Discovery For The Ages

[R. Richard]

The following link is to an AP newswire story.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040909/ap_on_sc/mexico_first_americans

The story discusses the finding of bones in the Caribbean that are about 13,500 years old. (This will be strongly disputed by some.)


The final paragraph is fascinating:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until now, the Americas have produced only 25 bones or skeletons dated as more than 8,000 years old, said Silvia Gonzalez of John Moores University in Liverpool, England. But she told the conference that she would soon publish a paper establishing that humans occupied a site near Puebla east of Mexico City 21,000 to 28,000 years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was a land bridge between Asia (Siberia) and North America (Alaska) from about 13,500 years ago to about 11,000 years ago. Amerinds are known to have used the land bridge to reach North America. By analysis of languages and such things as campsites, experts have establiished strong links beteen Siberian nomads and Amerinds.

However, the new skeletal evidence would require a passage from the old world to the new world earlier than the land bridge existed. The skleletal remains are at about the same time as the first land bridge, but there is a distance of many thousands of miles between the land bridge and the skeltons. The persons leaving the skeletons would have had to run across the land bridge and run at top speed to the gulf coast and construct boats with capabilities that did not exist at that time to reach the area where the skeletons were found.

The existance of human life in the Mexico City area even 21,000 years ago would require either sailing boat technology that did not exist at that time or would call into very serious question the Garden of Eden story in the bible.

Science and religion are about to collide!

 

[lewdandlicentious]

The only thing that surprises me about this is that only now do you see the garden of Eden story being called into question!!!

 

[Guest]

Exciting and fascinating. Muchas gracias, RR. I plan to research this further.

Perdita

 

[Weird Harold]

C&P from my post in ABSTRUSE's "How Cool Is this?" thread

We should start the history/forensics nerd club thread.

Since you started this thread with a discovery about Viking skeltons -- and Vikings were supposedly the first Europeans to discover America, I think this discovery fits well here:

Who discovered the Americas?
Zeeya Merali
Skull analysis suggests Australians got there first.


From the BA Festival of Science, Exeter, UK.

The first colonizers of the Americas came from Australia, according to archaeologists who have analysed skulls from 12,000-year-old skeletons found in California. The finding contradicts the traditional view that the first immigrants were the ancestors of modern Native Americans.

Click here for The Rest of The Story

(Oddly enough, this story is mostly on UK, NZ, and Australian news sites with one mention ech by MSNBC and ABC.COM.)

PS for this thread: There are more and more discoveries of pre-clovis inhabitants every year. That the discovery in the Carribean was below modern sea levels just illustrates how hard it is to find evidence of coastal inhabitants when all of the evidence is flooded.

If I get a chance, I'll see if I can find an article on the human footprints found in south america that are (IIRC) the oldest confirmed evidence of humans in the Americas something like 3,000 to 5,000 year solder than these examples!

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

The only thing that surprises me ... the garden of Eden story being called into question!!!

Don’t be silly.

Mexico City once was The Garden of Eden.

The Ark took forty days to cross the Atlantic Ocean to Mt. Ararat.

God is reveling this now to show that the Christian Bible is the only scientifically verifiable basis for a religion.

Since the Middle East is no longer a safe destination, Acapulco and Cancun will be the goals of future religious pilgrimages.

I can hear the tapetty-tapping of keys on the computers of Jerry Falwell’s minions getting out The Word from here.

 

[R. Richard]

The only thing that surprises me about this is that only now do you see the garden of Eden story being called into question!!!

Either there was shipbuilding technology WAY in advance of anything even dreamed about 28,000 to 13,000 years ago, or the sekletons did not come from immigants, but from people who had evolved in the Americas. This last destroys the Garden of Eden story.

Is it true and verifiable? Who knows at this time? However, it will ignite some very interesting debate!

JMHO.

 

[Weird Harold]

... or the sekletons did not come from immigrants, but from people who had evolved in the Americas. This last destroys the Garden of Eden story.

The fact that Adam and Eve's sons found wives that were NOT their sisters pretty much destroys the Garden of Eden story, but that hasn't stopped anyone from believing it as absolute Truth anyway.

Either there was shipbuilding technology WAY in advance of anything even dreamed about 28,000 to 13,000 years ago,

A) "Shipbuilding" is definitely older than most people think. I suspect that geting around on water is almost s old as walking upright.

B) It doesn't take very advanced "shipbuilding" to migrate along coastlines and/or get blown out to sea and survive an unplanned ocean crossing.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Can someone explain to me exactly why this hemisphere's population has to be explained by a migration of some kind?

-Colly

 

[Weird Harold]

Can someone explain to me exactly why this hemisphere's population has to be explained by a migration of some kind?

-Colly

Because the spread of Man from Africa is fairly easy to document for (most) the rest of the world.

If the first americans weren't immigrants, then they're probably not "human" and we have to invent theories to explain how they appear to be human but aren't.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

If the first americans weren't immigrants, then they're probably not "human" and we have to invent theories to explain how they appear to be human but aren't.

I've always liked intercontinental extra terrestrial seeding.

 

[R. Richard]

Since you started this thread with a discovery about Viking skeltons -- and Vikings were supposedly the first Europeans to discover America, I think this discovery fits well here:


A) "Shipbuilding" is definitely older than most people think. I suspect that geting around on water is almost s old as walking upright.

B) It doesn't take very advanced "shipbuilding" to migrate along coastlines and/or get blown out to sea and survive an unplanned ocean crossing. [/B]

The article to which I posted the link involves skeletons found in Mexico's Yucatan coast. There is no reference to Vikings and it is unlikely that the Northman cultures would have dirfted that far south.

Shipbuilding is definitely a very old part of human history. However, the early boats were, at best, dugout canoes. There is no realistic way a dugout canoe would survive a long ocean voyage. At some point in the journey from the old world to the new world, a fairly long ocean voyage would have been required.

The first 'real ships' were very probably Egyptian. The first pictures of Egyptian ships appear around 3000BC. There were probably Egyptian ships prior to this, but they would not have appeared 13,500 years ago.

Early sailers did hug coastlines, but had no reason to make extended voyages. The concept of trade via ship probably started with the Egyptians.

The idea of a ship load of people blown WAY off course is interesting. However, the ships of the time would probably not have survived an ocean crossing, especially in storm conditions. Another problem for long distance ancient sailors is the sea teredo worm. The worm likes to eat wood (I have no idea why, possibly due to poor education). Sailors in the 15th century basically had to rebuild their ships to return from long voyages into tropical waters.

While it is definitely not impossible, the idea of long ocean voyages by people of 28,000 to 13,500 years ago is very improbable. The technology did not exist to build ships that would survive such voyages. Even the legendary 'tall ships of Atlantis' were probably used only in coast hugging Mediteranean voyages and, in addition, were probably built (if they were indeed built) some 5500 years ago. (The best bet for Atlantis is the Santorini group of islands in the Eastern Mediteranean. The largest of the Santorini group is Thera, which was more or less destroyed by volcanic eruption about 5500 years ago.)

JMHO.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Because the spread of Man from Africa is fairly easy to document for (most) the rest of the world.

If the first americans weren't immigrants, then they're probably not "human" and we have to invent theories to explain how they appear to be human but aren't.

Hey Harold,

It's my understanding that one of the first thing "man" did after spreading out of africa into europe was wipe out the Neandertals. Last I saw, scientiests using DNA methods had made a pretty strong case for Neandertal NOT being in our family tree.

If a homonid of Neandertal's "humaness" could spring up in europe, apparently independant of the australiopithesines, then why is it apparently a prerequisite to homonid life here that a migration has occured?

Granted, there has been little evidence of such a homonid, prior to the land bridge, but that certainly dosen't rule out such a family.

I just wondered why another paralell family of creatures seems to be anathema to scientists.

-Colly

 

[Liar]

I've always liked intercontinental extra terrestrial seeding.

Personally, I hate when that happens.


Thanks for the read, Richard. Twas fun.

#L

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... I just wondered why another paralell family of creatures seems to be anathema to scientists. -Colly

Occam's razor, I believe.

 

[fogbank]

Well, Neanderthals are not our direct ancestors, but the general belief is that we do have a common ancestry with them--anthropological cousins, so to speak. The neanderthals in europe did not 'spring up', they were a hominid population likely descended from the same north-eastern african hominids that we're from, they just migrated to europe first, before 'we' migrated up there later and wiped them out.


If the hominids in north america were a distinct group that evolved on their own naturally, there would likely be a fossil record of intermediate species as well. So far, such a record hasn't been discovered.

Hey Harold,

It's my understanding that one of the first thing "man" did after spreading out of africa into europe was wipe out the Neandertals. Last I saw, scientiests using DNA methods had made a pretty strong case for Neandertal NOT being in our family tree.

If a homonid of Neandertal's "humaness" could spring up in europe, apparently independant of the australiopithesines, then why is it apparently a prerequisite to homonid life here that a migration has occured?

Granted, there has been little evidence of such a homonid, prior to the land bridge, but that certainly dosen't rule out such a family.

I just wondered why another paralell family of creatures seems to be anathema to scientists.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

K E N N E W I C K M A N
By James C. Chatters

Encounter with an Ancestor

The discovery of a human ancestor variously referred to as Kennewick or Richland Man has shed light on the complexity of human immigration to the western hemisphere and ignited a controversy that may affect the future of paleoanthropology in the United States.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/html/kennewick_man.html

searching kennewick man will provide more sources...


Upon forensic examination is was determined that the remains of kennewick man appear to be of European origin.

There is a theory that norther europeans sailed from Iceland to Greenland and on to the North American continent much earlier than was previously thought.

There is also genetic research that notes ancient remains in the extreme south of South America are of aborginal australian heritage and the time frame predates the Siberian land bridge.

Doing research for my book, The Chief, I ran into a plethora of fascinating information.

Hope this thread thrives nerdish or not....

amicus

 

[R. Richard]

Hey Harold,

It's my understanding that one of the first thing "man" did after spreading out of africa into europe was wipe out the Neandertals. Last I saw, scientiests using DNA methods had made a pretty strong case for Neandertal NOT being in our family tree.

If a homonid of Neandertal's "humaness" could spring up in europe, apparently independant of the australiopithesines, then why is it apparently a prerequisite to homonid life here that a migration has occured?

Granted, there has been little evidence of such a homonid, prior to the land bridge, but that certainly dosen't rule out such a family.

I just wondered why another paralell family of creatures seems to be anathema to scientists.
-Colly

Colly:
The idea of parallel evolution is not so much a problem of scientists but of Christian scientists.

If you accept parallel evolution, you trash the Garden of Eden in the Genesis chapter of the Christian Bible. The problen is so pronounced that any sort of research involving possible pre-land-bridge humans/homonids in the new world has to be validated by religious 'monitors' who demand extreme proof.

If you want to research the matter, do a search on 'Mesa Verde' in Chile. A prehistoric village was swallowed by a bog. The chemistry of a bog tends to preserve items in the bog vice destroy them (I have no idea). The normal scientific evidence for the village is older than the earliest land bridge.

There have also been possible human settlements discovered in Brazil that date back more than 30,000 years. In many cases, the human settlements were in the interior, not along the coast. Acceptance of the evidence would trash the Garden of Eden.

As far as the wives for the children of Adam and Eve, the excuse is that women were rarely mentioned in antiquity, except as the wives of famous men.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well, Neanderthals are not our direct ancestors, but the general belief is that we do have a common ancestry with them--anthropological cousins, so to speak. The neanderthals in europe did not 'spring up', they were a hominid population likely descended from the same north-eastern african hominids that we're from, they just migrated to europe first, before 'we' migrated up there later and wiped them out.


If the hominids in north america were a distinct group that evolved on their own naturally, there would likely be a fossil record of intermediate species as well. So far, such a record hasn't been discovered.

It wasn't so very long ago, that there was no fossil record of many of the intermediary stages of our developement. The leake's in the great rift valley finding evidence that pushes the fossil record of homonids back several hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years, is just not that old.

I don't think anyone has been searching that hard over here. As Harold noted, costal villages are hard to reconstruct if they are now below sea level. Also the possibility exists, given the great plains that early proto humans here, might have been nomadic, leaving very little in the way of evidence.

While I don't know enough to say it's possible, it seems to me, that science is so sure of the migration formula for populating this hemisphere that they are almost arrogant intheir disdain for the authenticity of any discovery that might disprove that modle.

-Colly

 

[Weird Harold]

The article to which I posted the link involves skeletons found in Mexico's Yucatan coast. There is no reference to Vikings and it is unlikely that the Northman cultures would have dirfted that far south.

The comment about vikings ws directed at ABSTRUSE in the thread I cut and pasted the original message from, not you.

Of course if you had read the article I linked in that post, you'd know why it's also relevant to this thread -- it speculates that the "australians" that were found in Baja California got here by moving along the asian coast -- along the Japan Current in the Northern Hemisphere -- and crossed over along the cost of the Beringia befor ethe ice cap melted.

Shipbuilding is definitely a very old part of human history. However, the early boats were, at best, dugout canoes. There is no realistic way a dugout canoe would survive a long ocean voyage. At some point in the journey from the old world to the new world, a fairly long ocean voyage would have been required.

The polynesian gentotype spread throughout the pacific in nothing more than "dugout canoes" and Thor Hyerdahl proved that a balsa-wood raft or Egyptian style reed boat (The voyages of the Kon Tiki and Ra) are capable of trans-oceaninc crossings.

The "Ice Man" found in a glacier -- although much "newer" than the finds in America -- has provided a lot of information and clues that early man traveled and traded far more extensively than was believed.

Jane Auel used a similar premise in her Earth's Children series -- that man has been engaging in "Wander Year" expeditions almost from the beginning. One of the cultures she describes is a paleolithic fishing culture that built rather sophisticated river boats that were based on the dugout canoe.

The skeletons found in Baja California are believed to be related to Australian Aborigines rather than the Siberian/Mongol line of the Clovis migration. They date to aboutthe time that the aborigines crossed a long stretch of open water to reach Australia (I don't know of any "land bridge" theory to explain how aborigins got to Australia, BTW. They, at least, must have had seafaring capable boats.)

The Native American tribes of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska used dugout canoes and skin covered boats (Kayaks) that were not only capable of sailing rough seas, but hunting whales while doing so. The designs and building techniques are essentially unchanged as far back as they can be traced -- and very similar in many ways to the Volga River Boat People Jane Auel used as the model for her river culture.

"Dugouts" were much more sophisticated than mere hollowed out logs and with outriggers and sails (which may or may not have been developed in the time frme we're tlking about) are more than capable of extended sea voyages much longer than later more sophistcated craft of similar size are capable of.

Two or three dugouts lashed together for survival and/or security after being blown out to sea and into one of the major ocean currents could easily cross the northern pacific in only a few days and the mid pacific in about two weeks. If they just happened to have a couple of women along, it wouldn't matter if worms ate their boat or they couldn't find a current that would allow them to return home. As long as they could find a source of flint or obsidian, they could survive and grow into a small "colony."

Two or three fishing expeditions over a generation or two would provide a degree of genetic diversity to the "accidental colony" because ocean storms and currents tend to dump their flotsam in pretty much the same places.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I think that once you go back far enough, early man probably had the same sort of society that the modern day Sasquatch demonstrates.

They ate their dead — hide and hair, lean and fat, bone and cartlage, grease and gristle.

That’s probably why so many current religions include some dogma or legend about ritualistic cannibalism.

 

[Weird Harold]

It wasn't so very long ago, that there was no fossil record of many of the intermediary stages of our developement. ...

Very true, Colly, but he fossil record of OTHER primates is not so sparse in Africa where all of the early hominids are being found. At least I've never heard of any hominds or "missing links" found elsewhere that weren't eventually proven to be hoaxes.

I don't think anyone has been searching that hard over here. As Harold noted, costal villages are hard to reconstruct if they are now below sea level. Also the possibility exists, given the great plains that early proto humans here, might have been nomadic, leaving very little in the way of evidence.

The homonids being found in africa were nomadic hunter gatherers as was the later Clovis Culture (modern humans) in North America.

To my knowledge, (admittedly fairly limited,) there is NO evidence of any hominds or primates in the Americas that could possibly be turned into a parallel evolution theory.

Until very recently, 99.9% of the evidence found of human habitation in the New world is from the Clovis Culture -- the basis for the land bridge theory -- because the Clovis Culture left very distinctive stone artifacts that are easily distinguishable from simple broken rocks.

While I don't know enough to say it's possible, it seems to me, that science is so sure of the migration formula for populating this hemisphere that they are almost arrogant in their disdain for the authenticity of any discovery that might disprove that modle.

The land-bridge migration theory is based primarily on the clear evidence that the "Clovis Point" and "Clovis Culture" first appeared in the Pacific Northwest and spread out from there. The physical characteristics of the"Clovis Peoples" are traceable to the Siberian/Mongol peoples, which in turn can be traced back to the diaspora of Homo Sapiens from Africa.

It is because anything that doesn't fit the "Clovis Theory" goes against "the preponderance of evidence" -- i.e. the Clovis people left a lot more evidence of their migration -- that evidence of earlier migrations or even possible parrallel evoltuion has been traditionally dismissed as anomalous, fraudulent, or simply bad paleology.

It's NOT religious filtering of anything that might contradict the "Garden of Eden" (although there's a bit of that going on as well) but the resistance of "Old Guard" paleologists who don't want to admit that a theory with a thousand times more evidence to support it that they learned as "a proven fact" might be wrong; it means they've wasted their lives studying a lie.

It's an understandable reaction from a human standpoint, but really inexcuseable from a scientific one.


Re: the demise of Nanderthal man:

Bjorn Kurten adapted his doctoral thesis into a "science fiction" novel. This is a summary from a bio I found online:

In the 1970s Kurtén returned to fiction with Dance of the Tiger, set in the era of 35 000 years ago in Scandinavia, during a thaw in the great Ice Age. It depicted story of Tiger, the chief of a Cro-Magnon tribe, and his wife, Morsinko, a Neanderthal woman. Neanderthals are white-skinned, Cro-Magnons dark; Cro-Magnon children and adults have smooth brows and small faces; the characteristic features of childhood act as "innate releasing mechanisms" for feelings of affection - a theory familiar from Konrad Lorenz's writings. "To the Whites, the Blacks were godlike, tall and eloquent, with a speech as varied and flexible as that of the birds. And there was something else. No White could look at the clear brow of a Black without feeling a mysterious tenderness, such as a child might evoke in the heart of his parents." Kurtén offered the explanation that the Neanderthals disappeared because they fell fatally in love with their black and beautiful Cro-Magnon neighbours, and brought them home to engage in sterile matches. The Cro-Magnon people, who were more aggressive and practiced slavery and violence, conquered the peace loving Neanderthal society, which was based on matriarchal system. Also the nobel writer William Golding has examined in The Inheritors the vanishing of the Neandertal - Golding saw them children of nature who are destroyed by the brutal invaders.

Singletusk, his next novel continued the story of the family. Kurtén's picture of the prehistoric society is realistic without exaggerating the violent aspects of life. He focused on the development, everyday life, and dreams and fears of the ancient people. Both works were mostly based on scientific theories - Kurtén's supposition that Neanderthals and ancestors of modern Homo Sapiens occupied same areas in the same time in Europe have been confirmed by fossil evidence.

As best as I can determine, both Dance of the Tiger and Singletusk are oput of print (at least in English translation) but I can highly reccommend them as good reds if you cn find copies.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Very true, Colly, but he fossil record of OTHER primates is not so sparse in Africa where all of the early hominids are being found. At least I've never heard of any hominds or "missing links" found elsewhere that weren't eventually proven to be hoaxes.



The homonids being found in africa were nomadic hunter gatherers as was the later Clovis Culture (modern humans) in North America.

To my knowledge, (admittedly fairly limited,) there is NO evidence of any hominds or primates in the Americas that could possibly be turned into a parallel evolution theory.

Until very recently, 99.9% of the evidence found of human habitation in the New world is from the Clovis Culture -- the basis for the land bridge theory -- because the Clovis Culture left very distinctive stone artifacts that are easily distinguishable from simple broken rocks.



The land-bridge migration theory is based primarily on the clear evidence that the "Clovis Point" and "Clovis Culture" first appeared in the Pacific Northwest and spread out from there. The physical characteristics of the"Clovis Peoples" are traceable to the Siberian/Mongol peoples, which in turn can be traced back to the diaspora of Homo Sapiens from Africa.

It is because anything that doesn't fit the "Clovis Theory" goes against "the preponderance of evidence" -- i.e. the Clovis people left a lot more evidence of their migration -- that evidence of earlier migrations or even possible parrallel evoltuion has been traditionally dismissed as anomalous, fraudulent, or simply bad paleology.

It's NOT religious filtering of anything that might contradict the "Garden of Eden" (although there's a bit of that going on as well) but the resistance of "Old Guard" paleologists who don't want to admit that a theory with a thousand times more evidence to support it that they learned as "a proven fact" might be wrong; it means they've wasted their lives studying a lie.

It's an understandable reaction from a human standpoint, but really inexcuseable from a scientific one.


Re: the demise of Nanderthal man:

Bjorn Kurten adapted his doctoral thesis into a "science fiction" novel. This is a summary from a bio I found online:



As best as I can determine, both Dance of the Tiger and Singletusk are oput of print (at least in English translation) but I can highly reccommend them as good reds if you cn find copies.

Thanks Harold. As a non scientist, who hasn't dedicated my life to studying any one theory, it always struck me as counter to the spirit of scientific investigation to discount any theory just because the evidence for it was minimal. The way you explain it, makes it very easy to see why discoveries thatmight vie with the mirgration theory are met ith such scathing criticism. There is a human element in everything we as a species do. I just have such a rosy view of science I tend to forget how much time and personal interest some have invested in it.

-Colly

 

[Weird Harold]

Thanks Harold. As a non scientist, who hasn't dedicated my life to studying any one theory, it always struck me as counter to the spirit of scientific investigation to discount any theory just because the evidence for it was minimal.

I think it isn't so much that the "Old Guard" has studied the Clovis Migration for so long as it is that the Clovis Migration is the fundamental underpinning -- the basic assumption -- underlying so many OTHER theories about the pre-history of the Americas.

If the Clovis Migration theory is wrong, then so are all of the theories built on the assumption that it was correct -- or at least the research has to be done over in light of the new information.

 

[R. Richard]

I think it isn't so much that the "Old Guard" has studied the Clovis Migration for so long as it is that the Clovis Migration is the fundamental underpinning -- the basic assumption -- underlying so many OTHER theories about the pre-history of the Americas.

If the Clovis Migration theory is wrong, then so are all of the theories built on the assumption that it was correct -- or at least the research has to be done over in light of the new information.

If I may state an opion here. The Clovis Migration theory is undoubtedly correct. The migration pattern across the ice-age Bering Strait (actually Beringia) has been thoroughly proven. However, the possibility of other migration paths remains a point of contention.

However, most current researchers are unwiling to even consider other migration paths. Why this last is so is not clear. If there were other migration paths, then a whole new area of research is opened and an enormous amount of knowledge can be obtained. Why would scholars refuse to open a whole new area of research?

I would suggest that the possibility of separate evolution is the answer. Separate evolution is acceptable scientifically, but not on religious grounds.

JMHO.

 

[Weird Harold]

If I may state an opion here. The Clovis Migration theory is undoubtedly correct. The migration pattern across the ice-age Bering Strait (actually Beringia) has been thoroughly proven. However, the possibility of other migration paths remains a point of contention.

Yes, the Clovis Migration is undoubtedly correct, but it is becoming clear that it is only a partial answer.

However, most current researchers are unwiling to even consider other migration paths. Why this last is so is not clear. If there were other migration paths, then a whole new area of research is opened and an enormous amount of knowledge can be obtained. Why would scholars refuse to open a whole new area of research?

That is exactly the point I was trying to explain -- it is NOT the Clovis Migration itself that is the stumbling block, but the cherished theories that are based on the assumption that it is the ONLY explanation that the Old Guard are defending.

Any theory on cultural developments that is based on a north to south migration model is severely threatened by any suggestion of a south to north counter-migration -- which appears to be the actual situation -- and scholars hate to be wrong.

I would suggest that the possibility of separate evolution is the answer. Separate evolution is acceptable scientifically, but not on religious grounds.

If there were any plausible evidence of parallel evolution, I think that would be accepted more easily because it doesn't threaten the basic assumptions of a century's worth of theories. However, there just isn't any evidence of new world primates or hominds or any evidence of non-homo sapiens in the New World.

The ONLY religious opinion on human prehistory I know of is the Mormon assertion that the native Americans are the lost tribe of Isreal -- But I've never seen any hint of that belief coloring or hampering the research. There IS a strong Mormon presence in the field of American Paleology, and in the western US media, which might explain why most of these discoveries we're talking about are in european papers. <shrugs> Personally, I don't see any evidence of a religion based censorship or bias but I DO see a lot of evidence of academic turf wars.

Theone thing I've noticed in the last two decades or so is that the resistance to other migrations is waning fast and the "Old Guard" is retrenching into defending their pet theories by down-playing the influence of other migrations.

The current position seems to be that "other migrations did occur, but the Clovis People completely absorbed them and erased their influence by sheer weight of numbers."

Given the amount of evidence available, it's a reasonable position to take -- even though I think it's wrong.