GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-10 > 1191238209


From: "Lawrence Mayka" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Solutrean hypothesis
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 06:30:09 -0500
In-Reply-To: <10386.540.qm@web50711.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


> [mailto:] On Behalf Of David Faux
> I have recorded every known instance
> where there was a union between a First Nations member and
> someone of European ancestry. The vast majority are residing
> off - Reserve among the general population.

What possible relevance does such work have to this discussion?

The Solutrean hypothesis that Dora brought up, and which you so
contemptuously dismissed, focuses on the period around 17,000 ybp:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

If an Atlantic migration westward occurred around that time, and if any DNA
from that migration survives to the present day, it could be almost anywhere
in North America (or even South America!) by now. A researcher would then
logically focus on reservations and other full-blooded populations
specifically to minimize the recent admixture.

> None of this has anything to do with Neolithic population
> movements, nor is there any need to posit such a migration
> without more substantive archaeological evidence.

The Solutrean hypothesis suggests a Paleolithic, not Neolithic, migration.

My point was that we have a great need for unbiased research into the
haplogroups found among apparently full-blooded Native Americans--beyond the
"accepted" ones--and I am frankly amazed that anyone on this list would
narrow-mindedly scorn such research in advance.


This thread: