The writing doesn't seem to have the quality of the other fascinating scientific articles that you so often post.

I dread the day when scientific articles are no longer written by true subject authorities with a command of the English language. When that day comes, I'll look back on your posts with great fondness and gratitude.

the idea that all of the indigenous tribes came over the "land bridge" is not a universally accepted premise by everyone. Particularly in the indigenous community themselves.

Thanks!

that they rose on the continent both North and South. They don't rule out that others may have come across a land bridge at some point. They are very wary of the land bridge proponents because some of that fed into the "it wasn't your land anyway" friction between European and indigenous cultures/historians. Needless to say the more we find out the more we make revisions to what many people were certain about. I imagine it will go both ways.

Using the language method of comparison in this instance is not necessarily an accurate tool. We know from the verbal history and artifacts discovered so far that there were a great many tribes and languages that have gone extinct in the Americas. Also due to wholesale development across the US for the last 300 years going from east to west etc. we no longer can say with certainty how much evidence we have destroyed and paved over. Remember it is only in the last 40 years or so that we even have taken seriously not bulldozing Indian mounds etc. to put up shopping malls etc. For instance there is/was a huge variety in dress, appearance and style of shelters between the various tribes. The indigenous people are right to point out that in order for the "they were Siberians who walked over" to be taken seriously the proponents of that theory have to explain why this wide diversity exists. It would be logical to assume that if the tribes in the Americas all originated from a fairly homogenous group in northern Asia migrating over a land bridge then there would be a similarity in appearance, dress, style of shelter etc. For example if a man knows how to make a stone axe while living in Siberia he will logically bring that knowledge, and axe, with him when he migrates. It would not be logical for a huge variety in making tools, adornments etc. to become the norm. In other words you keep doing what you know works.

That is not to say that different areas with different stone types and trees etc. may not bring about some change for example. But we see a variety even in tribes that were in roughly the same geographical area. So it is a matter for more discovery and hopefully we will go about our archaeology with respect, consultation and openness. You are to be commended for being open and curious and that shows great respect. I have included a link here to a list of extinct tribes in the US. These are just the ones we know at the present time. The extinct ones in Canada, Central America and South America are a whole different list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extinct_Native_American_tribes

I was an anthropology major way way back in time, and just assumed the land bridge was the explanation. Now you've got me intrigued. Will follow the links to learn more.

Thanks again!

crossing from Siberia to North America does not say that they were a culturally and bioligically homogenous group. I'm not sure why you think that that's part of the theory.

DNA studies show 5 different mtDNA haplogroups, associated with varying locations in Asia. That is probably due to migrations that took place in Asia before people began to enter North America.

There was a period of time when people in the now submerged bridge of Beringia intermixed while glaciers blocked further eastward movement into North America. But Beringia covered a large area and even with some intermixing culturally and biologically, some variations would have remained. Once in the vast continent of North America, with its variety of climates and resources, the need to adapt accounts for how even more variations developed.

Theories of entry into the Americas are not limited to crossing the land bridge of Beringia. The presence of human footprints in New Mexico that date back 22,000 years ago indicate that there were people on North America before the ones who arrived across Beringia. Many anthropologists are accepting the idea of people arriving by boat, before the Beringian arrivals.

I respect the right of the indigenous people of the Americas to have their own beliefs about their origins. Those beliefs are part of a cultural identity that has meaning for them. But, from a scientific perspective, there could not have been human beings in the Americas from the time that the continents were formed. Humans originated in Africa and spread around the world from there. Human beings around the world look different today due to evolutionary adaptations to their environments as they migrated to different places, to localized mutations that spread within some groups (like the mutations that resulted in variations of eye and hair color), and to some groups being isolated from others.

For Native Americans to have "always" been in the Americas suggests that human evolutionary ancestors like Homo Erectus were here before modern humans arrived and evolved separately from them. But biology and archaeology do not support that possibility.

As I said earlier, I respect the right of people to have their own cultural beliefs about their origins that form their identity as a people. But I also respect the evidence of science.

I mean largely north Asian. People only date what they find and then revise from there. It is arrogant to think we have all of the evidence to make conclusions when the colonial powers destroyed so much of what was here. It is also not up to indigenous cultures to let European scientists to go poking through ancestral areas in order to "prove" something to them. For many indigenous cultures the ceremonies and rituals conducted as elders die are sacred and they have a beginning and an end to them. Digging up what some call artifacts and disturbing burial grounds destroys the sacred process that took place with those ceremonies and rituals.

How about if we have indigenous people go digging about the cemeteries of others to satisfy our curiosity? The story of what scientific people claim to be the truth gets changed on a frequent basis. Your absolute truth today is changed tomorrow and what they were so sure of before fades from their lips. It is ignorant to think that the indigenous tribes from areas closely similar in climate and circumstance would "evolve" to look differently because of "adaptation"to their surroundings. Surroundings with virtually no difference but yet supposedly dramatic enough to cause changes.

The truth of the matter is that what "science" has are implications and conclusions based on data about cultures they really know very little about. They are also too arrogant to realize that there may have been countless cultures that preceded any of the known cultures. The remains of those cultures may yet be hidden or they may have disappeared through natural processes. Using carbon dating the scientists boldly declare as certainty that the oldest human was "x" number of years old and are too arrogant in themselves to say "of what we have found so far" as a preface.

The ones who are supposedly "smarter" about things already destroyed much of what was here and the tribes and their languages. Things they could have actually learned from. So now they go and poke at pieces of bone and pottery and then claim to the world about what they supposedly "know".

It is not about people having a cultural belief to form their identity. It is about people of "science" being so convinced of themselves and their "conclusions" when the only thing necessary to show their folly is to take one of their books of conclusions from 100 years ago and read and compare it to their present day "conclusions". My, my how incorrect the old book was!! Likewise the book before that. So now the "scientists" are convinced that the current book won't suffer a similar fate as the predecessors? Sure thing.

The plain fact is that "science" doesn't know what it has not found. It was not that long ago that plate tectonics was unheard of. It was not that long ago that "science" was positive it had accounted for all the tribes in South America. Until they found more. The "science" people recently discovered a very large area of carvings out in the pueblos in an area they were positive they had absolutely thoroughly investigated previously.

The arrogance is making conclusions about things we really don't know. It is one thing to state data based on tests. Extrapolation to conclusions is fraught with peril. I will end with the following example. I was watching a documentary about an archaeology dig for an ancient early culture. The "scientist" talked about how the evidence she found was that they had been killed off when another culture invaded. She surmised that it was because they were a more submissive and less aggressive culture. All based on some bones, pottery and old fire sites. Nowhere in her thinking did she remain open to the possibility that the culture in question may not have been killed off due to being "submissive" or "less aggressive" but in fact many of their people may have been weakened by disease for example and been less successful for that reason in warding off an attack. She made these grand conclusions based on a handful of bone fragments and bits of pottery shards and fire sites. But she was so confident and sounded so good on the documentary. Probably if someone had told her there were more carvings in the cliffs of that pueblo area she would have scoffed and said "science" had already proven that wasn't the case.

disturbing sacred sites, I agree with what you wrote. So does the US NAGPRA law. People can no longer dig up Native graves or take non human artifacts without consent from the Native people of the area. Before that law, people who called themselves researchers used to dig up Native burial sites and use pseudo science, like skull measurements, to claim inferiority of Native people. They used to keep Native items found at other digs that were not burial sites.

I am aware of the destruction of Native sites. As recently as 1962, when I was 12 years old, the Army Corps of Engineers constructed a dam in PA near the NY border that flooded several acres of Seneca territory, including a Seneca village that had historical and sacred significance to the Seneca Nation. The flooded land included a burial site that contained the remains of a past Seneca leader whose band had established the village. The graves were dug up and the remains removed to another site before the dam's construction.

The purpose of that dam was to protect non Native villages and towns downstream on the Allegheny River and its tributaries from seasonal flooding. The Seneca Nation fought the dam's construction in court and hired experts who identified other sites for the dam which were more suited to the purpose. The courts ruled against them.

That historical Seneca leader was an ancestral relative of my grandmother.

Regarding your comment on the absolutism of science, science is not an absolute subject and does not claim to be. It is the nature of science that knowledge changes as scientists discover more information. In fact, that is part of the definition of science. Some branches of science have learned much from the knowledge and practices of Native people, especially in the field of medicine.

There is a cultural museum in Rochester, NY that was founded by a Seneca man, Ely Parker, and his European-American friend, Lewis Henry Morgan in the 1800s. Morgan and Parker collected items that were in use among the Seneca people for the museum. Ely Parker's sister, Caroline Parker MT. Pleasant donated clothing to the museum. The purpose was to preserve what remained of traditional items as they were going out of use.

Parker's grand nephew, Arthur C. Parker (a cousin to my grandmother), later became director of that museum. Arthur Parker was an archaeologist and anthropologist who did much to preserve the traditions, language, oral stories and history of the Seneca Nation and the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) people.

Not all Native people are opposed to those sciences. Some of them use the sciences on behalf of Native people, more accurately representing Native cultures than non Native scientists would do. As you have stated in an earlier post, there are numerous Native cultures and languages among the ones that still survive today. Not all of them share the same views about science. Not even all members within a Native nation agree with each other about it.

Most of today's archaeologists and anthropologists consult with Native people for consent and for accurate understanding instead of assuming that they have the correct understanding of Native cultures and customs. Some Native nations are willing to cooperate. Some are not. By law (NAGPRA) they do not have to cooperate or give consent to studies.

Non Native museums that hold Native artifacts are returning them to Native people. Some do it voluntarily. Others do it as a result of court cases.

I posted a thread and link in this forum on the date of the founding of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy based on traditional stories of the sun going dark during the founding negotiations between member nations of the Confederacy. A Mohawk woman used the traditional stories to determine when a total solar eclipse occurred on the land where the negotiations were held. She found that a total solar eclipse that fit the description in traditional stories occurred in 1142 CE. That's a good example of science and tradition working together. Most non Native historians had dated the Confederacy's founding in the 16th century. Based on that Mohawk woman's research, it's the earlier 12th century origin that I believe.

but my point is that these various theories get presented that way. As in my original response to the article I point out that these conclusions are not universally accepted. The OP I responded to mentioned that certain languages on this continent had some similar bits to languages from Siberia. Perhaps so but it doesn't mean that all languages did and we know of many extinct languages. Also as I pointed out we know about "x" number of extinct tribes and languages. That knowledge does not mean there are not additional extinct tribes and languages we don't know about and have yet to discover. If we ever will.

Even in more heavily studied regions such as the Mediterranean we have little true knowledge of some peoples like the Weshesh. We have speculations and contradictions. There is an old saying that goes "Science knows less than 10% and must interpolate the rest." I trained as an engineer and have great respect for the scientific method but also being an engineer I do not make guesses about these things and present them as fact. The old saying for engineers is "when you drive by a house and see that 3 sides are white never assume the unseen side is also white." So I see what the science says about land bridges, migration etc. but I also see what many tribes here say. Keeping in mind that some may have come over a land bridge or by boat and found that there were already people here. Those may be as unknown as the Weshesh or maybe even more. Maybe to the point of being lost forever but just because we cannot find them does not mean they never existed. As I pointed out our old books show the extent of our knowledge and conclusions drawn was quite different than today. Perhaps it would go better for science in the quest to discover knowledge if they look for the 4th side of the house sometimes.

I responded to another poster in this thread about my doubts regarding the language tracing attempts in the OP.

Regarding faulty information based on dubious studies, it is common, unfortunately. Not all people who claim to be scientists or experts in a field are what they claim to be. Not all people who actually are scientists are good ones, just as not all engineers are good ones.

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation about Native societies and customs due to films, fiction books, and New Age cult appropriations of Native practices by people who think it's cool to take on their fantasized notions of Native people. There is also a lot of deliberate disinformation based on racism or just a desire to make a buck off of phony "research" and stories. There is misinformation due to sloppy research and personal biases of incompetent scientists.

I have encountered a lot of misinformation about Native people online and in person. There will always be people who distort or misinterpret information, or who just make it up. People of other cultural identities and ethnicities in the US and around the world also face misinformation or lack of information about themselves and their backgrounds. In the US (and abroad, I've discovered) Native people are a popular target for sloppy science and fantasy stories.

Yes, many unknown people have existed in the past everywhere in the world that we will never know much, if anything, about. When evidence of lost groups is discovered, any conclusions about the evidence and people are imperfect. Good scientists know that.

I am not finding "The American Journal of American Anthropology" mentioned in the second sentence. However, there is an "American Journal of Biological Anthropology" that features an article by Johanna Nichols, who is mentioned in paragraph two. So this summary is sloppy and I would not rely on it. I found Nichols' article, cited below, but it is very specialized. There is no news about having to traverse Siberia in order to cross a land bridge to reach North America. The debate Nichols addresses seems to be how many waves of migration occurred based upon linguistic evidence. I will attempt to copy the abstract and post it separately but I am technically challenged.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.24923

of migration into the Americas, and likely more than one way of arriving, e.g. some by land and some by boats.

I love tracing linguistic families and their developments, but I'm doubtful about how much we can learn about timing from them or how far back they can be traced to specific origins.

Thank you!
(The author's Portuguese last name, though, is spelled D'Souza.)

You think D'Souza is a difficult Portuguese name, you should see mine.
I enjoy & look forward to your wonderful work here every day. Thank you!