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