GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-11 > 1258271155


From: Jonathan Day <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] I will see your 19,000 and raise you 31,000!
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:45:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1258268008_14067@smtp.awasco.com>


My understanding here is very limited, so please nobody laugh at me too much. :) What I've understood is that artifacts found in America 60,000 years ago were likely from the same wave that left Africa and ended up in Australia, but that those who landed in the Americas from this time did not survive for whatever reason. Genetic evidence for this particular wave has (according to what I understand) been found elsewhere, but a lack of artifacts up to the time the Ice Age crossers reached the Americas and a lack of genetic evidence of modern descendants suggests that the first Americans died off entirely.

Please note that I have not been able to find any of this clearly stated in any reputable peer-reviewed publication, or indeed the whole of this argument published anywhere. I've heard fragments here, bits-and-pieces there, any of which may have been stated or heard incorrectly.

Please also note that even if all of the above was 100% correct, the number of people in the region of interest who have been genetically tested is insignificant and the area has been built and rebuilt by multiple civilizations over time. There are whole tribes not much further south with whom contact is limited or prohibited for their safety and ours. The Incan mummy was an extremely rare find and I doubt we'll find even a bone from many of the tribes that lived into the "conventionally inhabited Americas" timeframe but have since gone extinct.

As such, I would argue that any conclusion reached at this point is a guess based on the best available data, but that the best available data isn't good enough to do more than guess.

--- On Sat, 11/14/09, OrinWells <> wrote:

> From: OrinWells <>
> Subject: [DNA] I will see your 19,000 and raise you 31,000!
> To:
> Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 10:31 PM
> I obviously have not been keeping
> track of recently reported
> discoveries.  I knew about the Kenewick Man who was
> determined to
> have been about 9,000 years old and somewhere in the back
> of my mind
> thought 12,000 years was the date assigned to the first
> humans in
> North America.
>
> The 19,000 seemed to be a bit on the stunning side. 
> Sure blows away
> the stuff they told us in High School about man arriving
> following
> the last ice age.
>
> But as I was searching for something else I discovered this
> article
> from 2004 revealing that they have found evidence dating
> back 50,000
> years.  Artifacts of course, not actual skeletons it
> seems.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm
>
> There is a reference in the article to similar sites in
> Oklahoma,
> Chile and Brazil.  The note says it is possible humans
> were in the
> Americas as early as 60,000 years ago.
>
> That would indicate that a fair number of them made it from
> Africa a
> lot faster than some have been assuming.  Whether
> those who did
> lasted long is another story.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Orin R. Wells
> Wells Family Research Association
> P. O. Box 5427
> Kent, Washington 98064-5427
> <>
> http://www.wells.org
> Subscribe to the "Wells-L" list on RootsWeb
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the
> subject and the body of the message
>





This thread: