Post on 22-Jan-2023
THE KENNEWICK FOLLIES: “New” Theories about the Peopling of
the Americas
Stuart J. Fiedel
ABSTRACT Recent archaeological finds and anthropological
analyses of crania and molecular data have been widely
construed as requiring radical revision of conventional
views of Native American origins. However, ostensibly
fresh ideas about multiple early migrations to the New World
only reprise outmoded racialist speculations. The “Clovis-
first” model, which entails rapid colonization from Beringia
beginning ca. 13,500 cal BP, remains the most cogent
interpretation of the archaeological and skeletal record.
This model also is congruent with molecular genetic data
that indicate a single Amerind migration and point clearly
to southern middle Siberia as the ancestral homeland.
KEYWORDS: Archaeology/Physical Anthropology; Americas;
Paleoindians; Peopling
1
INTRODUCTION: THE FIRST AMERICANS--A NEW PARADIGM?
Until recently, we thought we knew where Native
Americans came from (Siberia), and when they arrived (about
11,500-11,000 rcbp [radiocarbon years], 13,500-13,000 cal BP
[calendar years]). However, recent archaeological finds and
anthropological analyses of crania and molecular data have
been widely construed as requiring radical revisions of the
conventional view. Currently fashionable theories envision
multiple pre-Clovis migrations including trans- or circum-
Pacific voyages by Australian aborigines, Melanesians, or
Ainu, and a trans-Atlantic migration by Caucasoid Solutreans
from Iberia. These ostensibly fresh ideas about the
peopling of the New World in fact represent an atavistic
reversion to the speculative ethnology and racialist
physical anthropology of the early twentieth century. The
new data do not require any substantial revision of the
“Clovis-first” model. Indeed, the most recent molecular
genetic data point clearly to southern middle Siberia as the
2
ancestral Paleoindian homeland—just where Aleš Hrdlička put
it almost a century ago.
Within the past few years, several highly publicized
archaeological finds have been touted as the long-sought
proof that humans entered the Americas at least a millennium
before the expansion of the Clovis culture at ca. 11,000
rcbp (13,000 cal BP). Monte Verde in southern Chile was
proclaimed (Meltzer 1997) as a “paradigm-busting” site, with
a well-preserved campsite (MV II) dated to ca. 12,500 rcbp
(ca. 14,500 cal BP). Putative artifacts found across the
creek from this locus (MV I) offered tenuous evidence of a
much earlier human presence at 33,000 rcbp. The
certification of Monte Verde II (Meltzer et al. 1997)
sparked calls for a “new paradigm” in research and theory on
peopling of the Americas. Despite hints of early occupation
at a few North American sites (Cactus Hill, Virginia [McAvoy
and McAvoy 1997; McAvoy et al. n.d.] and Meadowcroft
Rockshelter, Pennsylvania [Adovasio et al. 1999]), the
absence of widespread pre-Clovis settlement has compelled
some archaeologists to speculate that a coastal migration
3
may have bypassed the continental interior (e.g., Gruhn
1994, Dixon 1999, Erlandson 2002; see Surovell 2003 for a
critique of this idea based upon demographic simulation).
Meanwhile, a skeleton found eroding out of the Columbia
River bank near Kennewick, Washington, became the focus of
scientific and legal controversy. James Chatters, the first
to examine “Kennewick Man,” initially classified him as a
“Caucasoid” (Chatters 1997, 2001). After he found an
Archaic stone point embedded in the pelvis, and radiocarbon
dates put the bones at around 8400 rcbp, Chatters (2000:307)
modified his racial identification. He now maintains that
Kennewick Man resembled Ainu and Polynesians, particularly
Easter Islanders, more than he did any living or recent
Native Americans. The ostensible Polynesian affinities of
the skull were reaffirmed in a separate analysis by Powell
and Rose (1999). If Kennewick Man was not a Native
American, there seemed to be no compelling reason to accede
to the claims of the Umatilla Tribe, who demanded
repatriation of the skeleton under the provisions of NAGPRA
(the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
4
Act). When the Department of the Interior sided with the
Umatilla, a group of archaeologists and anthropologists
brought suit against the department. John Jelderks, the
presiding federal magistrate, found in favor of the
plaintiffs in 2002, but the government and tribes have
appealed his decision. It is likely that the US Supreme
Court ultimately will decide the fate of Kennewick Man.
Chatters’ analysis of Kennewick Man complemented the
results of re-examinations of the small corpus of early
Holocene North American crania (Steele and Powell 1992,
1994, 2002; Jantz and Owsley 2001). Some early South
American crania also have been reassessed (Lahr 1995; Neves
et al. 1991, 1998, 2003). These studies have shown that
early Holocene crania are, in general, more dolichocephalic
(long-headed), shorter-faced, often more rugged (e.g., more
pronounced supra-orbital tori) and sometimes more
prognathous than the skulls of more recent Native Americans.
These researchers have presented principal component
analyses of craniometric data, typically accompanied by
plots graphically illustrating the distinctness of early
5
American skulls from those of all recent human populations
(e.g., Powell and Rose 1999, Figs. 2 and 3; Chatters 2000,
Fig. 11; Jantz and Owsley 2001, Fig. 2; Gonzalez-Jose et al.
2001, Fig. 4). Besides showing this general isolation of
early Americans, their statistical comparisons of cranial
measurements have often yielded the surprising and counter-
intuitive result that the early Americans resemble
particular Old World populations more than they do their
presumed Native American descendants. For example, Jantz
and Owsley (2001:153), state that their analysis of a ca.
4300 rcbp Archaic burial from Nebraska, “assigns it to
Tasmania.” They do not specify the historical and
evolutionary processes that might account for such an
incongruous attribution.
In addition to these reevaluations of the skeletal
record, new data arising from analyses of the molecular
genetics of living Native Americans also have been marshaled
in support of the idea that multiple early migrations from
several regions of the Old World produced a diverse
“Paleoamerican” population (the replacement of “Paleoindian”
6
by this neologism in recent publications [e.g., Bonnichsen
and Turnmire 1999] evinces an overt political agenda). The
five mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups--A, B, C, D, and
X--identified in the Americas have been attributed to
various Eurasian origins. Haplogroup B (despite its
presence in southern Siberians and Mongolians, as well as
interior-dwelling tribes of North and South America) has
been taken to indicate a separate coastal migration from
eastern Asia, subsequent to the earlier migration that
previously brought the A, C, and D haplogroups to America
(Torroni et al. 1993). Haplogroup X, common among
Algonquian-speakers and also present among other North
American natives, is otherwise mainly prevalent in Near
Eastern and European populations (Brown et al. 1998; but see
Derenko et al. 2001). Dennis Stanford has interpreted
haplogroup X in America as a vestige of the trans-Atlantic
migration of Solutreans from Spain, around 16,500 rcbp
(19,000 cal BP). His case for a Solutrean-Clovis
connection--“Iberia, not Siberia”-- is based primarily upon
similar stone-flaking techniques and tool forms (Stanford
7
1998; Stanford and Bradley 2002). Attempts to apply a
molecular clock to the problem of initial American
settlement have generated estimates as early as 20,000-
40,000 years ago (Torroni et al. 1993, 1994; Forster et al.
1996; Bonatto and Salzano 1997; Stone and Stoneking 1998;
Schurr 2000). If these estimates are correct, the Clovis-
first model must be erroneous.
Although is not my primary aim here to exhaustively
analyze the various conscious or unconscious motivations
that have fueled the current pre-Clovis hysteria in academia
and the media, a brief consideration of the contemporary
intellectual climate and the motives of interested parties
is in order. The press is drawn to the David vs. Goliath
theme of tenacious upstarts (e.g., Adovasio, Dillehay)
successfully challenging scientific orthodoxy (in this case,
the Clovis-first model). Prehistoric transoceanic voyages
(e.g., Heyerdahl’s Kon-Tiki and Ra adventures, and Fell’s
Libyo-Celtic fantasies) have long excited public interest.
Four mass-market books focusing on the Kennewick controversy
have already hit the mall bookstores (Thomas 2000, Downey
8
2000, Chatters 2001, Dewar 2002). Anthropologists whose
livelihoods and passionate interests require unfettered
access to prehistoric sites, artifacts, and skeletons, are
threatened by legislation that awards primary control of
these data to Native Americans. As Native claims (usually
leading to “repatriation” and irreversible removal of
specimens from future scientific study) are based upon
presumed ancestor-descendant relationships, it is clear that
denial of that connection to the earliest Americans can have
desirable practical consequences for anthropologists. A
notable tendency in the recent literature is the
transmutation of the first peopling narrative to suit
contemporary “politically correct” ideologies. New models
stressing coastal migration by fabric-dependent fisher-
foragers are hailed as a salutary corrective to the supposed
anti-feminist machismo of the old big-game-hunting model
(e.g., Nemecek 2000). Or, the supposed multiple migrations
from different Old World regions are viewed as presaging the
multicultural pluralism of our own era:
9
In the future we may discover that the Americas of the
late Pleistocene were one of the world’s first real
ethnic melting pot and multicultural society [sic].
The diversity of the early archaeological, genetic,
linguistic, and skeletal records suggests a shared
American identity rooted in multiple migrations and, to
state it in contemporary terms, no true categories of
race or ethnicity (Dillehay 2000:292-3).
In this article, beyond a critique of the atavistic
fallacies of the “new” theories, I present strands of
evidence from several disciplines (archaeology, linguistics,
genetics, skeletal morphology) that intertwine to support a
unified and coherent scientific model of the origins of Native
Americans. I will emphasize the evidence from physical
anthropology, because unbridled speculation about American
origins has become most egregious in this sub-discipline.
For more detailed assessments of the archaeological record
that complement the present discussion, the reader may
consult several recent publications (Haynes 1987; Lynch
1990; Fiedel 2000, 2002; Haynes 2002). Here, it must
10
suffice to observe that (1) pre-Clovis (13,500 cal BP)
occupation remains unproven; (2) no sites yet identified
along the Pacific coast are earlier than 13,000 cal BP; and
(3) the earliest lithic assemblages of the Americas, all of
which include well-made bifaces, do not resemble any
Australian or Southeast Asian complexes of the late
Pleistocene.
Unfortunately, native peoples’ own origin stories
cannot be treated as reliable accounts of the remote past.
Some tales do contain intriguing elements such as long-
distance wanderings, floods, or icy landscapes, that just
might represent dim memories of the actual events of 13,500
years ago (Echo-Hawk 2000). On the other hand, there are
tales of autochthonous origin--first people emerging from
holes in the ground, created by animals, etc.--that,
whatever their metaphorical or spiritual meaning and value,
obviously do not describe events in the real world and thus
have no utility for scientific research.
THE ASIAN-AMERICAN CONNECTION
11
As most schoolchildren know, Columbus assumed upon
first encounter that the natives he called “Indians” really
were Asians. However, as further European exploration
revealed that the vast Pacific Ocean separated Asia from
America, the separate ethnic status of the “Indians” became
clear. Their genealogical connection to the peoples of the
Old World could not be established on the basis of biblical
or classical texts. By the end of the sixteenth century,
increasing knowledge of the geography of the west coast of
America and the east coast of Asia underpinned a new theory
of the relationship between Asians and Native Americans. In
1590, a Spanish cleric, Jose de Acosta, speculated that the
Indians’ ancestors were “savage hunters” who had crossed
from Asia to America in the far north, where the continents
were either connected or else separated only by a narrow
channel (Acosta 1604). An English scholar, Edward Brerewood
(1614), further noted that the American natives, lacking the
civilized traits of India and China, “resemble the old and
rude Tartars, above all the nations of the earth.” If
Brerewood’s use of “Tartar” is broadly construed as a label
12
for Central Asian Mongoloid peoples, he was essentially
correct.
As many subsequent lay observers and specialists alike
have remarked, the vaguely “Mongoloid” appearance of Native
Americans is consistent with their presumed Asian origin.
Similarities include coarse black or dark brown head hair,
general sparseness of facial and body hair (although full
beards were common in some California and Great Basin
groups), brown eyes, some occurrence of epicanthic skin
folds over the eyes, and broad, high cheekbones. The teeth
of both living and skeletal American Indians are typified by
shovel-shaped incisors and other crown and root
peculiarities that are also typical of North Asian
populations; Christy Turner (1983, 1986, 1987, 1992, 1994,
2000, 2002) has referred to this dental pattern as
Sinodonty. However, many Native Americans would not be
mistaken for the more “classic” or “specialized” Mongoloid
peoples of East Asia. Their noses are often more prominent
than those of contemporary Asian peoples, and many
individuals lack the typical Mongoloid eyelid folds.
13
In the past, anthropologists have explained these
perceptible differences in one of two ways. W. W. Howells
(1967) suggested that American Indian ancestors emigrated
from Northeast Asia at a time prior to the emergence of the
classic, specialized Mongoloids in China and peripheral
regions. The earlier Homo sapiens populations of Northeast
Asia were generalized or proto-Mongoloids, with highly
variable features that sometimes resembled those of modern
Caucasoids (people of Europe, Southwest Asia, and North
Africa). Apart from the Americas, the more generalized
Mongoloids also survived on the peripheries of Asia, in
Polynesia and in Japan (the Ainu). Howells noted that the
cranial traits of the poorly dated late Pleistocene
individuals from the Upper Cave at Choukoutien (now
Zhoukoudian), near Beijing, were unspecialized (see also
Kamminga and Wright 1988, Wright 1995), so the classic
Mongoloids were not yet dominant in northern China ca.
10,000 years ago (however, Turner [1983, 2002 and Turner et
al. 2000] has characterized the Upper Cave teeth as
Sinodont, thus already specialized in the direction of
14
Northeast Asian Mongoloids). Howells’ model is consistent
with a single migration event, but allows for a much later
migration of the more specialized-looking Eskimos.
Alternatively, Native American populations have been
interpreted as hybrids resulting from multiple migration
waves. The earlier migrations are speculated to have been
composed of Proto-Caucasoid, Australoid, or Southeast Asian
Sundadont Mongoloid physical types, while subsequent
immigrants were specialized, Sinodont northern Mongoloids.
Support for this model has been found in several facts.
Some of the earliest known American crania are long and
rugged, unlike the round, smooth-browed skulls of modern
Mongoloids (Steele and Powell 1992, 1994, 2002). Some
later, marginal populations, such as the natives of Tierra
del Fuego, have peculiar, archaic-looking traits (including
Sundadont teeth), as would be predicted if genetic swamping
of the original population was less complete in isolated
peripheral areas (Lahr 1995; Gonzalez-Jose et al. 2003).
To avoid confusion, it is important to distinguish such
multiple-migration theories from the well-known “three wave”
15
model presented in a seminal article by Greenberg et al.
(1986). In fact, that model, which combined linguistic,
dental, and genetic data, was a variant of the single
migration concept. Greenberg et al. recognized three
linguistic stocks of different ancestry—Amerind (including
all languages located south of the Subarctic, except
Athapaskan offshoots), Athapaskan, and Eskimo-Aleut. These
basic divisions corresponded closely to geographic groupings
defined on the basis of dental and genetic traits. The
linguistic and biological unity of Amerinds was interpreted
as the legacy of a single migration, which was explicitly
identified with the Clovis archaeological culture. Later
migrations of Athapaskans and Eskimo-Aleuts only affected
the Far North and the Pacific Coast and Southwestern regions
where late prehistoric Athapaskan intrusions occurred.
THE SKELETAL RECORD
Skeletal remains of Terminal Pleistocene Paleoindians
are extremely rare, but a better sample is available from
the Early Holocene (ca. 10,000-7,000 rcbp) (TABLE I). In
the table, analysts’ comments on Sinodonty or other Asian-
16
like traits have been emphasized, as a counterpoint to
recent widely publicized suggestions that Kennewick Man
demonstrates an early Caucasoid presence in North America
(Rensberger 1997; Morell 1998). In fact, Kennewick is not
uniquely early, and his dentition has been described as
Sundadont (Chatters 1997, 2000; but cf. Turner 2002); this
might point to a southern Asian, perhaps Ainu-related, but
not European ancestry. Sinodonty and other Mongoloid traits
have been observed in both contemporaneous and much older
skeletons.
The only cranium that is truly Paleoindian--confidently
attributed to the bearers of the Clovis culture-- is the
fragmentary child’s skull found amid a cache of spectacular
chipped stone artifacts at the Anzick site. Buhl woman
appears to date just after Clovis time, about 10,700 rcbp
(Green et al. 1998). The small samples of “Paleoindian”
skulls that have been measured in several studies (e.g.,
Steele and Powell 2002) generally consist of Early Holocene
skulls dating ca. 9500 rcbp (10,800 cal BP), thus some 2,000
years after the Clovis migration.
17
The American Early Holocene skeletal record, meager as
it is, is still better than the contemporaneous Asian
evidence. Specimens of Chinese Homo erectus and Neandertal-
like “archaic sapiens” date between 800,000 and 100,000 BP.
Although some anthropologists (e.g., Weidenreich 1939;
Wolpoff et al. 1984) have cited traits shared by these
fossils and recent Mongoloids as evidence of regional
continuity, the ancestral relationship of the pre-sapiens
Asians to anatomically modern humans is debatable, and seems
increasingly unlikely as genetic evidence points to an
African origin and late (post-90,000 BP, perhaps post-60,000
BP) dispersal of Homo sapiens into Asia (Su et al. 1999; Jin
and Su 2000; Ke et al. 2001). The earliest known modern
sapiens specimens in northern China are still the three
individuals from Zhoukoudian. They may date to 24-29,000
rcbp (Hedges et al. 1992), or possibly only to 10,200 rcbp
(An 1991), yet they do not display the typical features of
modern Mongoloid peoples.
They are an odd group. The male skull [UC 101] strongly
suggests the Upper Paleolithic men of Europe. One of the
18
women [UC 102] looks faintly Negroid ("Melanesian," Dr.
Weidenreich called her). The other woman [UC 103] looks
Eskimo-like….Now it is characteristic of Indian
populations, with their nondescript cranial form, to give
such pale imitations of other racial types….Actually,
this apparently strange assortment in the Upper Cave
really looks like a group of American Indians (Howells
1967:307).
The similarity of the Upper Cave individuals to crania
from the Americas has been observed repeatedly in subsequent
morphometric studies (e.g., Jantz and Owsley 1997; Neves and
Puciarelli 1998). Cunningham and Wescott (2002) find UC 101
closest “in multivariate space” to Easter Island; UC 103
closest to Tasmania; while UC 102 is closest to Blackfoot if
treated as a female, but to Egypt if regarded as male.
Cunningham and Jantz (2003) further note that UC 101 and UC
103 cluster with both Paleoindian (“Paleoamerican”) and
North American Archaic crania in various metrical analyses.
The Liujiang skull from Kwangxi, China, is inadequately
provenienced and thus dubiously associated with a uranium-
19
series date of ca. 67,000 BP (Brown 1999). Whatever its
true age, this long, low-vaulted, short-faced skull bears no
close resemblance to modern East Asian Mongoloids (Brown
1999). The only other East Asian late Pleistocene
specimens are four skeletons from Minatogawa on Okinawa,
dated to about 18-16,000 rcbp. Apart from the forward
position of the cheekbones, the Minatogawa crania are not
very similar to the skulls of Neolithic or recent Mongoloid
East Asians (Brown 1999). Their dentition is Sundadont, not
Sinodont (Turner 1987). A Jomon skeleton excavated in 1965
in Oya, Tochigi Prefecture, has recently been radiocarbon-
dated to ca. 11,000 rcbp, but limited information is
available about this Japanese specimen (Parker 1998).
The implication of these Asian finds is that, since the
ancestors of Paleoindians undoubtedly had left Asia prior to
11,000 rcbp (13,000 cal BP), we should not expect the
earliest people in the Americas to closely resemble the
recent Mongoloids of northern Asia (Lahr, 1995). It is only
around 8000-7000 rcbp that Chinese Neolithic skeletons
appear indisputably Mongoloid (Kamminga and Wright 1988;
20
Hanihara 1994; Brown 1999). A skull of about the same age
from Shilka, in Siberia, displays Mongoloid facial features
and also has Sinodont teeth (Turner, personal communication
2002). The classic Mongoloid appearance of modern East
Asians probably results from post-Neolithic expansion and
genetic swamping by dense populations of farmers emanating
from China (Hanihara 1994, Brown 1999; Brace et al. 2001).
Experimental data do not support the idea that classic
Mongoloid facial features represent evolutionary adaptations
to extreme cold climate (Szathmary 1984, contra Coon et al.
1950). Thus, there is no reason to assume that the
inhabitants of central Siberia would have developed these
traits at an early date. On the other hand, some occurrence
of eye-folds may already have been present in the earliest
Homo sapiens emigrants from East Africa to Asia (the Khoisan,
genetically close to the ancestral stock, have this trait).
A population departing from northern Asia around 14,000 cal
BP could have carried a variable mosaic of Mongoloid,
Caucasoid, and basic generalized (plesiomorphic) African-
derived traits.
21
MOLECULAR GENETIC DATA
Both mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplotype distributions in
extant human populations point to the region surrounding
Lake Baikal as the ancestral homeland of Native Americans--
or at least, the last surviving pocket of a once more
widespread ancestral Northeast Asian population,
subsequently displaced elsewhere in the region. A minor
genetic input from the Lower Amur region also can be traced,
mainly in Athapaskan-speakers, who probably represent a
later wave of migration (Karafet et al. 1999; Lell et al.
2002).
Almost all Native Americans belong to one of four mtDNA
haplogroups (A, B, C, and D), each representing a female
descent lineage. A small percentage of Native North
Americans belong to a fifth haplogroup, X, which is also
present in European (e.g., Finns, Italians, Russians, Roma)
and Near Eastern (Druze) populations (Brown et al. 1998) and
has recently been found in southern Siberian natives
(Derenko et al. 2001). As the geographic distribution of
haplogroup X figures prominently in Stanford’s case for
22
deriving the Clovis culture from the Solutrean of Western
Europe, it should be emphasized that the newly identified
Altaian variant appears to be intermediate between the
European and American lineages. This implies a Central
Asian, not Western European, origin of haplogroup X
(Merriwether 2002:302).
The ubiquitous occurrence of the five mtDNA haplogroups
among Amerinds is probably the result of a single migration
by a group initially containing all these Asian-derived
haplotypes (Merriwether et al. 1994; Kolman et al. 1996; Malhi
et al. 2002; Merriwether 2002). The four major Amerind
haplogroups are widespread in East Asian populations. They
account for 72 % of Tuvans in south-central Siberia, and 48%
of Mongolians (Derenko et al. 1998, 2000; Schurr 2000).
Snall et al. (2002) report A, B, C, or D in 64% of Koreans,
as well as rare occurrence of a possible variant of X.
Several recent analyses of Y-chromosome structure
(Underhill et al., 1996, 2000; Bianchi et al., 1997, 1998;
Santos et al., 1999; Ruiz-Linares et al. 1999) have indicated
that all the male descent lineages in the Americas converge
23
toward a single ancestral population from southern/central
Siberia. The Y-chromosome nomenclature is currently rather
confusing, with multiple labels applied by different
research teams to the same genetic markers. Most Amerind
males belong to haplogroup Q (or X) or to the ancestral
haplogroup P (Underhill et al. 2000; Hammer and Zegura
2002). The Q lineage does not exist in Asia, except in
groups living near the Bering Strait; it must have arisen by
a mutation (M3/DYS199T) that occurred either in eastern
Beringia or in North America. The P lineage (also known
previously as 10, M45, or IX and X) does exist in Siberia,
but these males share common ancestry with some modern
Europeans (of haplogroup R) and not with East Asian
Mongoloids. Both the P and Q haplogroups are absent from
China and Japan, where haplogroups D (IV) and O (VII) are
prevalent (Hammer and Zegura 2002). In view of the current
interest in Australasia as a putative Paleoindian or
“Paleoamerican” homeland, the absence of the P haplogroup
there is also noteworthy (Kayser et al. 2000). A mutation
called “M242,” representing an intermediate form between the
24
ancestral Asian M45/M74 variant of the P lineage and the
solely American M3/DYS199 mutation (in the Q haplogroup),
has only recently been identified in both American and
Central Asian males (Seielstad et al. 2003; Bortolini et al.
2003).
Two ancestral gene pools seem to overlap in
southern/central Siberia: one encompasses the female
lineages of America, northern China and Mongolia, and the
other, a male line that leads back, through Central Asia, to
Europe. Such lack of congruence between male and female
ancestry has been observed in numerous other cases, and may
reflect exogamous movement of women between patrilineal
bands (Seielstad et al. 1998; Karafet et al. 1999).
Paleoindian ancestors may have emerged as the product of
genetic and cultural exchanges around Lake Baikal between
proto-Mongoloid natives (mainly females) and proto-
Caucasoids (mainly males) who carried the Russian Upper
Paleolithic complex into the region along with Y-chromosome
haplotype P (Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001a;
Karafet et al. 2002) and mtDNA haplotype X. A later
25
migration, probably associated with Athapaskan languages,
may have brought the RPS4Y-T and M45b Y-chromosome
haplogroups from the Amur/Sea of Okhotsk region into North
America, where they have minor representation (about 5% of
males) (Lell et al. 2002, Bortolini et al. 2003; these
correspond to the C haplogroup of Karafet et al. 2002).
Geneticists employing supposedly constant mtDNA
mutation rates have proposed dates ranging between 41,000
and 11,000 BP for the initial emergence of the American
female lineages (Shields et al. 1993; Torroni et al. 1993,
1994; Forster et al. 1996; Bonatto and Salzano 1997; Stone
and Stoneking 1998; Schurr 2000; Silva et al. 2002).
Proposed dates for the appearance of the uniquely American
DYS199T mutation on the Y chromosome include: 22,770 BP
(with an error range from 13,500 to 58,700 BP) (Bianchi et
al. 1998); ca. 7600±5000 BP (Karafet et al. 1999); and 9423-
13,797 BP (Ruiz-Linares et al. 1999). Seielstad et al.
(2003) suggest that the M242 mutation occurred no earlier
than about 15-18,000 BP, while Bortolini et al. (2003)
independently arrive at similar ages for the Q-M242*
26
lineage: 13,611 years in Amerinds, 15,416 years in Mongolia;
“Y-chromosome data are thus consistent with a relatively
late colonization of the Americas followed by a rapid human
population dispersal, as suggested by various archaeological
studies” (Bortolini et al. 2003:536).
Although it is tempting to emphasize the dates that
make the best fit with a calibrated age of ca. 13,500 cal BP
for the earliest Clovis sites (Fiedel 1999, 2000, 2002;
Ferring 2001), none of these genetic dates should be taken
too seriously (Fiedel 2001). Mutation rates apparently vary
across different genetic loci, and pedigree-based rates are
much faster than phylogeny-based estimates (Weiss 1994;
Howell et al. 1996; Gibbons 1998; Sigurdardottir et al. 2000;
Heyer et al. 2001; Howell et al. 2003). Prevalence of the
A, C, D, and X haplogroups among American Indians may be the
result of natural selection for mtDNA ATP6 variants that
help people to maintain an increased basal metabolic rate in
arctic climates (Mishmar et al. 2003). Furthermore,
“population expansions have distorted mtDNA variation as
people moved into Siberia and Beringia and on into North
27
America” (Mishmar et al. 2003:173). Given this evidence of
selective forces affecting mtDNA lineage radiation, the
assumption of a clock-like, constant mutation rate appears
dubious, and “conjectures about the timing of human
migrations may need to be reassessed” (Mishmar et al.
2003:176).
PLUS CA CHANGE, PLUS C’EST LA MEME CHOSE
MacGowan and Hester’s (1962) Early Man in the New World
provides a valuable historical perspective on the current
pre-Clovis hysteria. Despite the passage of almost half a
century, their lively discussion of the relevant physical
anthropology is depressingly familiar. Recent speculations
about diverse origins of “Paleoamericans” were prefigured by
ideas that were already beginning to seem quaintly passé 50
years ago. Walter Neves’ attribution of “Luzia” and other
Lagoa Santa people to an Australian or Melanesian ancestral
population is not new. In 1923, Roland Dixon suggested that
Proto-Australoids, originating in tropical Southeast Asia,
“drifted slowly northward up the eastern Asiatic littoral,
and, crossing into America, spread thinly through the
28
continents, and perhaps mainly along the western shores….On
the Pacific Coast in California and Lower California it [the
Proto-Australoid] appears to constitute the oldest stratum,
characterizing as it does the crania from the lower layers
of the shell-heaps, from the islands of Santa Catalina and
San Clemente off the Coast, and from the extinct Pericue
isolated on the southern tip of the peninsula of Lower
California.” In 1926, A. A. Mendes-Correa proposed that
aboriginal Australians migrated to South America via an
Antarctic land bridge. That same year, Paul Rivet (1926)
speculated that the Australians had island-hopped across the
Pacific at a time of lowered sea level. Rivet cited
superficial similarities between Australian languages and
that of the Tshon of Patagonia. Modern linguists, however,
confidently attribute the ostensible shared vocabulary to
accidental convergence. The Argentine scholar, Jose
Imbelloni (1943), postulated a series of migrations to South
America. The first to arrive were Pygmies, ancestral to the
Tasmanians and to the Yahgan of Patagonia. They were
29
followed by Melanesians, represented by crania from Lagoa
Santa, Punin (Ecuador), Texas, and Baja California.
The Pericu population from Baja California, first
described in 1883 by C. F. ten Kate and often compared to
the Lagoa Santa people, figured more prominently in the
early theorizing about Australoid migrations than in recent
iterations of this idea. But now, Gonzalez-Jose et al.
(2003) suggest that the Pericu crania represent a relict
“Palaeoamerican” population, with Australoid affinities,
that survived in isolation until Spanish contact in the
eighteenth century.
Stanford’s idea of a Solutrean-Paleoindian connection
is not new, either. Frank Hibben (1946) compared his Sandia
points to Solutrean specimens. In 1962, MacGowan and Hester
(1962:284) speculated that the Solutreans had intruded into
Europe from Asia, which in turn suggested a linkage to the
fine Folsom and Eden bifaces of America:
If the Solutreans did, in fact, originate in Asia, can we
believe that an Asiatic people with an unusual flair for
flint knapping fathered both the Solutreans and the men
30
who made the Sandia and the far finer Folsom and Eden
points? Did this parent stock send a group of migrants
across Bering Strait and down into the High Plains to
give us Folsom, Sandia, and Eden points? Did it throw
off toward the west a group that practiced the Solutrean
arts in Europe?
In 1963, in an article in Current Anthropology, E. F.
Greenman hypothesized a Solutrean voyage across the North
Atlantic. The commentators were not impressed. Francois
Bordes observed that similarities between Solutrean and
Paleoindian artifacts were likely to represent only
convergence, a view reiterated recently by Sellet (1998) and
Straus (2000) in their comments on Stanford’s resuscitation
of this moribund theory.
MacGowan and Hester (1962:284) observed that, like
Paleoindians, the Solutreans had left behind few skeletal
remains. However, crania were associated with other
European Upper Paleolithic cultures. In the anthropological
literature from the first half of the 20th century, the
similarities of these skulls to modern human races were
31
regularly noted, and migrations in one direction or another
were inferred. The Cro-Magnon skull was seen as Caucasoid.
The Grimaldi skulls from the Riviera were regarded as
Negroid; Chancelade and Combe Capelle seemed to be
Mongoloid. Indeed, based in part on the supposed Mongoloid
affinities of the Chancelade skull, W. J. Sollas (1911)
derived the Eskimo from a Magdalenian ancestry!
In post-war physical anthropology, the idea that
multiple discrete races had once occupied Europe was
abandoned. The current consensus is that Upper Paleolithic
populations were simply very internally variable, although
the evolutionary forces responsible for their variability
remain obscure. Van Vark (1994) showed that European Upper
Paleolithic skulls not only are more variable than a modern
European sample, but also more so than recent crania from a
global sample! The early European skulls are atypical of
any recent populations of that region (Van Vark et al.
2003).
Physical anthropologists recognized long ago that Early
Holocene American crania tended to be rugged and long-headed
32
(dolichocephalic), and that sub-types with superficial
resemblances to various Old World populations could be
defined. W. W. Howells (1967:283) observed the same
unexplained trend, from earlier long-heads to later broad-
heads, in both New and Old World populations. Howells
(1967:296,307) also took note of the occasional similarity
of American skulls to European and even African crania,
observing particularly the ostensible “Negroid” appearance
of the Punin skull from Ecuador (the same skull had been
identified as Australoid by Arthur Keith in 1931; it is now
thought to be less than 3000 years old [Lynch 1990]).
Howells’ mentor and predecessor at Harvard, Earnest A.
Hooton, had recognized seven distinct physical types among
the late prehistoric skeletons from Pecos Pueblo:
Basketmakers, Plains Indians, large hybrid, Pseudo-
Australoid, Pseudo-Alpine, Pseudo-Negroid, and Long-faced
European (Hooton 1930). Such perceived diversity is
startling when one considers that this was probably a
largely endogamous community comprising kin and affines. It
is also important to underline the fact that Hooton was
33
describing an Indian population that lived only a few
centuries before the arrival of Europeans. Hooton (1930)
offered this origin scenario to account for the cranial
varieties he had defined:
At a rather remote period, probably soon after the last
glacial retreat, there straggled into the New World from
Asia by way of the Bering Strait groups of
dolichocephals in which were blended at least three
strains: one very closely allied to the fundamental
brunet European and African long-headed stock called
“Mediterranean”; another, a more primitive form with
heavy brow-ridges, low broad face and wide nose, which
is probably to be identified with an archaic type
represented today very strongly (although mixed with
other elements) in the native Australians, and less
strongly in the so-called “Pre-Dravidians” such as the
Veddahs, and also in the Ainu; thirdly, an element
certainly Negroid (not Negro). These people, already
racially mixed, spread over the New World carrying with
them a primitive fishing and hunting culture. Their
34
coming must have preceded the occupation of eastern Asia
by the present predominantly Mongoloid peoples, since
the purer types of these dolichocephals do not show the
characteristic Mongoloid features.
Hooton further postulated a subsequent migration of
Mongoloids, “mixed with some other racial element notable
because of its high-bridged and often convex nose.” With
the casual, unabashed racism of his time, he asserted that,
“These later invaders were capable of higher cultural
development than the early pioneers and were responsible for
the development of agriculture and for the notable
achievements of the New World civilization. In some places
they may have driven out and supplanted the early long-
heads, but often they seem to have interbred with them
producing the multiple and varied types of the present
American Indians—types which are Mongoloid to a varying
extent, but never purely Mongoloid.”
Are the models now being seriously presented any more
sophisticated than Hooton’s? Neves and his colleagues
(e.g., Neves et al. 2003) now postulate two migrations: (1)
35
“Australo-Melanesian-like” people, ultimately of African
origin, branch off from the ancestral Australian population
in Southeast Asia about 50,000 BP. They move northward
through East Asia between 50 and 20,000 BP, reaching
Zhoukoudian by the latter date. They travel rapidly along
the Pacific coast, reaching America about 14,000 rcbp. The
coastal migration stream trifurcates at the Isthmus of
Panama, next following three routes into South America—
Atlantic and Pacific coasts and Amazon basin. (2) At 11,000
rcbp, a population with cranial morphology similar to that
of modern North Asians and Native Americans (presumably
bearing the Clovis culture) enters interior North America,
and moves into South America, where the Australo-Melanesian
precursors are abruptly replaced in most areas ca. 9000-8000
rcbp.
Jantz and Owsley (2001:153) similarly attribute North
Asian-like cranial traits to an even later migration; they
contend that the southward movement of the Athapaskans
(dated by most specialists [e.g., Opler 1983] to the 14th-
16th centuries) “had a large impact on the morphological
36
character of the Plains tribes….The most parsimonious
explanation of these morphological and genetic relationships
is that the ancient immigrants have been replaced or
assimilated by more recent ones.”
Several inconvenient facts present obstacles to these
multiple-migrations models. First, the evidence for an
abrupt break in Brazilian skeletal morphology is ambiguous.
Mello e Alvim (1963) saw continuity of the Lagoa Santa
traits into recent times among Brazilian natives (Dewar
2001:273). Second, if classic Mongoloid traits became
dominant because of Neolithic expansion, they would not yet
have been widespread in northern Asia at 8000 rcbp (ca. 9000
cal BP), because that expansion would not occur until
several thousand years later. The earliest farming villages
known in central China date to about 8300 rcbp (Zhang et al.
1999), but the spread of millet farming to Korea, Japan, and
the Russian Far East occurred only around 5000-4000 rcbp
(Kuzmin et al. 1997). The Jomon population of Japan
(presumed ancestors of the recent Ainu) remained non-classic
until the Mongoloid Yayoi intrusion around 2300 rcbp
37
(Hanihara 1984, 1994). If classic Mongoloids only got to
Japan at that late date, is it likely that they had reached
Brazil 7,000 years earlier?
Further, the North American archaeological record
offers no evidence of any large-scale movement from northern
Asia that penetrated deeply into the continent between
13,000 cal BP and 600 cal BP. After Clovis ancestors left
Alaska, microblade-makers of the Paleoarctic or early Denali
culture spread into that region around 12,500 cal BP. These
people are often assumed, on weak evidence, to have been the
ancestors of modern Athapaskans and/or Inuit. A probably
derived offshoot spread southward carrying microblade
techniques into British Columbia and as far south as the
Plateau region of Washington by about 7000 cal BP. About
5800 cal BP, the long-lived microblade tradition seems to
have disappeared from Alaska, to be replaced by the Northern
Archaic culture (another possible ancestral culture for the
Athapaskans). The origins of the Northern Archaic are
obscure, but derivation from Indian Archaic cultures of the
boreal forest to the south is often assumed. At 4500 cal
38
BP, Paleoeskimos of the Arctic Small Tool Tradition (ASTT)
swept from Alaska across the Canadian Arctic to Greenland.
Minor, possibly hostile interaction occurred between ASTT
migrants and the Maritime Archaic Indians of Labrador. The
Dorset culture developed from the ASTT, and persisted until
the rapid Thule migration eastward from Alaska around AD
1000. A discontinuity of material culture suggests complete
replacement of Dorset by Thule, an interpretation supported
by a recently reported analysis of ancient mtDNA (Hayes and
O’Rourke 2000, 2001). The Thule, like their modern Inuit
descendants, were all haplogroup A; the Dorset were mostly
D. In contrast to this replacement, in the Aleutian Islands
population, the haplotype distribution (about 2/3 D, 1/3 A)
did not change significantly at AD 1000, even though skull
form shifted from long (Paleo-Aleut) to round-headed (Neo-
Aleut). Recent Inuit, it should be noted, are long-headed,
unlike the Asian Mongoloids they superficially resemble
(Szathmary 1984).
About AD 1400, the Athapaskan ancestors of the Navaho
and Apache migrated southward from the Yukon, ending up in
39
the Southwest and the Plains. In view of their origin in
the sparsely populated boreal forest, the immigrants
probably were far outnumbered by the indigenous Puebloan
peoples of the Southwest (many of whom were inducted into
Navaho clans), and by the village-dwelling inhabitants of
the Plains. So, even if one assumes (with Brace et al.
2001) a more classic Mongoloid genotype and phenotype for
the Athapaskans, it seems unlikely that their alleles
swamped those of the resident populations. Athapaskan genes
might also have been carried eastward across the Canadian
Shield as a result of interactions with the Algonquian-
speaking Cree (Smith et al. 2000). In any case, none of
these processes could account for a hypothesized intrusion
of Mongoloid traits in eastern South America as early as
8000 or 9000 rcbp.
What does happen in Central and South America around
9000 rcbp is the beginning of plant cultivation (Piperno and
Stothert 2003) and some increase in sedentism. In some
Early Archaic cultures in North and Central America,
grinding stones begin to be used to process roots, seeds,
40
and nuts. Perhaps, new food sources and new technologies
somehow selected for smaller teeth, reduced orofacial
musculature, and thus more globular heads (Larsen 1997 contra
Jantz and Owsley 2003). The higher density of more
sedentary intensive foragers and early cultivators would
have fostered the spread of their genes into less numerous,
marginal hunter-gatherer populations. It may also be
pertinent to note that insolation reaches its Holocene peak
in southern latitudes around 9000 rcbp, and the Hypsithermal
period begins in North America. Brown (1987) observed that
in Australia, between 10,000 and 7000 rcbp, skulls,
postcranial bones, and teeth all became smaller. As the
material culture and diet did not change appreciably in this
period, Brown attributes these changes to natural selection
of smaller-bodied individuals, better adapted
physiologically to warm Holocene climate.
In Tierra del Fuego, at the southernmost tip of South
America, a population with extremely rugged skulls survived
until recent times (Lahr 1995, Sarich 1997). As proponents
of the multiple migration model often cite the Fueguians as
41
a surviving pre-Mongoloid remnant, it is important to
clarify their affiliations and prehistory. All of the
studied Fueguian cranial specimens are relatively late; none
represent late Pleistocene or early Holocene people.
Nevertheless, the recent Fueguian groups (Yamana, Selk’nam
[Ona], and Kaweskar) do appear to have been the heirs of a
continuous regional cultural tradition that ultimately
derived from the fishtail point-using Paleoindians of the
Fell I or Magellan I culture (Bird 1938). These earliest
inhabitants of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego arrived around
11,000-10,700 rcbp (13,000-12,700 cal BP) (Nami 1996,
Flegenheimer and Zarate 1997). Recent re-dating of some
putatively older sites in the Southern Cone has shown that
none are any earlier than 11,000 rcbp (Steele et al. 2001).
This leaves stranded, as an incongruously early (ca. 12,300
rcbp) regional anomaly, the bizarre congeries of broken
gravel, gomphothere bones, vegetation, and a half-dozen
indisputable but Archaic-looking and inadequately
provenienced artifacts at Monte Verde (Dillehay 1997, Fiedel
1999b). MV II was probably not a human habitation site, and
42
if it was, its inhabitants appear to have left no cultural
or biological descendants. Unlike the randomly cracked
cobbles of Monte Verde, the finely made fishtail points of
the Fell I culture are clearly derived from the Clovis
bifacial tradition of North America (Morrow and Morrow
1999). So, if the Fueguians are nearly unchanged survivors
from the Terminal Pleistocene, they would represent an
offshoot of the Clovis pioneers, not hypothetical
precursors. However, while some plesiomorphic retention of
Paleoindian traits cannot be discounted, the unique cranial
features of Fueguians—their large noses, wide and robust
faces—can also be interpreted as adaptations to masticatory
stresses and cold weather (Hernandez at al. 1997). Whatever
their osseous peculiarities, the outward appearance of the
Fueguians did not differ significantly from the ubiquitous
Amerind norm, as can be clearly seen in late 19th –century
photographs of the Ona (Bridges 1949). Ancient DNA reported
to have been recovered from Fueguian skeletons includes only
the C and D mtDNA haplotypes and the expected DYS199T Native
American Y-chromosome variant (Lalueza et al. 1997; Garcia-
43
Bour et al. 2003). Such disappearance of one or two mtDNA
haplotypes from Native American groups (Lorenz and Smith
1996) is a frequent and unremarkable result of genetic drift
(Malhi et al. 2002).
The archaeological record offers no support for models
of multiple, racially distinct migratory waves into the
Americas. Clovis was the first widespread culture of North
America, from which Archaic cultures diverged by rapid local
adaptation at the beginning of the Holocene (Fiedel 2000).
Fell 1, Clovis-derived, is similarly the mother culture of
South America (Lynch 1990). If Clovis represents the sole
Amerind founding population, how, then, can we account for
the anatomical and genetic diversity of ancient and recent
Native Americans and their differences from modern East
Asians?
As Powell and Neves (1999) readily admit, evolutionary
processes—genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection—
operating over the course of 13,500 years, could have
produced these changes. For an instructive comparison,
consider the distinctive features of the Polynesians, as
44
compared to southern Chinese or Filipinos; yet, linguistic
and archaeological data suggest the split between these
populations probably occurred less than 6,000 years ago
(Bellwood, 1987). In that case, however, significant
genetic input from Melanesians was probably an important
factor in changing the phenotype [Kayser et al. 2000; Su et
al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001b). It is ironic that the
Polynesians—a recently formed ethnic entity that emerged
after 3000 rcbp as a product of East Asian-Melanesian
mixture, genetic drift, and possibly selection (for large-
bodied survivors of long, risky ocean voyages)—are the
population often deemed most similar to American early
Holocene specimens (e.g., in both Chatters’ [2000] and
Powell and Rose’s [1999] comparative analyses of the
Kennewick skull). The historical meaning, if any, of this
probably fortuitous resemblance is enigmatic. Heyerdahl’s
(1952) theory that the Maori and Easter Islanders are
descendants, respectively, of voyagers from the Northwest
Coast and Peru, is unlikely to be revived in the face of
45
overwhelming linguistic, genetic, and archaeological
evidence of the Southeast Asian ancestry of Polynesians.
The founding Paleoindian band, like the group
responsible for the Zhoukoudian burials, must already have
contained a fair amount of both genetic and phenotypic
diversity. The genetic diversity of their American Indian
descendants suggests that the founders cannot have passed
through a very constricted demographic bottleneck (Ward et
al. 1991). By analogy with recent Subarctic hunting groups,
it is reasonable to suppose that the group that made the
trek through a widening ice-free corridor ca. 13,500 cal BP
may have been a macroband of about 150 people. Random
samples of modern East Asian populations, numbering in the
dozens (e.g. the 101 Koreans tested by Snall et al. [2002])
generally include most or all of the haplotypes present in
the population as a whole. In addition to at least 5
women, each belonging to a distinct mtDNA lineage, the
Paleoindian founding group included at least two men of the
closely related Y-chromosome P and Q haplogroups, who were
descended from Eurasian hunters and perhaps looked vaguely
46
like Upper Paleolithic Europeans. Geographic and genetic
isolation of far-ranging groups after several generations
may have accentuated their pre-existing heterogeneity,
resulting in the eight distinctive North American cranial
types that were recognized by Georg Neumann (1952): Otamid
(supposedly the oldest, exemplified by skulls from the Texas
Gulf Coast) Iswanid, Ashiwid, Inuid, Deneid, Lenapid,
Walcolid, and Lakotid. It should be noted however, that
Neumann’s sample of 10,000 skulls was composed of much more
recent specimens than the 7-10,000 year-old crania examined
in more recent analyses.
Isolation and drift after the rapid expansion, at
13,000 cal BP, of speakers of a presumed ancestral Amerind
language (Greenberg, 1987; but see Goddard and Campbell,
1994) also could have produced the 7 distinct macrophyla
that linguists recognize in North America: Uto-Aztecan,
Hokan, Penutian, Macro-Siouan (including Iroquoian and
Caddoan), Algonquian, Na-Dene (Athapaskan), and Eskimo-
Aleut. Nichols (1990) has argued that the diversity of
American languages (more than 1200 distinct languages in
47
1492) requires a much longer period of divergence—30,000 or
even 50,000 years, by her reckoning. This inference is
refuted by Nettles (1999). He presents a simple model in
which each fissioning of forager populations during initial
rapid expansion into an empty continent leads to the
founding of a new linguistic lineage. This process then
slows down as the continent fills with people and societies
become more complex. The diversity of American languages in
1492 thus “is entirely compatible with the Clovis or any
other reasonable chronology” (Nettles 1999:3327).
BACK TO SIBERIA
Recent genetic analyses (e.g., Ingman et al. 2000;
Underhill et al. 2000, 2001a) suggest that ancestors of
anatomically modern Eurasian Homo sapiens emigrated from
Africa about 55,000 years ago and replaced archaic Homo
populations. The appearance of Upper Paleolithic toolkits,
dominated by blades, generally (but not always) marks the
arrival of Homo sapiens. Such blade-dominated assemblages,
along with bone tools and ornaments, abruptly replace
Levallois-Mousterian industries in southwestern Siberia
48
about 43,000-35,000 rcbp (Goebel and Aksenov 1995;
Dolukhanov et al. 2002), although the Mousterian may have
persisted in the Altai mountains to as late as 29,000 rcbp
(Kuzmin and Orlova, 1998). If 43,000 rcbp (ca. 46,000 cal
BP?; Kitigawa and van der Plicht 1998) is the date of entry
of Homo sapiens into Northeast Asia, it represents the
earliest possible baseline for Paleoindian ancestry. One
can reasonably speculate that the Upper Paleolithic
intruders branched from the same Near Eastern/Central Asian
population that may have carried the Aurignacian westward
into Europe (Kozlowski and Otte 2000; Otte and Dervianko
2001; Semino et al. 2000; Karafet et al. 2002). This might
account for both the technological similarities of the early
blade industries and the shared Y-chromosome lineages that
connect southern Siberians and Europeans, to the exclusion
of East Asians (Karafet et al. 2002). These Aurignacians
might also be identified as carriers of the “brunet
Mediterranean” as well as “Negroid” (i.e., generalized
African) skull variants that Hooton (1930) identified among
Native Americans. More than 30,000 years elapsed between
49
the arrival of anatomically modern humans in Siberia and the
departure of Paleoindian ancestors from Beringia. That is
certainly enough time for localized anatomical variants to
have developed in relative isolation, only to be thrown
together again when people migrated and re-grouped in
response to drastic Pleistocene climate and vegetation
changes (Sarich 1997). The extraordinary variability of the
Zhoukoudian Upper Cave population at ca. 12-13,000 cal BP
seems to bear witness to such a process.
The most recent genetic evidence, far from complicating
the picture of Native American ancestry, leads us straight
back to southern Siberia. The dental evidence compiled by
Turner (1992:45) led him to assert that “the pre-Siberian
ancestors of Native Americans need to be searched for along
the Mongolian border from the Altai to Manchuria.” Aleš
Hrdlička, best known now for his scathing critiques of
claimed discoveries of Pleistocene humans in the Americas,
visited southern Siberia and northern Mongolia 90 years ago.
This is what he observed:
50
Among all these people there are visible many and
unmistakable traces of admixture or persistence of what
appears to have been the older population of these
regions, pre-Mongolian and especially pre-Chinese, and
those best representing these vestiges resemble to the
point of identity the American Indian. These men, women
and children are brown in color, have straight black
hair, dark brown eyes, and facial as well as bodily
features which remind one most forcibly of the native
Americans. Many of them, especially the women and
children, if introduced among the Indians, and dressed
to correspond, could by no means at the disposal of the
anthropologist be distinguished apart (Hrdlička 1913).
REFERENCES CITED
ACOSTA, JOSE DE. 1604. The natural and moral history of the Indies.
English translation by E. Grimston, 1604, ed. C. R. Markham
1880.
51
ADOVASIO, J. M., D. PEDLER, J. DONAHUE, AND R. STUCKENRATH.
1999. “No vestige of a beginning nor prospect for an end:
Two decades of debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter,” in Ice Age
peoples of North America: Environments, origins, and adaptations of the first
Americans. Edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, pp.
416-31. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
AN, Z. 1991. Radiocarbon dating and the prehistoric
archaeology of China. World Archaeology 23:193-200.
ANDERSON, J. E. 1967. “The human skeleton,” in The prehistory
of the Tehuacan Valley, vol. 1. Edited by D. S. Byers, pp. 94-7.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
ARRIAZA, B. 1995. Chile’s Chinchorro mummies. National
Geographic 187 (3): 68-89.
BELLWOOD, PETER 1987. The Polynesians: The prehistory of an island
people. London: Thames and Hudson.
BEYNON, D. E., AND M. I. SIEGEL. 1981. Ancient human remains
from central Peru. American Antiquity 46 (1):167-79.
BIANCHI, N. O., G. BAILLIET, C. M. BRAVI, R. F. CARNESE, F.
ROTHHAMMER, V. L. MARTINEZ-MARIGNAC, AND S. D. PENA. 1997.
Origin of Amerindian Y-chromosomes as inferred by the
52
analysis of six polymorphic markers. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 102(1):79-89.
BIANCHI, N. O., C. I. CATANESI, G. BAILLIET, V. L. MARTINEZ-
MARIGNAC, C. M. BRAVI, L. B. VIDAL-RIOJA, R. J., HERRERA,
AND J. S. LOPEZ-CAMELO. 1998. Characterization of ancestral
and derived Y-chromosome haplotypes of New World native
populations. American Journal of Human Genetics 63(6):1862-71.
BIRD, JUNIUS. 1938. Before Magellan. Natural History
41(1):16-28.
BONATTO, S. L., AND F. M. SALZANO. 1997. Diversity and age
of the four major mtDNA haplogroups, and their implications
for the peopling of the New World. American Journal of Human
Genetics 61:1413-23.
BONNICHSEN, R., AND K. TURNMIRE. 1999. “An introduction to
the peopling of the Americas,” in Ice Age peoples of North America:
Environments, origins, and adaptations of the first Americans. Edited by R.
Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, pp. 1-26. Corvallis: Oregon
State University Press.
BORTOLINI, M.-C., F.M. SALZANO, M.G. THOMAS, S. STUART,
S.P.K. NASANEN, C.H.D. BAU, M.H. HUTZ, Z. LAYRISSE, M.L.
53
PETZL-ERLER, L.T. TSUNETO, K. HILL, A.M. HURTADO, D.CASTRO-
DE-GUERRA, M.M. TORRES, H. GROOT, R. MICHALSKI, P. NYMADAWA,
G. BEDOYA, N. BRADMAN, D. LABUDA, AND A. RUIZ-LINARES. 2003.
Y-chromosome evidence for differing ancient demographic
histories in the Americas. American Journal of Human Genetics
73:524-39.
BRACE, C. L., A. R. NELSON, N. SEGUCHI, H. OE, L. SERING, P.
QIFENG, L. YONGYI, AND D. TUMEN. 2001. Old World sources
of the first New World human inhabitants: a comparative
craniofacial view. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
98(17):10017-22.
BREREWOOD, EDWARD. 1622 (first ed. 1614). Enquiries touching
the diversity of languages, and religions, through the chief parts of the world.
BRETERNITZ, D. A., A. C. SWEDLUND, AND D. C. ANDERSON.
1971. An early burial from Gordon Creek, Colorado. American
Antiquity 36:170-82.
BRIDGES, E. L. 1949. Uttermost part of the earth. New York: E.
P. Dutton.
BROWN, M. D., S. H. HOSSEINI, A. TORRONI, H.- J. BANDELT, J.
C. ALLEN, T. G. SCHURR, R. SCOZZARI, F. CRUCIANI, AND D. C.
54
WALLACE. 1998. mtDNA haplogroup X: An ancient link between
Europe/Western Asia and North America? American Journal of Human
Genetics 63 (6):1852-61.
BROWN, PETER 1987. Pleistocene homogeneity and Holocene
size reduction: The Australian human skeletal evidence.
Archaeology in Oceania 22:41-67.
BROWN, P. 1999. “The first modern East Asians? Another look
at Upper Cave 101, Liujiang and Minatogawa 1,” in
Interdisciplinary perspectives on the origins of the Japanese. Edited by K.
Omoto, pp. 105-30. Kyoto: International Research Center for
Japanese Studies.
BOUSMAN, C. B., M.B. COLLINS, P. GOLDBERG, T. STAFFORD, J.
GUY, B. W. BAKER, D.G. STEELE, M. KAY, A. KERR, G. FREDLUND,
P. DERING, V. HOLLIDAY, D. WILSON, W. GOSE, S. DIAL, P.
TAKAC, R. BALINSKY, M. MASSON AND J.F. POWELL. 2003. The
Palaeoindian-Archaic transition in North America: New
evidence from Texas. Antiquity 76(294):980-90.
CARLSON, R. L. 1983. “The Far West,” in Early man in the New
World. Edited by R. Shutler, Jr., pp. 73-96. Beverly Hills:
Sage Publications.
55
CHATTERS, JAMES C. 1997. Kennewick man. Smithsonian
Institution web page.
CHATTERS, JAMES C. 2000. The recovery and first
analysis of an Early Holocene human skeleton from
Kennewick, Washington. American Antiquity 65(2):291-316.
CHATTERS, JAMES C. 2001. Ancient encounters: Kennewick man and
the first Americans. New York: Simon and Schuster.
CHAUCHAT, C. (1988). “Early hunter-gatherers on the
Peruvian coast,” in Peruvian prehistory. Edited by R. W.
Keatinge, pp. 41-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
COCKRELL, W. A., AND L. MURPHY. 1978. Pleistocene man in
Florida. Archaeology of Eastern North America 6:1-13.
COON, CARLETON S., STANLEY M. GARN, AND JOSEPH B. BIRDSELL.
1950. Races: A study of the problem of race formation in man.
Springfield:Charles C. Thomas.
CORREAL URREGO, G., AND T. VAN DER HAMMEN. 1977.
Investigaciones arqueologicas en los abrigos rocosos del Tequendama.
Bogota: Biblioteca Banco Popular.
56
CORREAL URREGO, G., AND T. VAN DER HAMMEN. 1979.
Investigaciones arqueologicas en los abrigos rocosos de Nemocon y Sueva.
Bogota: Fundacion de Investigaciones Arqueologicas
Nacionales, Banco de la Republica.
CUNNINGHAM, D. L., AND R. L. JANTZ. 2003. The morphometric
relationship of Upper Cave 101 and 103 to modern Homo
sapiens. Journal of Human Evolution 45:1-18.
CUNNINGHAM, D. L., AND D. J. WESCOTT. 2002. Within-group
human variation in the Asian Pleistocene: The three Upper
Cave crania. Journal of Human Evolution 42:627-38.
DERENKO, M. V., B. A. MALARCHUK, I. K. DAMBEVA, G. O.
SHAIKHAEV, C. M. DORZHU, D. D. NIMAEV, AND I. A. ZAKHAROV.
2000. Mitochondrial DNA variation in two Siberian
aboriginal populations: Implications for the genetic history
of North Asia. Human Biology 72(6):945-74.
DERENKO, M. V., T. GRZYBOWSKI, B. A. MALARCHUK, J. CZARNY,
D. MISCICKA-SLIWKA, AND I. A. ZAKHAROV. 2001. The presence
of mitochondrial haplogroup X in Altaians from South
Siberia. American Journal of Human Genetics 69:237-41.
57
DEWAR, ELAINE. 2002. Bones: Discovering the first Americans. New
York: Carroll and Graf.
DILLEHAY, TOM D. 1997. Monte Verde, a late Pleistocene settlement in
Chile, Volume 2, The archaeological context and interpretation. Washington,
D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
DILLEHAY, TOM D. 2000. The settlement of the Americas: A new
prehistory. New York: Basic Books.
DIXON, E. JAMES. 1999. Bones, boats, and bison: Archeology and the first
colonization of western North America. Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press.
DIXON, ROLAND B. 1923. The racial history of man. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons.
DOLUKHANOV, P., A. M. SHUKUROV, P. E. TARASOV, and G. I.
ZAITSEVA. 2002. Colonization of northern Eurasia by modern
humans: radiocarbon chronology and environment. Journal of
Archaeological Science 29(6): 593-606.
DORAN, GLEN H. 2002. Windover: Multidisciplinary investigations of an
Early Archaic Florida cemetery. Gainesville: University of Florida
Press.
58
DOWNEY, ROGER. 2000. Riddle of the bones: Politics, science, race and the
story of Kennewick man. Copernicus Press.
ECHO HAWK, R. C. 2000. Ancient history in the New World:
Integrating oral traditions and the archaeological record.
American Antiquity 65(2):267-90.
ERLANDSON, JON M. 1994. Early hunter-gatherers of the California
Coast. New York: Plenum Press.
ERLANDSON, J. M. 2002. “Anatomically modern humans,
maritime voyaging, and the Pleistocene colonization of the
Americas,” in The First Americans, the Pleistocene colonization of the New
World. Edited by N. G. Jablonski, pp. 59-92. San Francisco:
Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 27.
FERRING, C. REID. 2001. The Archaeology and paleoecology of the
Aubrey Clovis site (41DN479), Denton County, Texas. Report from Center
for Environmental Archaeology, University of North Texas, to
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District.
FIEDEL, STUART J. 1999a. Older than we thought:
Implications of corrected dates for Paleoindians. American
Antiquity 64 (1): 95-116.
59
FIEDEL, STUART J. 1999b. Artifact provenience at Monte
Verde: Confusion and contradictions. Scientific American
Discovering Archaeology 1(6):Special Report 1-12.
FIEDEL, STUART J. 2000. The peopling of the New World:
present evidence, new theories, and future directions.
Journal of Archaeological Research 8(1):39-103.
FIEDEL, STUART J. 2001. Clocks or crocks: biomolecular
dating vs. archaeology. Paper presented at 66th annual
meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New
Orleans.
FIEDEL, STUART J. 2002. Initial human colonization of the
Americas: An overview of the issues and the evidence.
Radiocarbon 44(2):407-36.
FLEGENHEIMER, N., AND M. ZARATE. 1997. Considerations on
radiocarbon and calibrated dates from Cerro La China and
Cerro El Sombrero, Argentina. Current Research in the Pleistocene
14:27-8.
FORSTER, P., R. HARDING, A. TORRONI, AND H.-J. BANDELT.
1996. Origin and evolution of Native American mtDNA
60
variation: A reappraisal. American Journal of Human Genetics 59:
935-45.
GARCIA-BOUR, J., A. PEREZ-PEREZ, S. ALVAREZ, E. FERNANDEZ,
A. M. LOPEZ-PARRA, E. ARROYO-PARDO, AND D. TURBON. 2003.
Early population differentiation in extinct aborigines from
Tierra del Fuego-Patagonia: Ancient mtDNA sequences and Y-
chromosome STR characterization. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, online 11 August.
GIBBONS, ANN. 1998. Calibrating the mitochondrial clock.
Science 279:28.
GODDARD, I., AND L. CAMPBELL. 1994. “The history and
classification of American Indian languages: What are the
implications for the peopling of the Americas?” in Method
and theory for investigating the peopling of the Americas. Edited by R.
Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, pp. 189-208.. Corvallis,
Oregon: Center for the Study of the First Americans.
GOEBEL, T., AND M. AKSENOV. 1995. Accelerator radiocarbon
dating of the initial Upper Palaeolithic in southeastern
Siberia. Antiquity 69:349-57.
61
GONZALEZ, S., J. C. JIMENEZ-LOPEZ, R. HEDGES, D. HUDDART, J.
C. OHMAN, A. TURNER, J. A. POMPA Y PADILLA. 2003. Earliest
humans in the Americas: new evidence from Mexico. Journal of
Human Evolution 44:379-87.
GONZALEZ-JOSE, R., S. L. DAHINTEN, M. A. LUIS, M. HERNANDEZ,
AND H. M. PUCCIARELLI. 2001. Craniometric variation and the
settlement of the Americas: Testing hypotheses by means of
R-matrix and matrix correlation analyses. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 116:154-65.
GONZALEZ-JOSE, R., A. GONZALEZ-MARTIN, M. HERNANDEZ, H. M.
PUCCIARELLI, M. SARDI, A. ROSALES, AND S. VAN DER MOLEN.
2003. Craniometric evidence for Palaeoamerican survival in
Baja California. Nature 425:62-5.
GREEN, T. J., B. COCHRAN, T. W. FENTON, J. C. WOODS, G. L.
TITMUS, L. TIESZEN, M. A. DAVIS, AND S. J. MILLER. 1998.
The Buhl burial: A Paleoindian woman from southern Idaho.
American Antiquity 63(3):437-56.
GREENBERG, JOSEPH, CHRISTY G. TURNER, II, AND STEPHEN L.
ZEGURA. 1986. The settlement of the Americas: A comparison
62
of the linguistic, dental, and genetic evidence. Current
Anthropology 27: 477-97.
GREENBERG, JOSEPH H. 1987. Language in the Americas. Palo
Alto: Stanford University Press.
GREENMAN, EMERSON F. (1963). The Upper Palaeolithic and the
New World. Current Anthropology 4:41-91.
GRUHN, R. 1991. “Stratified radiocarbon-dated
archaeological sites of Clovis age and older in Brazil,” in
Clovis: Origins and adaptations. Edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. L.
Turnmire, pp. 283-6. Corvallis, Oregon: Center for the
Study of the First Americans.
GRUHN, R. 1994. “The Pacific coast route of initial entry:
An overview,” in Method and theory for investigating the peopling of the
Americas. Edited by R. Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, pp. 249-
56. Corvallis, Oregon: Center for the Study of the First
Americans.
HAMMER, M. F., AND S. L. ZEGURA. 2002. The human Y
chromosome haplogroup tree: Nomenclature and phylogeography
of its major divisions. Annual Review of Anthropology 31(1):303-
21.
63
HANIHARA, T. 1984. Origins and affinities of Japanese
viewed from cranial measurements. Acta Anthropogenetica 8(1-
2):149-58.
HANIHARA, T. 1994. Craniofacial continuity and
discontinuity of Far Easterners in the Late Pleistocene and
Holocene. Journal of Human Evolution 27:417-41.
HAUSWIRTH, W. W., C. D. DICKEL, D. J. ROWOLD, AND M. A.
HAUSWIRTH. 1994. Inter- and intrapopulation studies of
ancient humans. Experientia 50: 585-91.
HAYES, M. G., AND D. H. O’ROURKE. 2000. Molecular genetic
characterization of the Dorset-Thule transition in the
eastern Canadian Arctic. Paper presented at meeting of the
Canadian Archaeological Association, Ottawa.
HAYES, M. G., AND D. H. O’ROURKE. 2001. Genetic signatures
of migrations and population replacements during human
colonization of the North American Arctic. Poster presented
at 51st annual meeting of American Society of Human
Genetics, San Diego, October 12-16.
HAYNES, C. V., Jr. 1987. Clovis origins update. The Kiva
52:83-93.
64
HAYNES, GARY. 2002. The early settlement of North America: The Clovis
era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HERNANDEZ, M., C. LALUEZA FOX, AND C. GARCIA-MORO. 1997.
Fueguian cranial morphology: the adaptation to a cold, harsh
environment. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 103(1):103-17.
HEYER, E., E. ZIETKIEWICZ, A. ROCHOWSKI, V. YOTOVA, J.
PUYMIRAT, AND D. LABUDA. 2001. Phylogenetic and familial
estimates of mitochondrial substitution rates: Study of
control region mutations in deep-rooting pedigrees. American
Journal of Human Genetics 69:1113-26.
HEYERDAHL, THOR. 1952. American Indians in the Pacific: The theory
behind the Kon-Tiki expedition. London: Allen and Unwin.
HIBBEN, FRANK. 1946. The first thirty-eight Sandia points.
American Antiquity 11:257-8.
HOOTON, EARNEST A. 1930. The Indians of Pecos Pueblo: A study of their
skeletal remains. New Haven:Yale University Press.
HOWELL, N., I. KUBACKA, AND D. A. MACKEY. 1996. How rapidly
does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? American Journal of
Human Genetics 59: 501-9.
65
HOWELL, N., C. B. SMEJKAL, D. A. MACKEY, P. F. CHINNERY, D.
M. TURNBULL, AND C. HERRNSTADT. 2003. The pedigree rate of
sequence divergence in the human mitochondrial genome: There
is a difference between phylogenetic and pedigree rates.
American Journal of Human Genetics 72(3).
HOWELLS, WILLIAM. 1967. Mankind in the making. Garden City:
Doubleday.
HRDLICKA, ALES. 1913. A search in eastern Asia for the
race that peopled America. Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 60(30):10-13.
HURT, W. R., Jr. 1960. The cultural complexes from the
Lagoa Santa region, Brazil. American Anthropologist 62:569-85.
IMBELLONI, J. 1943. The peopling of America. Acta Americana
1:320-4.
INGMAN, M., H. KAESSMANN, S. PAABO, AND U. GYLLENSTEN.
2000. Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of
modern humans. Nature 408:708-13.
JANTZ, RICHARD L., AND DOUGLAS W. OWSLEY. 1997. Pathology,
taphonomy, and cranial morphometrics of the Spirit Cave
mummy. Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 40 (1): 62-84.
66
JANTZ, RICHARD L., AND DOUGLAS W. OWSLEY. 2001. Variation
among early North American crania. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 114:146-55.
JANTZ, RICHARD L., AND DOUGLAS W. OWSLEY. 2003. Reply to
Van Vark et al.: Is European Upper Paleolithic cranial
morphology a useful analogy for early Americans? American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 121(2):185-8.
JERREMS, WILLIAM, AND AMY DANSIE. 2002. Testing the Clovis
paradigm: Extinct horses and human association. Paper
presented at 67th annual meeting of Society for American
Archaeology, Denver, March 20-24.
JIN, L., AND SU, B. 2000. Natives or immigrants: Modern
human origin in East Asia. Nature Reviews 1:126-33.
JOSENHANS, H., D. FEDJE, R. PIENITZ, AND J. SOUTHON. 1997.
Early humans and rapidly changing Holocene sea levels in the
Queen Charlotte Islands-Hecate Strait, British Columbia,
Canada. Science 277:71-4.
KAESTLE, F. 1997. Molecular analysis of ancient Native
American DNA from western Nevada. Nevada Historical Society
Quarterly 40 (1):85-96.
67
KAMMINGA, J., AND R. V. S. WRIGHT. 1988. The Upper Cave at
Zhoukoudian and the origins of the Mongoloids. Journal of
Human Evolution 17:739-67.
KARAFET, T. M., S. L. ZEGURA, O. POSUKH, L. OSIPOVA, A.
BERGEN, J. LONG, D. GOLDMAN, W. KLITZ, S. HARIHARA, P. DE
KNIJFF, R. C. GRIFFITHS, A. R. TEMPLETON, AND M. F. HAMMER.
1999. Ancestral Asian source(s) of New World Y-chromosome
founder haplotypes. American Journal of Human Genetics 64(3):817-
31.
KARAFET, T. M., L. P. OSIPOVA, M. A. GUBINA, O. L. POSUKH,
S. L. ZEGURA, AND M. F. HAMMER. 2002. High levels of Y-
chromosome differentiation among native Siberian populations
and the genetic signature of a boreal hunter-gatherer way of
life. Human Biology 74(6):761-89.
KAYSER, M., S. BRAUER, G. WEISS, P. A. UNDERHILL, L. ROEWER,
W. SCHIEFENHOVEL, AND M. STONEKING. 2000. Melanesian origin
of Polynesian Y chromosomes. Current Biology 10:1237-46.
KE, Y., B. SU, X. SONG, D. LU, L. CHEN, H. LI, C. QI, S.
MARZUKI, R. DEKA, P. UNDERHILL, C. XIAO, M. SHRIVER, J.
LELL, D. WALLACE, R. S. WELLS, M. SEIELSTAD, P. OEFNER, D.
68
ZHU, J. JIN, W. HUANG, R. CHAKRABORTY, Z. CHEN, AND L. JIN.
2001. African origin of modern humans in East Asia: a tale
of 12,000 Y chromosomes. Science 292 (5519):1151-3.
KITIGAWA, H., AND J. VAN DER PLICHT. 1998. Atmospheric
radiocarbon calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial
fluctuations and cosmogenic isotope production. Science 279:
1187-90.
KOLMAN, C. J., N. SAMBUUGHIN, AND E. BERMINGHAM. 1996.
Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Mongolian populations and
implications for the origin of New World founders. Genetics
142 (4):1321-34.
KOZLOWSKI, J. K., AND M. OTTE. 2000. The formation of the
Aurignacian in Europe. Journal of Anthropological Research
56(4):513-34.
KUZMIN, Y. V., A. J. T. JULL, Z. S. LAPSHINA, AND V. E.
MEDVEDEV. 1997. Radiocarbon AMS dating of the ancient
sites with earliest pottery from the Russian Far East.
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123: 496-7.
69
LAHR, MARTA M. 1995. Patterns of modern human
diversification: implications for Amerindian origins.
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 38:163-98.
LALUEZA, C., A. PEREZ-PEREZ, E. PRATS, L. CORNUDELLA, AND D.
TURBON. 1997. Lack of founding Amerindian mitochondrial DNA
lineages in extinct aborigines from Tierra del Fuego-
Patagonia. Human Molecular Genetics 6(1):41-6.
LARSEN, C. S. 1997. Bioarchaeology: Interpreting behavior from the
human skeleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LELL, J. T., R. I. SUKERNIK, Y. B. STARIKOVSKAYA, B. SU, L.
JIN, T. G. SCHURR, P. A. UNDERHILL, AND D. C. WALLACE. 2002.
The dual origin and Siberian affinities of Native American Y
chromosomes. American Journal of Human Genetics 70:192-206.
LESSA, A., AND N. GUIDON. 2002. Osteobiographic analysis of
skeleton I, Sitio Toca dos Coqueiros, Serra da Capivara
National Park, Brazil, 11,060 BP: First results. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 118:99-110.
LEWIS, T. M. N., AND M. K. LEWIS (1961). Eva: An Archaic site.
Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
70
LORENZ, J. G., AND D. G. SMITH. 1996. Distribution of four
founding mtDNA haplogroups among native North Americans.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 101: 307-23.
LYNCH, THOMAS F. 1990. Glacial-age man in South America?
A critical review. American Antiquity 55(1):12-36.
MACGOWAN, KENNETH, AND JOSEPH A. HESTER, JR. 1962. Early
man in the New World. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.
MALHI, R. S., J. A. ESHLEMAN, J. A. GREENBERG, D. A. WEISS,
B. A. SCHULTZ SHOOK, F. A. KAESTLE, J. G. LORENZ, B. M.
KEMP, J. R. JOHNSON, AND D. G. SMITH. 2002. The structure
of diversity within New World mitochondrial DNA haplogroups:
Implications for prehistory of North America. American Journal
of Human Genetics 70: 905-19.
MASON, R. J., AND C. IRWIN. 1960. An Eden-Scottsbluff
burial in northeastern Wisconsin. American Antiquity 26: 43-57.
MCAVOY, JOSEPH M., AND LYNN D. MCAVOY. 1997. Archaeological
investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Richmond:
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report
Series No. 8.
71
MCAVOY, J. M., J. C. BAKER, J. K. FEATHERS, R. L. HODGES, L.
J. MCWEENEY, AND T. R. WHYTE. n.d. Summary of research at
the Cactus Hill archaeological site, 44SX202, Sussex County,
Virginia: Report to the National Geographic Society in
compliance with stipulations of grant #6345-98.
MELLO E ALVIM, M. C. DE. 1963. Diversidade morfologica
entre os indios “Botocudos” do leste brasileiro (seculo XIX)
e o “Homem de Lagoa Santa.” Rio de Janeiro: Boletim do Museu
Nacional Antropologia 23.
MELTZER, DAVID J. 1997. Monte Verde and the Pleistocene
peopling of the Americas. Science 276:754-5.
MELTZER, D. J., D. K. GRAYSON, G. ARDILA, A. W. BARKER, D.
F. DINCAUZE, C. V. HAYNES, F. MENA, L. NUNEZ, AND D. J.
STANFORD. 1997. On the Pleistocene antiquity of Monte Verde,
southern Chile. American Antiquity 62(4):659-63.
MENA L., F., O. REYES B., T. W. STAFFORD, JR., AND J.
SOUTHON. 2003. Early human remains from Bano Nuevo-1 cave,
central Patagonian Andes, Chile. Quaternary International 109-
110:113-121.
72
MENDES-CORREA, A. A. 1926. Nouvelle hypothese sur le
peuplement primitif de l’Amerique du Sud. 22nd International
Congress of Americanists 1:116.
MERRIWETHER, D. A. 2002. “A mitochondrial perspective on the
peopling of the New World,” in The first Americans, the Pleistocene
colonization of the New World. Edited by N. G. Jablonski, pp. 295-
310. San Francisco: Memoirs of the California Academy of
Sciences 27.
MERRIWETHER, D. A., F. ROTHHAMMER,, AND R. E. FERRELL. 1994.
Genetic variation in the New World: Ancient teeth, bone, and
tissue as sources of DNA. Experientia 50: 592-601.
MISHMAR, D., E. RUIZ-PESINI, P. GOLIK, V. MACAULAY, A. G.
CLARK, S. HOSSEINI, M. BRANDON, K. EASLEY, E. CHEN, M. D.
BROWN, R. I. SUKERNIK, A. OLCKERS, and D. C. WALLACE. 2003.
Natural selection shaped regional mtDNA variation in humans.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(1):171-6.
MORELL, VIRGINIA. 1998. Kennewick Man’s contemporaries.
Science 280 (5361):191.
73
MORROW, J., AND S. FIEDEL. n.d. New radiocarbon dates for
the Clovis component of the Anzick site (24PA506), Park
County, Montana. Ms. submitted to American Antiquity.
MORROW, J., AND T. MORROW. 1999. Geographic variation in
fluted projectile points: a hemispheric perspective.
American Antiquity 64(2):215-30.
MOSCH, C. J., AND P. J. WATSON. 1997. An ancient Rocky
Mountain caver. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 59(1):10-14.
NAMI, H. G. 1996. “New assessments of early human
occupations in the Southern Cone,” in Prehistoric Mongoloid
dispersals. Edited by T. Akazawa and E. J. E. Szathmáry, pp.
256-69. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
NEMECEK, S. 2000. Who were the first Americans? Scientific
American 283(3):80-7.
NEUMANN, G. K. 1952. “Archeology and race in the American
Indian,” in Archeology of Eastern United States. Edited by J. B.
Griffin, pp.13-34. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
NETTLES, D. 1999. Linguistic diversity of the Americas can
be reconciled with a recent colonization. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 96:3325-9.
74
NEVES, WALTER A., JOSEPH F. POWELL, ANDRE PROUS, AND ERIC G.
OZOLIN. 1998. Lapa Vermelha IV, Hominid 1: Morphological
affinities of the earliest known American. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology Supplement 26:169.
NEVES, WALTER A., ANDRE PROUS, R. GONZALEZ-JOSE, R. KIPNIS,
AND JOSEPH POWELL. Early Holocene human skeletal remains
from Santana do Riacho, Brazil: Implications for the
settlement of the New World. Journal of Human Evolution
45(1):759-82.
NEVES, WALTER A., AND HECTOR M. PUCIARELLI. 1991.
Morphological affinities of the first Americans: an
exploratory analysis based on early South American human
remains. Journal of Human Evolution 21:261-73.
NICHOLS, J. 1990. Linguistic diversity and the first
settlement of the New World. Language 66(3):475-521.
OAKLEY, KENNETH P., BERNARD G. CAMPBELL, AND THEA I.
MOLLESON. 1975. Catalogue of fossil hominids, part III, Americas, Asia,
Australia. London: Trustees of the British Museum.
OPLER, M. 1983. “The Apachean culture pattern and its
origins,” in Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 10,
75
Southwest, pp. Edited by A. Ortiz. Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
OTTE, M., AND DEREVIANKO, A. 2001. The Aurignacian in
Altai. Antiquity 75:44-8.
PARKER, G. 1998. Oya skeleton may be Jomon period’s oldest;
radiocarbon dating adds 4,000 years. The Japan Times July 7.
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news79.htm
PIPERNO, D.R., AND K.E. STOTHERT. 2003. Phytolith evidence
for Early Holocene Cucurbita domestication in southwest
Ecuador. Science 299(5609):1054-7.
POLITIS, GUSTAVO. 1997. The peopling of the Americas
viewed from the Southern Cone. Paper presented at 62nd
Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
Nashville.
POWELL, JOSEPH F., AND WALTER A. NEVES. 1999. Craniofacial
morphology of the Native Americans: Pattern and process in
the peopling of the New World. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology
42:153-88.
POWELL, J. F., AND J. C. ROSE. 1999. Report on the
osteological assessment of the “Kennewick Man” skeleton
76
(CENWW.97.Kennewick). Report submitted to National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
PROUS, ANDRE. 1992. Arqueologia Brasileira, Brasilia: Editora
UnB.
PROUS, A., AND E. FOGAÇA, 1999. Archaeology of the
Pleistocene-Holocene boundary in Brazil. Quaternary International
53/54:21-41.
PURDY, BARBARA A. 1991. The art and archaeology of Florida’s
wetlands. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
RENSBERGER, BOYCE. (1997). Putting a new face on
prehistory: Skeletons suggest Caucasoid early Americans.
Washington Post, April 15.
RIVET, PAUL. 1926. Recherche d’une voie de migration des
Australiens vers l’Amerique. Seances publiques, Societe
geographique 3:11-16.
RUIZ-LINARES, A., D. ORTIZ-BARRIENTOS, M. FIGUEROA, N. MESA,
J. G. MUNERA, G. BEDOYA, I. D. VELEZ, L. F. GARCIA, A.
PEREZ-LEZAUN, J. BERTRANPETIT, M. W. FELDMAN, AND D. B.
GOLDSTEIN. 1999. Microsatellites provide evidence for Y
77
chromosome diversity among the founders of the New World.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96(11):6312-7.
SANTOS, F. R., A. PANDYA, C. TYLER-SMITH, S. D. J. PENA, M.
SCHANFIELD, W. R. LEONARD, L. OSIPOVA, M. H. CRAWFORD, AND
R. J. MITCHELL. 1999. The central Siberian origin for
Native American Y chromosomes. American Journal of Human Genetics
64: 619-28
SARICH, V. M. 1997. “Race and language in prehistory,” in
Conceptual issues in modern human origins research. Edited by G. A.
Clark and C. M. Willermet, pp. 392-410. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
SCHURR, THEODORE G. 2000. Mitochondrial DNA and the
peopling of the New World. American Scientist 88:246-53.
SEGUCHI, N., A. R. NELSON, and C. L. BRACE. 2003. New World
Paleoindians in craniometric perspective: New looks at old
faces. Paper presented at 72nd annual meeting of American
Association of Physical Anthropologists, Tempe, April 23-27.
SEIELSTAD, M. T., E. MINCH, AND L. L. CAVALLI-SFORZA. 1998.
Genetic evidence for a higher female migration rate in
humans. Nature Genetics 20(3):278-80.
78
SEIELSTAD, M., N. YULDASHEVA, N. SINGH, P. UNDERHILL, P.
OEFNER, P. SHEN, AND R. S. WELLS. 2003. A novel Y-chromosome
variant puts an upper limit on the timing of first entry
into the Americas. American Journal of Human Genetics 73:700-5.
SELLARS, V. S. 1999 The accuracy of AMS 14C dates on human
bone and associated vertebrate remains--determining
chronologies for late Pleistocene human occupation of the
New World. Poster presented at "Clovis and Beyond"
conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
SELLET, FREDERIC. 1998. The French connection:
Investigating a possible Clovis-Solutrean link. Current
Research in the Pleistocene 15:67-8. Orono: Center for the Study
of Early Man, University of Maine.
SEMINO, O., G. PASSARINO, P. J. OEFNER, A. A. LIN, S.
ARBUZOVA, L. E. BECKMAN, G. DE BENEDICTIS, P. FRANCALACCI,
A. KOUVATSI, S. LIMBORSKA, M. MARCIKAE, A. MIKA, B. MIKA, D.
PRIMORAC, A. S. SANTACHIARA-BENERECETTI, L. L. CAVALLI-
SFORZA, AND P. A. UNDERHILL. 2000. The genetic legacy of
Paleolithic Homo sapiens in extant Europeans: A Y chromosome
perspective. Science 290:1155-9.
79
SHEPPARD, J. C., P. E. WIGAND,, C. E. GUSTAFSON, AND M.
RUBIN. 1987. A reevaluation of the Marmes Rockshelter
radiocarbon chronology. American Antiquity 52 (1): 118-24.
SHIELDS, G. F., A. M. SCHMIECHEN, B. L. FRAZIER, A. REDD, M.
I. VOEVODA, J. K. REDD, AND R. H. WARD. 1993. MtDNA
sequences suggest a recent evolutionary divergence for
Beringian and northern North American populations. American
Journal of Human Genetics 53: 549-62.
SIGURDARDOTTIR, S., A. HELGASON, J. R. GULCHER, K.
STEFANSSON, AND P. DONNELLY. 2000. The mutation rate in
the human mtDNA control region. American Journal of Human
Genetics 66:1599-1609.
SILVA, W.A., JR., S. L. BONATTO, A. J. HOLANDA, A. K.
RIBEIRO-DOS-SANTOS, B. M. PAIXAO, G. H. GOLDMAN, K. ABE-
SANDES, L. RODRIGUEZ-DELFIN, M. BARBOSA, M. L. PACO-LARSON,
M. L. PETZL-ERLER, V. VALENTE, S. E. SANTOS, AND M. A. ZAGO.
2002. Mitochondrial genome diversity of Native Americans
supports a single early entry of founder populations into
America. American Journal of Human Genetics 71(1):187-92.
80
SMITH, D. G., J. G. LORENZ, B. K. ROLFS, R. L. BETTINGER, B.
GREEN, J. ESHLEMAN, B. SCHULTZ, AND R. MALHI. 2000.
Implications of the distribution of Albumin Naskapi and
Albumin Mexico for New World prehistory. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 111:557-72.
SNALL, N., M-L. SAVONTAUS, S. KARES, M. S. LEE, E. K. CHO,
J. O. RINNE, AND K. HUOPONEN, 2002. A rare mitochondrial DNA
haplotype observed in Koreans. Human Biology 74(2):253-62.
SOLLAS, WILLIAM. 1911 Ancient hunters and their modern representatives.
London: Macmillan.
STAFFORD, T. W., JR. (1994). “Accelerator C-14 dating of
human fossil skeletons: Assessing accuracy and results on
New World specimens,” in Method and theory for investigating the
peopling of the Americas. Edited by R. Bonnichsen and D. G.
Steele, pp. 45-56. Corvallis, Oregon: Center for the Study
of the First Americans.
STAFFORD, T. W., JR., V. S. SELLARS, AND J. R. JOHNSON.
2002. Chronostratigraphy at Arlington Springs, a
Paleoindian site in insular California. Paper presented at
81
67th annual meeting of Society for American Archaeology,
Denver, March 20-24.
STANFORD, DENNIS. 1998. The first Americans: A new
perspective. Paper presented at 33rd Annual Symposium of
Archeological Society of Maryland, Crownsville, April 18.
STANFORD, D., AND B. BRADLEY. 2002. “Ocean trails and
prairie paths? Thoughts about Clovis origins,” in The first
Americans, the Pleistocene colonization of the New World. Edited by N. G.
Jablonski, pp. 255-72. San Francisco: Memoirs of the
California Academy of Sciences 27.
STEELE, D. GENTRY, AND JOSEPH F. POWELL. 1992. Peopling
of the Americas: Paleobiological evidence. Human Biology
64:303-36.
STEELE, D. G., AND J. F. POWELL. 1994. “Paleobiological
evidence of the peopling of the Americas: A morphometric
view,” in Method and theory for investigating the peopling of the Americas.
Edited by R. Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, pp. 141-64.
Corvallis, Oregon: Center for the Study of the First
Americans.
82
STEELE, D. G., AND J. F. POWELL. 2002. “Facing the past: A
view of the North American human fossil record,” in The first
Americans, the Pleistocene colonization of the New World. Edited by N. G.
Jablonski, pp. 93-122. San Francisco: Memoirs of the
California Academy of Sciences 27.
STEELE, J., G. POLITIS, AND P. PETTITT. 2001. AMS
radiocarbon dating of the earliest Paleoindian occupation of
the southern cone of South America. Paper presented at 66th
Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New
Orleans, April 18-22.
STONE, ANN C., AND MARK STONEKING. 1998. MtDNA analysis of
a prehistoric Oneota population: Implications for the
peopling of the New World. American Journal of Human Genetics 62:
1153-70.
STOTHERT, KAREN. 1985. The preceramic Las Vegas culture of
coastal Ecuador. American Antiquity 50(3):613-37.
STRAUS, LAWRENCE G. 2000. Solutrean settlement of North
America? A review of reality. American Antiquity 65(2):219-26.
STRUEVER, STUART, AND FELICIA A. HOLTON. 1979. Koster:
Americans in search of their past. New York: Doubleday.
83
SU, B., J. XIAO, P. UNDERHILL, R. DEKA, W. ZHANG, J. AKEY,
W. HUANG, D. SHEN, D. LU, J. LUO, J. CHU, J. TAN, P. SHEN,
R. DAVIS, L. L. CAVALLI-SFORZA, R. CHAKRABORTY, M. XIONG, R.
DU, P. OEFNER, Z. CHEN, AND L. JIN. 1999. Y chromosome
evidence for a northward migration of modern humans into
Eastern Asia during the last Ice Age. American Journal of Human
Genetics 65:1718-24.
SU, B., L. JIN, P. UNDERHILL, J. MARTINSON, N. SAHA, S. T.
MCGARVEY, M. D. SHRIVER, J. CHU, P. OEFNER, R. CHAKRABORTY,
R. DEKA. 2000. Polynesian origins: Insights from the Y
chromosome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
97(15):8225-8.
SUROVELL, TODD A. 2003. Simulating coastal migration in New
World colonization. Current Anthropology 44(4): 580-91.
SWEDLUND, A., AND D. ANDERSON. 1999. Gordon Creek Woman
meets Kennewick Man: New interpretations and protocols
regarding the peopling of the Americas. American Antiquity
64(4):569-576.
84
SZATHMARY, E. J. E. 1984. “Human biology of the Arctic,” in
Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 5, Arctic. Edited by D. Damas,
pp. 64-71. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
TAYLOR, R. E., PAYEN, L. A., PRIOR, C. A., SLOTA, P. J.,
JR., GILLESPIE, R., GOWLETT, J. A. J., HEDGES, R. E. M.,
JULL, A. J. T. , ZABEL, T. H., DONAHUE, D. J., AND BERGER,
R. 1985. Major revisions in the Pleistocene age
assignments for North American human skeletons by C-14
accelerator mass spectrometry: None older than 11,000 C-14
years B.P. American Antiquity 50 (1):136-40.
TAYLOR, R. E., D. L. KIRNER, J. R. SOUTHON, AND J. C.
CHATTERS. 1998. Letter to Science. Science 280 (5367):1171.
THOMAS, DAVID H. 2000. Skull wars. New York: Basic Books.
TORRONI, A., J. V. NEEL, R. BARRANTES, T. G. SCHURR, AND D.
C. WALLACE. 1994. Mitochondrial DNA “clock” for the
Amerinds and its implications for timing their entry into
North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
91:1158-62.
TORRONI, A., T. G. SCHURR, M. F. CABELL, M. D. BROWN, J. V.
NEEL, M. LARSEN, D. G. SMITH, C. M. VULLO, AND D. C.
85
WALLACE. 1993. Asian affinities and continental radiation
of the four founding Native American mitochondrial DNAs.
American Journal of Human Genetics 53: 563-90.
TUCK, J. A., AND R. MCGHEE. 1976. An Archaic Indian burial
mound in Labrador. Scientific American 235 (5): 122-9.
TURNER, C. G., II. 1983. “Dental evidence for the peopling
of the Americas,” in Early man in the New World. Edited by R.
Shutler, Jr., pp. 147-58. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
TURNER, CHRISTY G., II. 1986. Dentochronological separation
estimates for Pacific rim populations. Science 232: 1140-2.
TURNER, CHRISTY G., II. 1987. Late Pleistocene and Holocene
population history of East Asia based on dental variation.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 73: 305-21
TURNER, C. G., II. 1992. “New World origins: New research
from the Americas and the Soviet Union,” in Ice Age hunters of
the Rockies. Edited by D. J. Stanford and J. S. Day, pp. 7-50.
Denver: Denver Museum of Natural History and University
Press of Colorado.
TURNER, C. G., II. 1994. “Relating Eurasian and Native
American populations through dental morphology,” in Method
86
and theory for investigating the peopling of the Americas. Edited by R.
Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, pp. 131-40. Corvallis, Oregon:
Center for the Study of the First Americans.
TURNER, C. G., II. 2002. “Teeth, needles, dogs, and
Siberia: Bioarchaeological evidence for the colonization of
the New World,” in The first Americans, the Pleistocene colonization of the
New World. Edited by N. G. Jablonski, pp. 123-58. San
Francisco: Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 27.
TURNER, C. G., II, Y. MANABE, AND D. E. HAWKEY. 2000. The
Zhoukoudian Upper Cave dentition. Acta Anthropologica Sinica
19:253-68.
UNDERHILL, D. A., J. LI, R. ZEMANS, P. J. OEFNER, AND L. L.
CAVALLI-SFORZA. 1996. A pre-Columbian Y chromosome-specific
transition and its implications for human evolutionary
history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93:196-200.
UNDERHILL, D. A., P. SHEN, A. A. LIN, L. JIN, G. PASSARINO,
W. H. YANG, E. KAUFFMAN, B. BONNE-TAMIR, J. BERTRANPETIT, P.
FRANCALACCI, M. IBRAHIM, T. JENKINS, J. R. KIDD, S. Q.
MEHDI, M. T. SEIELSTAD, R. S. WELLS, A. PIAZZA, R. W. DAVIS,
M. W. FELDMAN, L. L. CAVALLI-SFORZA, AND P. J. OEFNER.
87
2000. Y chromosome sequence variation and the history of
human populations. Nature Genetics 26(3):358-61.
UNDERHILL, P., G. PASSARINO, A. A. LIN, P. SHEN, M. M. LAHR,
R. A. FOLEY, AND P. J. OEFNER. 2001a. Y chromosome binary
haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations.
Annals of Human Genetics 65:43-62.
UNDERHILL, D. A., G. PASSARINO, A. A. LIN, S. MARZUKI, P. J.
OEFNER, L. L. CAVALLI-SFORZA, AND G. K. CHAMBERS. 2001b.
Maori origins, Y-chromosome haplotypes and implications for
human history in the Pacific. Human Mutation 17:271-80.
VAN VARK, G. N. 1994. Multivariate analysis: Is it useful
for hominid studies? Courier. Forsch.-Inst. Senckenberg 171:289-94.
VAN VARK, G. N., D. JUIZENGA AND F. L. WILLIAMS. 2003.
Kennewick and Luzia: Lessons from the European Upper
Paleolithic. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121(2):181-4.
WARD, R. H., B. L. FRAZIER, K. DEW-JAGER, AND S. PAABO.
1991. Extensive mitochondrial diversity within a single
Amerindian tribe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 88
(19):8720-4.
88
WATERS, MICHAEL R. 1986. Sulphur Springs woman: An early
human skeleton from southeastern Arizona. American Antiquity
51:361-5.
WEIDENREICH, FRANZ. 1939. Six lectures on Sinanthropus and
related problems. Bulletin of the Geological Society of China 19:1-110.
WEISS, KENNETH M. 1994. American origins. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 91:833-5.
WILLIG, J. A. 1991. “Clovis technology and adaptation in
far western North America: Regional pattern and
environmental context,” in Clovis: Origins and adaptations. Edited
by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, pp. 91-119. Corvallis,
Oregon: Center for the Study of the First Americans.
WILLIG, J. A. 1996. “Environmental context for early human
occupation in western North America,” in Prehistoric Mongoloid
dispersals. Edited by T. Akazawa and E. J. E. Szathmáry, pp.
241-53. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
WOLPOFF, M. H., X. WU, AND A. G. THORNE. 1984. “Modern
Homo sapiens origins: a general theory of hominid evolution
involving the fossil evidence from east Asia,” in The origins
89
of modern humans. Edited by F. H. Smith and F. Spencer, pp.
411-84. New York: Alan R. Liss.
WORMINGTON, H. MARIE. 1957. Ancient man in North America,
seventh edition. Denver: Denver Museum of Natural History
Popular Series no. 4.
WRIGHT, R. V. S. 1995. The Zhoukoudian Upper Cave skull 101
and multiregionalism. Journal of Human Evolution 28:181-3.
YOUNG, D., S. PATRICK, AND D. G. STEELE. 1987. An analysis
of the Paleoindian double burial from Horn Shelter no. 2, in
central Texas. Plains Anthropologist 32:257-79.
ZHANG, J., G. HARBOTTLE, C. WANG, AND Z. KONG. 1999. Oldest
playable musical instrument found at Jiahu Early Neolithic
site in China. Nature 401:366-8.
90
Table I. Early Skeletal Remains
A. 10,000 rcbp (11,200 cal BP) or earlierSite Date [lab
#]Description/Comments
References
1. North AmericaFishbone Cave, Nevada
10,900±300; 11,200±250 rcbp[L-245];
ca. 8300 rcbp
dates on twined bark wrapped around burial; postcranial fragments
Steele andPowell 1994;Willig 1996Jerrems and Dansie2002
Buhl, Idaho 10,675±95 rcbp [Beta-4055/ETH-7729 on collagen]; delta 13C is -19 per mil
stemmed knife associated; craniofacial features “fall within the rangeof American Indian or East Asian populations”
Green et al.1998:446
Midland, Texas
ca. 10,000-11,000 rcbp?
Extremely long, high skull, small teeth and jaws. Otamid-like; “For all her antiquity there is nothing non-Indian about her.” Sinodont
Howells 1967: 305
Turner 1983
Marmes, Washington
10,130±300 rcbp() [W-2218
cranial fragments;
Sheppard etal. 1987;
91
Site Date [lab #]
Description/Comments
References
charcoal]9840±300 rcbp (charcoal) 9820±300 rcbp [W-2209 shell]
“some Mongoloid features”
Oakley et al.1975: 39
Anzick, Montana
10,240±120 [AA-2978], 10,820±100 [AA-2979], 10,710±100 [AA-2980], 10,940±90 [AA-2981], 10,370±130 [AA-2982], 11,550±60 [CAMS-35912] (erratic date?)10,780±40 (rib)[Beta-163833], 11,040±40 [Beta-168967], 11,040±60 [Beta-163832] rcbp (antler artifacts)
Infant; cranial and postcranial fragments; amino acid dateson collagen
Stafford 1994,personal communication 2002;Sellars 1999
Morrow andFiedel, inpress
Wilson-Leonard, Texas
9470±170 rcbp [Tx-4787] 9650±124 rcbp [Tx-4793] burial pit fill; 9430±60 rcbp [CAMS-14807], 9410±60rcbp [CAMS-14805] tree root overlying
Female, in her early 20s; resembles GordonCreek and Pelican Rapids skulls
Steele andPowell 1994, 2002; Bousman etal. 2003
92
Site Date [lab #]
Description/Comments
References
pit Horn Shelter,Texas
9980±370 rcbp [Tx-1722] to 9500±200 rcbp [Tx-1830], charcoal
shoveled incisors; “Therewere no significant differences between the HornShelter and other [later] central Texas samples on cranial, post-cranial or discrete traits”
Young et al.1987:295
Warm Mineral Springs, Florida
10,260±290 (190?) rcbp [GaK-3998]
Cockrell and Murphy1978
Mostin, California
10,500-7800 rcbp? 10,470±490 [UCLA-2171] 10,260±340 rcbp[UCLA-1795A] oncollagen, 7700±90 rcbp oncharcoal
possible carbonate contamination, real age may be 6300-3500 rcbp
Taylor et al. 1985;
Erlandson 1994:270-271
Witt site, Tulare Lake, California
11,380±70 BP (U-Th age, =~10,000 rcbp)
Willig 1991
Arlington Springs, Santa Rosa Island, California
10,000±310 rcbp,10,000±200 rcbp[L-650 charcoal], 10,080±810 rcbp[UCLA-1899 collagen],
Femora Steele andPowell 1994;Erlandson 1994
Stafford
93
Site Date [lab #]
Description/Comments
References
10,960±80 rcbp [CAMS-16810 purified collagen]
et al. 2002
2. Central and South AmericaPenon Woman III,Mexico
10,755±75 rcbp [OxA-10112 collagen]
Female, age 25 years, long-headed
Gonzalez et al. 2003
Tlapacoya I, Mexico
10,200±65 rcbp [OxA-10225 collagen]
Male, long-headed, 30-35 years
Gonzalez et al. 2003
Pampa de Fosiles 13, Peru
10,200±180 rcbp[GIF-3781 charcoal]
adult and adolescent, long-headed
Chauchat 1988
Lagoa Santa (Cerca Grande6 and 7), Brazil
ca. 9300-10,000rcbp
Sinodont Turner 1983Hurt 1960
Lapa VermelhaIV (“Luzia”),Brazil
10,200±220 to 11,680±500 rcbp[GIF-3726 charcoal];minimum age 9330±60 rcbp [Beta-84439 bone]
Cranium and postcranial elements, adult female
Gruhn 1991; Prous and Fogaça 1998;Neves et al. 1998
Sueva 1, Colombia
10,090 rcbp [GrN-8111 charcoal]
Correal U.1979
B. 10,000-7000 rcbp (11,200-8000 cal BP)Site Date Description/
CommentsReferences
1. North AmericaSulphur Springs
8200-10,000 rcbp
Sinodont Waters 1986
94
Woman, Whitewater Draw, Arizona
(stratigraphic/cultural cross-dating)
La Brea, California
9000±80 rcbp skeleton; may be much younger
Steele and Powell 1994
Windover, Florida
Ca. 7200-8000 rcbp 7100±90 [Beta-19315, stake]; 7290±120 [Beta-20450, gourd]; 7300±70 [Beta-19722, stake]; 7830±80 [TO-518bone]; 7930±80 [Beta-18295, stake]; 8120±70[TO-241, bone],etc.
mtDNA haplotypes X6 or X7 (common in Asia) foundin 40 brains
Doran 2002;Hauswirth etal. 1994; Purdy 1991;Merriwether2002
Warm Mineral Springs, Florida
7580-7140 rcbp long-headed, shoveling of maxillary incisors
Purdy 1991:200
Renier, Wisconsin
ca. 9000-8000 rcbp
Cremation Mason and Irwin 1960
Eva, Stratum 4, Tennessee
7200±500 rcbp Minimum age on antler
5 burials in bottom of stratum IV; 3measurable (male, 30-35 yr; male, 60+ yr; female, 25-30 yr); mesocephalic, some shovel-shaped incisors; continuity
Lewis and Lewis 1961
95
with later Archaic inhabitants ofthe site
Kennewick, Washington
8410±60 rcbp [UCR-3476/CAMS-29578, bone] =7880±160 reservoir-corrected, 8340-9200 cal BP; 8410±40 [Beta-133993, bone]; 8130±40 [UCR-3806/CAMS-60684, bone]; 6940±30 [UCR-38061/ CAMS-60683, bone]
Sundadont dentition (questioned byTurner 2002); some Caucasoidor Polynesian-like traits
Chatters 1997, 2000,2001; Powell and Rose 1999Taylor et al.1998
Koster Horizon 11, Illinois
Ca. 8500 rcbp 4 adults, 3 infants
Struever and Holton 1979
L’Anse Amour,Labrador
7530±140 rcbp [I-8099 charcoal]; 7255±115 [SI-2306 charcoal]
12-year-old Tuck and McGhee 1976
On-Your-KneesCave (49-PET-408),Prince of Wales Island,Alaska
9730±60 rcbp [CAMS-29873, bone]; 9880±50 rcbp [CAMS-32038, bone]ca. 9200 rcbp after marine reservoir correction
Mandible, vertebrae, pelvis
Josenhans etal. 1997Dixon 1999
Gordon Creek,Colorado
9700±250 rcbp [GX-0530 collagen]
female, mesocranic
Breternitz et al. 1971; Oakley et
96
9400±120 rcbp
al. 1975Swedlund and Anderson 1999
Pelican Rapids, Minnesota
7840±70 rcbp [CAMS-6380 bone], 7850±50 rcbp [CAMS-10354 bone]
adolescent female, mesocranic, shoveled incisors [Sinodont];conch shell gorget and antler knife
Wormington 1957
[Turner 1983]Dixon 1999:115
Browns Valley, Minnesota
8700±110 rcbp dolichocranic male, red ochre, broad Plano-like points
Steele and Powell 1992, 1994;Wormington 1957
J. C. Putnam,Texas
(no date) Steele and Powell 1992, 1994
Spirit Cave,Nevada
9415±25 rcbp (weighted average of 7 dates on hair, bone, tule mats)
Mummy
Sinodont, likelater Paiute;Resembles Archaic craniafrom Mississippi drainage and NY, also Mongolian Bronze Age
Jantz and Owsley 1997Turner 2002
Seguchi et al. 2003
Wizard’s Beach,Nevada
9250±60 rcbp(average of 2 dates)
mtDNA haplotype C, similar and perhaps ancestral to
Jantz and Owsley 1997
Kaestle 1997
97
modern westernNative Americans;Sinodont, likelater Paiute
Turner 2002
Hourglass Cave, Colorado
8170±100 [Beta-38554/ETH-6765]; 7944±84,7714±77 rcbp [AA-11808 splitsample, bone]
mtDNA haplotype B (9bp deletion)
Mosch and Watson 1997
Gore Creek, British Columbia
8250±115 rcbp No cranium Carlson 1983:82
2. Central and South AmericaEl Riego, Mexico
9000-7000 rcbp Anderson 1967
Texcal Cave, Mexico
7480±55 rcbp [OxA-10113 bone]
Brachycephalic Gonzalez etal. 2003
Arroyo Seco, Argentina
8560±320 rcbp [LP-55 bone] 5250±110 rcbp [Beta-11251, bone, split sample with LP-55] 7800±115 rcbp, 7615±90 rcbp
Politis 1997
Mena et al.2003
Intihuasi, Argentina
8060±100 rcbp, 7970±100 rcbp
On bone; 6 individuals
Oakley et al.1975
Acha, Chile 8970±255 rcbp Naturally mummified
Arriaza 1995Mena et al.2003
Camarones, Chile
7000 rcbp Chinchorro mummified
Arriaza 1995
98
childSanto DomingoTomb 2, Peru
7740±85 rcbp [Gx-352]
Cephalic index80.57
Beynon and Siegel 1981
Santo DomingoTomb 1, Peru
8830±190 rcbp [I-1311]
Cranial deformation
Beynon and Siegel 1981
Tres VentanasTomb 1, Peru
8030±130 rcbp (textile) [I-3108]
Beynon and Siegel 1981
Quiqche Cave Tomb 1, Peru
9940±200 rcbp for underlying level [I-3160]
Some degree ofshoveling
Beynon and Siegel 1981
Tequendama, Colombia
ca. 7200 rcbp Skeleton; cremations pre-8500 rcbp
Correal Urrego and van der Hammen 1977
Santana do Riacho, Brazil
9460±110 rcbp [GiF-4508]; 8185±110 rcbp [CDTH-1039], 8280±40 rcbp [Beta-162014] (human bone), etc.
Burial XII;
others (men, women, children—40 inall) mainly 8500-8200 rcbpBurial I is “quite close to the Polynesian centroid”
Prous 1992;Prous and Fogaça 1998; Neveset al. 2003Powell and Neves 1999:171
Toca da Janela da Barra do Antoniao, Brazil
9670±140 rcbp [GiF-8672 charcoal]
gracile woman Lessa and Guidon 2002
Toca dos Coqueiros, Brazil
9870±50 rcbp(associated charcoal) [Beta-109844]
Female; triangular andstemmed pointsassociated
Lessa and Guidon 2002
Las Vegas, Ecuador
8250-6600 rcbp 192 individuals
Stothert 1985
Bano Nuevo-1 8890±90 rcbp 5 individuals Mena L. et
99
Cave, Chile [Beta-90889 charcoal], 8850±50 rcbp [CAMS-36633], 8880±50 rcbp [CAMS-36634 bone, Individual 2]
(2 adult, 3 juvenile), generalized Mongoloid; Ind. 2, male, 20-25 years, has Mongoloid skull traits, Sinodont teeth(shovel incisors); but“dolicoid” cranium and face smaller, more gracile than historic Patagonians
al. 2003
Piuquenes Cave, Chile
8990±40 rcbp[Beta-151285]
Bone date on skeleton
Mena L. et al. 2003
Huentelauquen-2, Chile
8080±70 rcbp Mena L. et al. 2003
100