tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-227780861638767023.post5971571340776465806..comments2024-01-27T00:27:45.851+00:00Comments on race/history/evolution notes: Kennewick Man updaten/ahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02378473351485233448noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-227780861638767023.post-72387259739694656432012-10-13T13:45:14.555+01:002012-10-13T13:45:14.555+01:00Also, I wonder if n/a has any opinions about the &...Also, I wonder if n/a has any opinions about the "Windover Bog people" who are alleged to have European DNA:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbayBEbIEwc<br /><br />Strangely, despite the very strong claims made in this video, nothing of any sort seems to have been published about the DNA of the Windover Bog people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-227780861638767023.post-52717105182101214742012-10-13T13:38:43.479+01:002012-10-13T13:38:43.479+01:00It seems possible to me that Haplogroup X did come...It seems possible to me that Haplogroup X did come from Europe, but much later than the Solutreans came over - possibly Bronze Age. Someone mined a lot of copper in the northeastern US in ancient times yet the Indians themselves rarely used metal objects. Some have speculated that it was being shipped to the Old World.<br /><br />Lots of European haplogroups show up in studies of Amerindians, but with the exception of mtDNA haplogroup X, these are all automatically assumed to be post-Columbian admixture. It's not obvious to me that that's the case. Most of the areas where we find lots of mtDNA haplogroup X also show high levels of y-DNA haplogroup R1b, which is interesting. I know the difference between European hg X and Amerindian hg X is supposed to go back 13,000 years, but that could just be due to the fact that it only occurs at low frequencies on both sides of the Atlantic or that it has become less common in NW Europe during the last few thousand years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-227780861638767023.post-83161436966336222622012-10-12T22:19:38.887+01:002012-10-12T22:19:38.887+01:00Correct. I see no genetic evidence to support the ...Correct. I see no genetic evidence to support the Solutrean hypothesis. I don't have a strong opinion either way on the archaeology.<br />n/ahttp://racehist.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-227780861638767023.post-26823586522744424392012-10-12T03:04:30.819+01:002012-10-12T03:04:30.819+01:00"W. Eurasian-affiliated ancient Central Asian..."<i>W. Eurasian-affiliated ancient Central Asians did contribute significantly to the ancestry of Paleoindians</i>"<br /><br />So you don't believe there was any significant prehistoric seaborne colonization of America directly from Europe? (Or, at none or near-none that survived in the Amerindian genepool).<br /><br />In that case, how can one explain certain ancient Amerindian technology being so similar to Solutrean technology of prehistoric Europe?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com