Like Grayon points out, their Nature article is astonishingly weak in its evidence. There's a reason pretty much no one that read it is taking it seriously.

I'm an archaeologist, and I was pretty excited by the claims, but thought the paper was almost laughably bad. There's no way I would have ever felt comfortable enough to publish something that weak.

I'm going off a couple articles, post wide brimmed sable fedora.

>I'm going off a couple articles
So not even the Nature article this debate is about, or any kind of formal archaeological knowledge?

>small craters produced when a solid object strikes another, creating cone-shaped divots, just as a BB does when it hits a pane of glass.
>With a variety of microscopes, Fulagar documented the topography of the stones, their abrasions, scratches, scars, polish and pitting.
>There was no mistaking it in Fulagar’s view: They had been used as hammers and anvils.

any thoughts?

>I'm going off a couple articles
Then post them. You won't be able to, because they don't exist. It's just not an idea that any credible archaeologists take seriously, not even to the extent of belittling it, because somebody would have to actually claim it first for it to be worth belittling.

>they don't exist
haha, ok. Maybe your autism prevents you from realizing I was talking about news articles mentioning the original paper, which I have also seen.

>smithsonianmag
>nytimes
>theatlantic

I don't even know why you're so mad though.

I'm not the guy you're replying to, and if your "other articles" are just more of the same, then why even mention them?

As to this,
the obvious and boring answer is that stones can become pitted, chipped etc as a result of natural processes too, and it can be hard to tell the difference. There just really isn't much of a mystery here; the evidence isn't very strong. It's frankly outrageous that a paper that irresponsible was published in Nature, but then again they actually have a pretty bad track record when it comes to anthro/archaeological stuff.

There is no widespread conspiracy to cover up the truth here, it's just a shitty paper that makes extraordinary claims and overstates the evidence behind them.

>it can be hard to tell the difference
for you and I certainly, but at least 11 professionals seem to disagree.

also your identity is likely irrelevant.

>at least 11 professionals seem to disagree
You mean like two professionals? Most of the paper's authors are paleontologists, with a couple geologists sprinkled in.

Anyway, I do have a degree in this shit, so yes, I know what I'm talking about. I freely admit I'm not any kind of lithics expert, not even close, but I certainly know enough to tell you that sometimes you really just can't tell. That's why in cases like that you have to look for other archaeological features, other evidence that it's an archaeological site, of which, apart from the fractured bones themselves, the Cerutti Mastodon site has absolutely none.

Fortunately it's not just me (and the archaeo-user above) talking here, it's essentially the entire archaeological community telling you (and the authors of that paper), sorry, we're just not buying it.

They got R1b from mixing with French and Brits.

common [partial] origin in the mal'ta-buret' culture

It was because of some BLACK turk who went through europe and later kigrated to america in the 17th century.
Like all the other BLACK men he left a trail of pregnant wh*Te women in his wake.

>they didn't come from siberia
It's the most probable explanation.

>distribution
Because the west coast was filled with glaciar mountains and a harsh climate. The east coast has always been a better place, until the outburst floods happened after the deglaciation.

>calling it delusion
>linking a culture from 20000BC with another one with some similarities from 11000BC is not a delusion
Delusional. There are no clovis points before 11000-11500BC. Yet there are tool and human remnants before that date. Try again.