GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-10 > 1067014474


From: Amelia <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] First Americans Arrival
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:54:34 -0700
References: <571CF05B2EDBF4479C40CF29EC0C591E0F2D8F@exchange.conrad.local>
In-Reply-To: <003c01c3980a$7cb2e6a0$1a466144@ok.cox.net>


Don't forget, too... healthy populations are not static. The gene pool
needs a little depth to it.
People of the Northwest Coast (Pacific) were known to have an extensive
trading route up and down the coast from Alaska to California.... inland
through the rivers in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho... and other connecting
routes from beyond.
Early explorers were surprised to find Spanish coins already being used as
jewelry before "discovery" on the West Coast. Many items from China had
also washed ashore on our beaches (and possibly come through trading
routes, too).
I wouldn't want to draw a line in the sand, and say that 45,000 years ago,
*the* Native Americans were here... and then stayed here, never went
anywhere, and never met up with any new blood ever again. There were most
likely waves of immigration/emigration... just like other places in the world.

for Haplogroup A:
http://www.olypen.com/amelia/aiyana/


At 02:35 PM 10/21/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>I don't know where either of these figures came from, but the consensus
>among archaeolgists, for some time now, has been that the various tribes of
>North America crossed the Bering Strait land bridge and migrated southward
>to Central and South America over a period of thousands of years, beginning
>some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, not 30,000, and certainly not 13,000 years
>ago. Add to that the archaeological record of a stone age culture that lived
>in what is now coastal Southern California, and the 13,000 year-old figure
>seems ridiculous.



This thread: