Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / Archaeology / February 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

First Americans Arrived Recently, Settled Pacific Coast, DNA Study Says

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jack Linthicum - 11 Feb 2007 15:59 GMT
The oldest human bones found in a North American site belonged to
Arlington Man (actually woman) found on Santa Rosa Island and dated to
13,000 ybp. The Channel Islands are an area of Chumash occupation.

News Front Page > The Genographic Project
First Americans Arrived Recently, Settled Pacific Coast, DNA Study
Says
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
February 2, 2007

A study of the oldest known sample of human DNA in the Americas
suggests that humans arrived in the New World relatively recently,
around 15,000 years ago.

The DNA was extracted from a 10,300-year-old tooth found in a cave on
Prince of Wales Island off southern Alaska in 1996.

The sample represents a previously unknown lineage for the people who
first arrived in the Americas.

The findings, published last week online in the American Journal of
Physical Anthropology, shed light on how the descendants of the
Alaskan caveman might have spread.

Comparing the DNA found in the tooth with that sampled from 3,500
Native Americans, researchers discovered that only one percent of
modern tribal members have genetic patterns that matched the
prehistoric sample.

Those who did lived primarily on the Pacific coast of North and South
America, from California to Tierra del Fuego at the southernmost tip
of South America (see map).

This suggests that the first Americans may have spread through the New
World along a coastal route.

Brian Kemp, a molecular anthropologist who sequenced the DNA, said the
discovery underlines the importance of genetic research in
understanding human migration.

"I think there's a lot of information in these old skeletons that's
going to help us clarify the timing of the peopling of the Americas
and perhaps where Native Americans originated in Asia," said Kemp, a
research associate at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.

On Your Knees Cave

When and how the first people came to the Americas has been a subject
of intense debate.

The prevailing theory has been that the first to arrive descended from
prehistoric hunters who walked across a thousand-mile (1,600-
kilometer) land bridge from Asia to Alaska.

(See a map of human migration.)https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/
genographic/atlas.html

This migration probably occurred at least 15,000 years ago-the oldest
human remains discovered so far are 13,000 years old-but some
scientists have proposed that the first Americans arrived up to 40,000
years ago.

The Alaskan tooth was discovered in a cavern called On Your Knees
Cave, named by the explorer who first crawled inside it.

Using material taken from the tooth, Kemp isolated fragments of
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed down from mothers to their
offspring, and Y chromosome DNA, which is passed from father to son.

>From a genetic database of 3,500 Native Americans, Kemp found 47
individuals in North and South America who exhibited the same genetic
markers as the caveman. Some of the samples were drawn from living
people and others from ancient bones.

He then compared the tooth DNA with the matching, modern samples and
tracked the mutations that had occurred in that DNA over time.

By measuring the rate of mutation, Kemp found that so-called molecular
evolution-the process by which genetic material changes over time-had
taken place two to four times faster than researchers believed mtDNA
could evolve.

That, Kemp said, suggests people entered the Americas within the last
15,000 years, because the DNA has evolved too fast for the arrival to
have occurred any earlier.

"I would say that humans were probably not here much before that
date," said Kemp. "A 15,000-year-old entry is [also] much more
consistent with the archaeological record."

Genetic Markers

All of the mtDNA lineages among Native Americans are associated with
five founding lineages believed to have originated in Asia.

But the caveman DNA turned out to be an independent founding lineage.

Of the 47 samples that matched the tooth DNA, 4 were from descendants
of Chumash Indians living along California's central coast.

"The distribution of people exhibiting this [genetic] type today are
all distributed in the western Americas," Kemp said.

"More or less the individuals are smack down the coast. It's a very
neat western distribution."

John Johnson, an archaeologist and ethnohistorian at the Santa Barbara
Museum of Natural History in California, collected the Chumash DNA
samples.

To Johnson, the matching of the Chumash samples to the On Your Knees
Cave man is indirect evidence of an ancient coastal migration that may
have occurred very rapidly.

"We're interested in who were those first people to arrive here at the
Pacific coast," Johnson said.

"I believe the Chumash descended from a very early coastal migration
that resulted in the distribution of people down to the tip of South
America."

Fishing Cultures?

But where did these coastal migrants come from?

DNA samples of people living in Japan and northeast Asia show some of
the genetic mutations found in the cave-tooth and Chumash samples.

"I think that's a clue that there could be a genetic connection,"
Johnson said.

He said the Chumash ancestors may have been skilled fishers before
they arrived in the Americas.

"Your techniques for exploiting coastal resources are easily
[transferable] and something that maybe can allow you to migrate more
quickly than people who are hunters and gatherers, who must get used
to new environments as they move into uncharted territory," Johnson
said.

"I think that may have allowed a more rapid migration along the
Pacific margins of the Americas."

Kemp, meanwhile, said rapidly advancing DNA technology will help
scientists piece together the story of the first Americans.

"No expert in morphology could look at the bones and say this person
resembles a Tierra del Fuego person. It was only the DNA that could
seal the case," Kemp said.

"This really highlights the importance of adding a molecular component
to the study of these really ancient remains."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070202-human-migration.html?sour
ce=rss

Uwe Müller - 11 Feb 2007 17:08 GMT
> snip >

> By measuring the rate of mutation, Kemp found that so-called molecular
> evolution-the process by which genetic material changes over time-had
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> 15,000 years, because the DNA has evolved too fast for the arrival to
> have occurred any earlier.

> snip >

The first paragraph boils down to something like: all dates arrived at via
genetic dating could be divided by 2 or even 4. That would have enormous
consequences for the population/repopulation-after-the-ice-age-scenarios in
Europe.

The second paragraph seems to imply some doubts about the dating. If the
dating is correct, an age of 10300 for the sample, no method of dating
given, than the mutation rate should have to be roughly trebled. If the
mutation rate is trebled, the amount of genetic change apparent in modern
descendants would argue against an aearlier arrival than ca. 15000.

If the dating of the tooth was not correct, the mutation rate may remain
unchanged, or could be changed according to personal preferences. There
would be no argument against earlier arrivals.

So everything rests on one tooth, and how it was dated. Does anyone know how
it was done? A carbon 14 dating could be easily off because of the influence
of marine carbon, as they were said to exploit coastal ressources. Was it
dated by the date of the layer of extraction?

have fun

Uwe Mueller
Jack Linthicum - 11 Feb 2007 18:40 GMT
> > snip >
>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> Uwe Mueller

I can't make a flat statement about the 10,300 ypb date but Lost World
p. 178-9 has a sentence "Eventually the 9800 year date had to be
modified (for the mandible and pelvis) ...the bone artfact that had
first caught Tim Heaton's attention (mandible) turned out to be 10,300
years old." Page 211 says they had a labratory analysis in hand.
Carbon 12, 13 and 14 relative proportions seem to be the method used.
Later, page 252, Tom Stafford , is cited as the dater of the bones.
Collegen is collected and subjected to particle bombardment.

Human remains found On Your Knees Cave ALASKA 9,818 B.P.
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/kennwck3.htm

Original article seems to have been in Nature

"Caveman DNA hints at map of migration : Nature
The DNA was extracted from teeth on a mandible found in 1996 in On
Your Knees Cave, named by the explorer who first crawled inside in
1993. Carbon dating in ..".
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7048/full/436162b.html - Similar
pages

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114082833/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&
SRETRY=0


Research Article
Genetic analysis of early holocene skeletal remains from Alaska and
its implications for the settlement of the Americas
Brian M. Kemp 1 *, Ripan S. Malhi 2, John McDonough 1, Deborah A.
Bolnick 3, Jason A. Eshleman 4 5, Olga Rickards 6, Cristina Martinez-
Labarga 6, John R. Johnson 7, Joseph G. Lorenz 8, E. James Dixon 9,
Terence E. Fifield 10, Timothy H. Heaton 11, Rosita Worl 12, David
Glenn Smith 5
1Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
37235-7703
2Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, IL 61801
3Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
78712
4Trace Genetics, Inc., A DNAPrint Genomics Company, 4655 Meade Street,
Richmond, CA 94804
5Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
6Department of Biology, Centre of Molecular Anthropology for Ancient
DNA Studies, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy
7Department of Anthropology, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History,
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
8Laboratory for Molecular Biology, Coriell Institute for Medical
Research, Camden, NJ 08103
9Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of
Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309
10Prince of Wales Island Districts, Tongass National Forest, Craig, AK
99921
11Department of Earth Science/Physics, University of South Dakota,
Vermillion, SD 57069
12Sealaska Heritage Institute, One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400, Juneau,
AK 99801
email: Brian M. Kemp (brian.m.kemp@vanderbilt.edu)

*Correspondence to Brian M. Kemp, Department of Anthropology,
Vanderbilt University, VU Station B #356050, Nashville, TN 37235-6050,
USA
Deceased.

Funded by:
Office of Polar Programs
The National Science Foundation
The United States Forest Service
Wenner Gren Grant

Keywords
mitochondrial DNA · ancient DNA · molecular clock · phylogenetic
dispersion · Y-chromosome

Abstract
Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA were analyzed from 10,300-year-old
human remains excavated from On Your Knees Cave on Prince of Wales
Island, Alaska (Site 49-PET-408). This individual's mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA) represents the founder haplotype of an additional
subhaplogroup of haplogroup D that was brought to the Americas,
demonstrating that widely held assumptions about the genetic
composition of the earliest Americans are incorrect. The amount of
diversity that has accumulated in the subhaplogroup over the past
10,300 years suggests that previous calibrations of the mtDNA clock
may have underestimated the rate of molecular evolution. If
substantiated, the dates of events based on these previous estimates
are too old, which may explain the discordance between inferences
based on genetic and archaeological evidence regarding the timing of
the settlement of the Americas. In addition, this individual's Y-
chromosome belongs to haplogroup Q-M3*, placing a minimum date of
10,300 years ago for the emergence of this haplogroup. Am J Phys
Anthropol, 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Received: 25 March 2006; Accepted: 7 November 2006

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20050824-9999-lz1c24tooth.html

Dental DNA reveals our ancient roots
By Leigh Fenly
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

August 24, 2005

JAMES DIXON
/ University of Colorado, Boulder
A cast of the human jaw found in On Your Knees Cave on Prince of Wales
Island in southeastern Alaska. UC Davis researchers have sequenced DNA
from two of the teeth - - the oldest ever extracted from ancient
American remains

   * Politics plagued bones of Kennewick Man

ASHLAND, Ore. - Paleontologist Timothy Heaton was used to finding
35,000-year-old remains of brown bear, black bear, hoary marmot and
antelope in On Your Knees Cave, a tight opening tucked in the dense
hemlocks of Alaska's vast Tongass National Forest. But on the last day
of excavation in 1996, as Heaton was filling a final bag of sediment,
he came upon something quite different.

A lower jaw. A pelvic bone. Obsidian worked into a spear point.

Unmistakable evidence of an ancient human.

Since, the effort to tease clues from the 10,300-year-old remains -
the oldest ever found in Alaska or Canada - has involved myriad
research laboratories, most recently the Molecular Anthropology Lab at
UC Davis.

A tooth from On Your Knees Cave Man - wrapped in cotton and shipped
via Federal Express - arrived there in 2003. Brian Kemp, a Ph.D.
candidate, removed the tooth's crown and hammered out a quarter-gram
portion of root. He subjected it to bleach, a decalcifying chemical
and a protein-devouring enzyme. With a silica extraction, he got the
tooth's DNA to jump out of the solution.

With the same process forensic scientists use to link DNA to
criminals, Kemp tricked the purified DNA into copying itself millions
of times. The resulting sequences - the oldest DNA ever extracted from
human remains in the Americas - revealed some of the old man's
secrets.

>From differences in the genetic sequences, Kemp is now able to argue
that the cave man's DNA represents a new ancient lineage in North
America. Comparing that DNA to modern-day sequences, he also is
suggesting changes to some scientists' estimates of the time of the
first migrations to the New World.

<more, mostly anecdotal>
prd - 12 Feb 2007 01:33 GMT
In sci.archaeology message  news:eqnil0$edv$1@online.de by "Uwe Müller"
<uwemueller@go4more.de>  . . . :

>> snip >
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> influence of marine carbon, as they were said to exploit coastal
> ressources. Was it dated by the date of the layer of extraction?

Their conclusions are not warranted, the 96% confidence interval for
the persistence of a founding haplotype is 0.04 = 1/2^N where N = number
of halflifes. 2^N = 25 N ~4.5 halflives. If the estimated rate of evolution
is 1 event per locus of 9 to 28 ky then the rejectable timings would be
>40 ky + 10,000 years.  Therefore the conclusion of the abstact is not
scientifically secure and a bad use of statistics. Even if they were using
genomic DNA which has 5 times the number of relevent mutations their
rejection criteria would be in excess of 15,000 years or more.
Daryl Krupa - 12 Feb 2007 04:59 GMT
<snip>
> So everything rests on one tooth, and how it was dated. Does anyone know how
> it was done?
<snip>

 Uwe:
"raw" radiocarbon dates on the human remains averaged about 9800
14CBP.
 A marine reservoir correction of 200 years was applied to that
average,
based on findings from a comparison of closely-associated marine and
terrestrial samples
found in the Queen Charlottes (to the south).
 The corrected age of about 9600 14CBP was calibrated using standeard
methods to
derive a calendar age of about 10,300 years.
 That is a reasonable procedure, IMHO.

-
Daryl Krupa
Paul Ciszek - 11 Feb 2007 19:39 GMT
This doesn't make sense to me.  They seem to be saying that almost all
native North Americans belong to one of five lineages, but this guy
they found doesn't, and only a few costal people are related to him.
OK, so how does that mean that all of North America was settled
recently?  It would seem that the majority of native North Americans
have an origin that does not involve this find.  If this guy were one
of the first arrivals, and any latter arrivals had to wade through his
descendents to get to the rest of North America, I would expect his
genes to be well distributed.  Instead, his descendents are limited to
a narrow territory; wouldn't that be a little more consistent with a
late arrival whose descendents are outnumbered by those who have been
here longer?

Signature

Please reply to:            | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com    |  connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled       |            -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006

Daryl Krupa - 12 Feb 2007 04:55 GMT
On Feb 11, 8:59 am, "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> The oldest human bones found in a North American site belonged to
> Arlington Man (actually woman) found on Santa Rosa Island and dated to
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> for National Geographic News
> February 2, 2007
<snip>
> The DNA was extracted from a 10,300-year-old tooth found in a cave on
> Prince of Wales Island off southern Alaska in 1996.
<snip>

 Date on Arlington Springs human remains found on Santa Rosa island:
10,970 +/- 80 BP (12,980 cal BP).
 Age given by Kemp, et al. for origin of genetic marker found in
On-Your-Knees-Cave human remains:
10,300 to about 18,000 years.
 Age given by Kemp, et al. for a suite of North american genetic
markers:
about 13,400 years.
( part of a range of about 8,000 to about 20,000 years old,
at a 95% confidence interval).
 Kemp, et al. state that they are reluctant to put an exact date on
human immigration into the Americas.

-
Daryl Krupa
Jack Linthicum - 12 Feb 2007 12:20 GMT
This is probably a better account, still not complete as Athena Review
doesn't post full articles on the internet. The On Your Knees Cave
site is a model for cooperation between the archaeologists, the
various sciences interested in the past of a site and the local people
and has been cited as such in the accounts of others like the
Kennewick man situation.

Although the group studying OYKCM haven't tried to put the discovery
into any wider context the Athena Review has the following paragraph
as a teaser:

"DNA recovered from the 49-PET-408 individual appears to support this
coastal migration theory. The DNA was compared with mitochondrial DNA
from more than 3,000 Native American sequences taken from public
databases. Matches were obtained from samples of modern and ancient
individuals, with the coastal Cayapa of Ecuador accounting for more
than 50% of the matches. Others included the Chumash (California), the
Klunk Mound people (Illinois), the Tarahumara (Chihuahua, Mexico), and
the Mapuche and Yaghan tribes (Chile) - thereby tracing a possible
migration route."

http://www.athenapub.com/oldestDNA.htm
Tedd Jacobs - 13 Feb 2007 01:10 GMT
"Jack Linthicum" wrote...

> The oldest human bones found in a North American site belonged to
> Arlington Man (actually woman) found on Santa Rosa Island and dated to
[quoted text clipped - 151 lines]
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070202-human-migration.html?sour
ce=rss

this of course calls into question-  where did the people that perportedly
settled north and south american sites that predate the results of this
study come from?
prd - 13 Feb 2007 03:40 GMT
In sci.archaeology message  news:eqr36r0q9b@enews4.newsguy.com by "Tedd
Jacobs" <TJacobs@mail.boisestate.edu>  . . . :

> "Jack Linthicum" wrote...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 158 lines]
> perportedly settled north and south american sites that predate the
> results of this study come from?

Their mothers, of course. :^).
Daryl Krupa - 13 Feb 2007 12:55 GMT
> this of course calls into question- where did the people that perportedly
> settled north and south american sites that predate the results of this
> study come from?

 Tedd, the study does not really have specific-date results;
its main result is to show that "the molecular clock"
seems to run much faster than previously thought
(i.e., things get weirder, quicker).
 The age ranges quoted by the authors, or deduced themselves,
have more than 2 dozen millennia ago as their upper end.
 The "15,000" is more like a round number between
the LGM and the beginning of the Holocene,
than a number that is deduced from the available evidence.
 Really, all it does is show that previous estimates for
first human immigration into the Americas
don't match the archaeological evidence because of
a mis-measurement of average rates of mutation
(sorta like measuring the length of a pendulum under
a cuckoo clock with a metric measuring tape, then
reporting the number of centimetres as that many inches).

 Over-hyped research, as is becoming too common
since NatGeog put out a Swimsuit Issue and got all
Web-footed.

-
Daryl Krupa
prd - 13 Feb 2007 14:20 GMT
In sci.archaeology message  news:1171371350.689132.222840
@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com by "Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@yahoo.com>  . . .

>> this of course calls into question-  where did the people that perporte
> dly
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> seems to run much faster than previously thought
> (i.e., things get weirder, quicker).

This is not true, you cannot _estimate rate variation_
of the clock based on a sample of one when that
mtDNA sequence

1. Maybe in error
2. May represent a sequence that evolved at a much
earlier time and persisted 4 or 5 halflives of potential
change of one position over the entire sequence.

The only time you can estimate rate variation is
when a sequence is alot older than you anticipated
that branch point to be.

In a founding Scenario in several mtDNA types
found, lets say A, B, and C
each at 33%

If we assume linearity in the propogation
(which one cannot)

33% --7ky genomic--> 16%---7ky--> 8% --->4%

At 96% confidence you can still detect that sequence
after 21 ky. If that sequence was present at
10500 years then it could have evolved in situ
31,000 years ago. If they did HVR1 we are talking
about even longer periods of time.
Daryl Krupa - 14 Feb 2007 04:58 GMT
> In sci.archaeology message  news:1171371350.689132.222840
> @h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com by "Daryl Krupa" <icycal...@yahoo.com>  . . .
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> 31,000 years ago. If they did HVR1 we are talking
> about even longer periods of time.

 From Kemp, et al.'s Discussion section:

" Applying our most conservative rate of
34%/site per myr (95% CI 15-53%/site per myr)
to the nucleotide diversity estimate (p ¼ 0.86) for
mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C, and D in Native Americas
(Bonatto and Salzano, 1997b), indicates that
human entered the Americas
~13,438 YBP (95% CI 8,113-28,667 YBP).
While this estimate does not preclude the possibility
of an early entry, the estimate is also compatible with
an entry more recent than 15,000 YBP. "

"YBP", here, means "years ago".

 I think that we would all appreciate your examination
and critique of the full article, here:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/HumanMigrations/files/Genetics/mtDNA/

(No, I'm not being sarcastic. You obviously know more about this
than
just about anybody posting here, Phillip, and your input on this
matter
is welcome.)

-
Daryl Krupa
Jack Linthicum - 13 Feb 2007 17:52 GMT
> > this of course calls into question- ?where did the people that perportedly
> > settled north and south american sites that predate the results of this
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> -
> Daryl Krupa

The National Geographic reference says the "findings were published
last week online in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, I
have just worked over their website and can't find the article. In
addition, I have gotten a copy of the Nature artcle, one page, which
contains the precautionary phrase "The work, which has yet to undergo
peer review," suggesting a sense of caution on some of the findings as
you indicate. An ongoing discussion.
Tedd Jacobs - 13 Feb 2007 19:17 GMT
"Jack Linthicum" wrote...

>> > this of course calls into question- ?where did the people that
>> > perportedly
>> > settled north and south american sites that predate the results of this
>> > study come from?

[...]
>>   Really, all it does is show that previous estimates for
>> first human immigration into the Americas
>> don't match the archaeological evidence

i think that might have possibly been in a round about way without creating
further confusion with undue words and overstating what might have been said
(or at least implied) where i was kinda trying to go without really sort of
coming right out and saying (or at least suggesting) that something or other
that i now forgot what i was going to say but we'll all take it for granted
anyway so lets move on to something else. (i think).

[...]

>> -
>> Daryl Krupa
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> peer review," suggesting a sense of caution on some of the findings as
> you indicate. An ongoing discussion.
Jack Linthicum - 13 Feb 2007 21:11 GMT
> "Jack Linthicum" wrote...
>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> > peer review," suggesting a sense of caution on some of the findings as
> > you indicate. An ongoing discussion.

National Geographic has funded part of this operation, they have
become a commercial enterprise with TV channel and all of the frills
(http://www.nationalgeographic.com/). As such, they feel they have to
blow their horn whenever anything they back starts to yield results
that can be tooted and touted. The NG writer was not nearly as careful
as he could have been.
Daryl Krupa - 14 Feb 2007 05:02 GMT
<snip>
On Feb 13, 2:11 pm, "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> National Geographic has funded part of this operation, they have
> become a commercial enterprise with TV channel and all of the frills
> (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/). As such, they feel they have to
> blow their horn whenever anything they back starts to yield results
> that can be tooted and touted. The NG writer was not nearly as careful
> as he could have been

 Agreed, on NatGeog's promotional efforts dominating reportage.
 we also saw this effect with the Black Sea Flood foofurrah.
 Mind you, he had help from Kemp, al;though that does not excuse
a reliance on an interview for the information presented in the "news
item"
as opposed to a critical reading of the scientific findings.

-
Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa - 14 Feb 2007 04:51 GMT
On Feb 13, 10:52 am, "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> > > this of course calls into question- ?where did the people that perportedly
> > > settled north and south american sites that predate the results of this
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> last week online in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, I
> have just worked over their website and can't find the article.
<snip>

 It is in the "Early View" section:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114082833/ABSTRACT

 It is also available (in full), at the Yahoo Group
HumanMigrations:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/HumanMigrations/files/Genetics/mtDNA/

-
Daryl Krupa
rick_sobie@hotmail.com - 24 Feb 2007 18:29 GMT
>   Over-hyped research, as is becoming too common
> since NatGeog put out a Swimsuit Issue and got all
> Web-footed.
>
> -
> Daryl Krupa

link?
Jack Linthicum - 24 Feb 2007 18:55 GMT
On Feb 24, 1:29 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >   Over-hyped research, as is becoming too common
> > since NatGeog put out a Swimsuit Issue and got all
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> link?

They have been publishing a "no-swim suit" issue just about every year
since I was able to pull them off the shelves. Hugh Heffner got his
ideas for that magazine by reading "Bare Tits in Borneo", "Some Really
Built Tonganese" and the never to be forgotten "Finnish Sauna Issue".
Daryl Krupa - 25 Feb 2007 06:33 GMT
On Feb 24, 11:29 am, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >   Over-hyped research, as is becoming too common
> > since NatGeog put out a Swimsuit Issue and got all
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> link?

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/swimsuits/wallpaper01.html

http://www.dumbentia.com/pdflib/ngswim.pdf

http://www.sportspickle.com/features/volume4/2005-0216-natgeo.html

" Hall and other top level editors at 'National Geographic' also
see the swimsuit issue as an extension of the magazine's brand.
'All we're doing now is providing an entire issue of breasts for
those kids who have grown into adults. We realize that as adults
they probably have other means for seeing female nudity, but
we think they'll enjoy reminiscing about their perverted youth
while paging through our swimsuit issue.'  "
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.