Talk:Peopling of the Americas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Berigian land bridge theory dubious

The article need to reflect on this new research questioning the Bering hypothesis:

The results of a multiple-author study by Danish, Canadian, and American scientists published in Nature in February 2016 revealed that "the first Americans, whether Clovis or earlier groups in unglaciated North America before 12.6 cal. kyr BP", are "unlikely" to "have travelled to North America from Siberia via the Bering land bridge "via a corridor that opened up between the melting ice sheets in what is now Alberta and B.C. about 13,000 years ago" as many anthropologists have argued for decades. The lead author, Mikkel Pedersen – a PhD student from University of Copenhagen – explained, "The ice-free corridor was long considered the principal entry route for the first Americans ... Our results reveal that it simply opened up too late for that to have been possible." The scientists argued that by 10,000 years ago, the ice-free corridor in what is now Alberta and B.C "was gradually taken over by a boreal forest dominated by spruce and pine trees" and that "Clovis people likely came from the south, not the north, perhaps following wild animals such as bison."

I suggest that part of the lede to be modified, else the article will continue too look like antiquated one written by 20th century Clovis professors. Sietecolores (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sietecolores: The article already covers the Clovis-first versus coastal migration debate in some depth (Settlement of the Americas#Migration routes) and correctly reflects the current scientific consensus that a coastal route is more likely. But there's no significant debate that the Americas were initially populated via a "land bridge" over the Bering Strait. That is accepted under both the Clovis-first and coastal hypotheses. The study and article you quote is about the subsequent movement of people through an ice free corridor, postulated by the Clovis-first theory. This isn't the same thing as the land bridge. There's a map in the CBC article that illustrates this quite well. – Joe (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

"entered North America from the North Asian Mammoth steppe via the Beringia land bridge" makes it all sound like Mammoth hunters walked over a landbrige. That need to be clarified for the layman. Sietecolores (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

References

New DNA findings should be incorporated

I just read this NYT article: Who Were the Ancestors of Native Americans? A Lost People in Siberia, Scientists Say (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/science/native-americans-genetics-siberia.html). It has some amazing insights that I think should be in Settlement of the Americas. Thoughts? Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Old Crow newer academic sources

[1] Bluefish Cave II (Yukon Territory, Canada): Taphonomic Study of a Bone Assemblage by Lauriane Bourgeon Pages 105-108 | Published online: 28 Jan 2015] PaleoAmerica A journal of early human migration and dispersalVolume 1, 2015 - Issue 1 and [2] "New Radiocarbon Ages on Percussion-Fractured and Flaked Proboscidean Limb Bones from Yukon, Canada" Doug Weller talk 16:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• The above reference contains only speculation about human migration at this time. Yes, the dating of the dig site is being firmed up but there is no agreement on what has been discovered there. "Two testable hypotheses to explain the observed breakage patterns were developed, the first being that humans broke the bones and the second that some presently unknown geological process broke the bones. Further research is needed to test these two hypotheses."[3] Mensch (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Cooper's Ferry, Idaho earliest dated settlement in North America?

Per Nature News article, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02589-2

"Projectile points and other stone tools recovered near a riverbank in Idaho suggest that ancient humans reached the western United States more than 16,000 years ago.

The finds make the site, called Cooper’s Ferry, one of the oldest-known human settlements in North America, if not the oldest . . ."

Not a regular here, hence posting here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is the publication: Upper Paleolithic occupation at Cooper’s Ferry, Idaho, USA, ~16,000 years ago - Davis 2019. William Harristalk 11:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Chiquihuite Cave

Do we have a Wikipedia article on Chiquihuite Cave? Article 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Alternate African or Australasian migration routes

Fragmentary evidence suggests that there could have been earlier migrations into the Americas from Australasia or Africa. There are reports that in the south of South America there was a distinct group who more closely resemble Australasian or African features. Rock art in, I believe, what is now south or south eastern USA depict battles between darker skinned peoples and lighter skinned peoples. I do not claim to know the veracity of these claims. However, this does lead to the suspicion that there could have been earlier migrations, possibly during the last ice age, either across the Pacific or across the Atlantic. This is conceivable when one considers ocean currents.
While there does not appear to be proof of such migrations, the Kon-Tiki expedition showed that cross-oceanic voyages were possible with rudimentary and primitive sailing vessels. Furthermore, it is known that Polynesian voyagers were able to successfully navigate vast areas of the South Pacific. While the Kon-Tiki expedition was to demonstrate the feasibility of voyages in from South America to the Polynesian islands via an equatorial route, it is also conceivable that voyages in the opposite direction from Australasia to South America via the South Pacific / Antarctic Circumpolar current is also conceivable - whether by design or navigational accident. While, as far as I know, there is no evidence to support this; there is no proof that this was not possible. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. While there is a paucity of archeological evidence prior to 12,000 years BP, there is evidence of a link between South America and Australasia. Such a link could, conceivably, be via Beringia, but it could also conceivably be via trans-oceanic voyages.
If one suspends disbelief and posits the hypothesis that trans-oceanic migrations occurred in past millennia, has anyone developed such a hypothesis? If not, why not?
This possibility is suggested on Vox.com:

• see (2) First human migration to the Americas Also: [4]
  

This is also hinted out here:

Map showing the migration and expansion of the Austronesians which began at about 3000 BC from Taiwan

Extent of contemporary Austronesia and possible further migrations and contact (Blench, 2009)

I am not a proponent of this hypothesis, but I feel that this possible hypothesis should be included for completeness.
Enquire (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Genetic Evidence against a Paleolithic European Contribution to Past or Present Native Americans

From PaleoAmericaA journal of early human migration and dispersal Volume 6, 2020 - Issue 2"

Modern and ancient genomics have recently ignited new debates in the field of peopling of the Americas, sometimes bringing up some odd scenarios. One of those is the Solutrean hypothesis. We argue that not only is the archaeological evidence supporting it rather tentative, but also it is not possible to reconcile what is known about the genetics of past and present Native Americans with the occurrence of a transatlantic dispersal during the late Pleistocene."[5] Doug Weller talk 15:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Title

Why not change the title to 'Peopling of Americas'? Early people were not settlers ChandlerMinh (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A settlement can refer to any community of people living together. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

A Settlement has a particular meaning in this context, as in "settler societies". The idea that indigenous people "settled" the Americas has also been used to de-legitimize their claims to their traditional lands. "Peopling" is much more neutral and avoid many of the connotations. It's also worth remembering that this article overlaps heavily with Indigenous Studies, and a more neutral phrasing such as "peopling" helps with that.Hamster Drink (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"Peopling" seems to be the norm for wikipedia "Peopling of India", "Peopling of Thailand", etc. If no one objects I'm going to rename this article the more neutral "Peopling of the Americas", as it reflects up to date scholarly language and avoid confusion, since "settler" refers to people who arrived post-Columbus in plenty of scholarly circles. Hamster Drink (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Do we have academic sources for this claim? Settlement for some odd reason seems the academic norm.......even in the media.

• Americas saw three waves of ancient settlers - New Scientist
• The earliest settlement date of North America, until now estimated at....- Science-daily

A course

• Earliest Settlement of the Americas -SFU Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology

I would say I books like bellow set the norm

• Tom D. Dillehay (2000). The Settlement of the Americas: A New Prehistory. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-07668-0.
• Gary Haynes (14 November 2002). The Early Settlement of North America: The Clovis Era. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-52463-6.

.Moxy- 02:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Google Scholar counts (2010 – now)

• "Peopling of the Americas": 4.890
• "Settlement of the Americas": 1.770

• "Peopling of North America": 618
• "Settlement of North America": 1.810 (which includes much material about post-Columbian settlement)

• "Peopling of South America": 1.210
• "Settlement of South America": 304

Google Ngram Viewer gives a similar picture:[6]. I should add that personally, I don't feel strongly about either title. –Austronesier (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

got to say this is compelling.Moxy- 22:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Settler is a specific term in indigenous studies, referring to someone who arrived relatively recently. One frequently sees the term "settler colonialism" or "settlers" being the people dispossessing indigenous people. Using it for describing the arrival of Indigenous people has fallen out of favor, I'd note the books mentioned above are 20 years old. "Peopling" is much more NPOV and avoids conflating people who arrived millenia ago with much more recent events.Hamster Drink (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

We should all read this book

I'm reading a NYTimes review (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/books/review/origin-genetic-history-americas-jennifer-raff.html) of a new book by Jennifer Raff, called "Origin: A Genetic History of the Americas". Apparently, it sheds a good deal of light on the scientific research processes that we depend on for the information we present in this Wikipedia article. It may add, at the least, a few caveats to the statements we make here. Paulmlieberman (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Same as * Raff, Jennifer; O'Rourke, Dennis H. (2010-02-23). "The Human Genetic History of the Americas: The Final Frontier". Current Biology. 20 (4): 202–207. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.051. PMID 20178768. S2CID 14479088...Moxy- 20:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"Discovery of the Americas" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Discovery of the Americas and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#Discovery of the Americas until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Australoid"

I'm not an anthropologist, so I don't know what would be the best way to edit this — but it seems strange to me that the article twice uses the term "Australoid," which is "outdated" and "potentially offensive" per the linked article. Thoughts? 2601:189:8180:3C80:A0BD:20A7:E76E:D17F (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Australo-Melanesian is used elsewhere in the article. I change the two instances of Australoid to Australo-Melanesian. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Surprising support for Clovis First.

Late date of human arrival to North America: Continental scale differences in stratigraphic integrity of pre-13,000 BP archaeological sites The article concludes:

"The oldest evidence for archaeological sites in the New World with large numbers of artifacts occurring in discrete and minimally disturbed stratigraphic contexts occur in eastern Beringia between 13,000 and 14,200 BP. South of the ice sheets, the oldest such sites occur in association with the Clovis complex. If humans managed to breach the continental ice sheets significantly before 13,000 BP, there should be clear evidence for it in the form of at least some stratigraphically discrete archaeological components with a relatively high artifact count. So far, no such evidence exists. These findings support the hypothesis that the first human arrival to the New World occurred by at least 14,200 BP in Beringia and by approximately 13,000 BP in the temperate latitudes of North America. Strong evidence for human presence before those dates has yet to be identified in the archaeological record."

I'm sure this will be challenged. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I've always been skeptical of the pre-Clovis theory, basically because of the paucity of evidence. An organism, in my opinion, increases its population rapidly until it reaches the limits of what its environment will support. So, if man was in North America 18 or 20 or 30 thousand years ago, why is the evidence so sparse until Clovis? Surely, if mankind had arrived 20,000 years ago on a virgin continent with large numbers of slow moving large animals as prey, the numbers of humans would have increased rapidly -- perhaps explosively. Why didn't that occur if humans arrived in North America 20,000 years ago? Why did signs of human occupation only become commonplace about 13,000 years ago if people had been resident in North America for thousands of years? Anyway, that is by way of saying that I will defend the above statement being included in the article.Smallchief (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

To me, article looks very selective in its arguments - they don't flat out say that pre-Clovis sites are invalid, just that they're not 'good enough' for them. But that might simply be an artifact of relatively little work done with the sites (lets not forget that Folsom and Clovis traditions were found in succession and these finds pushed back the previously accepted presence of humans on Americas). Also, if the sites are mixed with younger stratas, why don't we see clearly datable artifacts from later eras there - such as Clovis points themselves?

Any way, currently widely accepted 'pre-Clovis' sites are only couple of thousands of year older than the Clovis sites, making the dispute dogmatic in nature. The spread of humans would still have been 'explosive', just not 'hyper-explosive' as dictated by Clovis First.

Btw, American megafauna were not "slow moving" (well, some were). The 'Clovis First' hypothesis paints a picture of an enormous blood bath where helpless animals are slaughtered to extinction within centuries. This is very much implausible, proboscids and bovids are not easy prey in Asia or Africa, so why they would be that in America? Ecological naivety lasts only so long, especially with fairly intelligent animals such as elephants. It's worth noting that archaelogical pattern in Americas closest comparison point - Australia - is very similar. Very oldest finds are ambiguous and disputed, then there are scarce old finds, followed by a layer of abundant finds and established tool cultures and traditions. At some point, megafauna died off, but not instantly, and there is no evidence of any kind of 'explosive' cultural spread. Mikoyan21 (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Correlation does not equal causation...but..."It is intriguing to note that Clovis people first appears 300 years before the demise of the last of the megafauna that once roamed North America during a time of great climatic and environmental change. The disappearance of Clovis from the archaeological record at 12,750 years ago is coincident with the extinction of mammoth and mastodon, the last of the megafauna. Perhaps Clovis weaponry was developed to hunt the last of these large beasts.” Michael Waters, Texas A & M University.

The sparsity of evidence for pre-Clovis inhabitants of North America vs the abundance of Clovis artifacts likewise implies a fast-growing (by pre-historic standards) population during the 700 (or fewer) years that the Clovis culture flourished.Smallchief (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

“With Monte Verde, the Clovis-first model began to sink. Now it’s dead in the water,” Erlandson said: https://around.uoregon.edu/content/first-americans-were-seafarers-not-hikers-paper-says His cleverly-worded assertion was followed quite recently by an article proposing offshore exploration to locate "clear evidence:" https://around.uoregon.edu/content/first-americans-were-seafarers-not-hikers-paper-says Perhaps notably, that article includes a link to more controversy: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22065 Jetpower (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 07:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Settlement of the Americas → Peopling of the Americas – Majority of sources and even other WP articles overwhelmingly refer to it as "peopling", as opposed to "settlement" which implies immediate sedentation, when in fact the peopling of the Americas was of primarily hunter-gather Paleoindians, not 'villagers'. Kehkou (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 19:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support Per reason given.★Trekker (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any implication of an immediate sedentary lifestyle because it refers to a whole continent. There's a clear and obvious difference in meaning between "settlement of a [large swathe of territory]" and settlement of a specific place. "Peopling" while not incorrect is pretty inelegant. Unnecessary change. DeCausa (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Both titles are good and conform with common usage, but "Peopling of..." is clearly more common in the literature; some metrics are in Talk:Settlement_of_the_Americas/Archive_2#Title. –Austronesier (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support I don't see an elegance of people and it's more common in the literature. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Support due to its prevalence in the literature. I agree it's inelegant, but RS are RS. WPscatter ^t/_c 06:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - the sources given are bogus, because the more common way of discussing it would be "settling". "peopling" vs "settlement" is not apples to apples. Red Slash 22:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Red Slash I see no reason to give any weight to your claim that the sources are bogus, and as you should know this is not a vote. Do you want to be specific? Doug Weller talk 06:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  I can't believe I have to source this.

  "Settlement" is WAY more common in general, and the "peopling of the" is just a very uncommon way of phrasing things Red Slash 05:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  What about searching for the actual topic of this article then?[7] This graph supports the move. –Austronesier (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support What an ugly word. I'd rather have root canal surgery than support this move, but unfortunately it is commonly used in this context. "Settlement" is not sufficiently distinct from colonization. Walrasiad (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support "Peopling" is more precise than "settlement." I note also that the U.S. National Academy of Science calls it "peopling." https://www.pnas.org/post/podcast/peopling-americas. However, to be accurate maybe the best title would be "Prehistoric peopling of the Americas". Smallchief (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contradictory factual language

"The peopling of the Americas began when Paleolithic hunter-gatherers entered North America from the North Asian Mammoth steppe via the Bering land bridge, which had formed between northeastern Siberia and western Alaska due to the lowering of sea level during the Last Glacial Maximum (26,000 to 19,000 years ago)."

"Some archaeological evidence suggests the possibility that human arrival in the Americas may have occurred prior to the Last Glacial Maximum more than 20,000 years ago.[18][26]"

Given that new archeological evidence suggests humans may have reached the Americas prior to the Last Glacial Maximum, it is contradictory (or at least incomplete) to state definitively in the opening sentence of the article that said peopleing happened "when" Paleolithic hunter-gatherers crossed the Bering land bridge. It is commonly belived that it happened then, but evidence indicates this may not be true. The opening sentence should be modified to reflect this information. Snarbarnold (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Subtopic Title misleading or Subtopic incomplete

Under subtitle “Chronology, reasons for,…” I could not find any “reasons”. Is this an incomplete sub-topic?

Please frame the following under “stoicism” seeking an impartial answer, not being hateful or bigoted. I want to know what are the “hindsight” pros and cons of their migration should they have “taken a left turn in Albuquerque (or Nome) ? They isolated themselves from Human society. Maybe not a bad evolutionary move and they couldn’t possibly imagine the Renaissance etc so they can’t be blamed but in hindsight, was it a bad move? Not science, I understand. “Monday morning” anthropologist. Lol. I recognize this. However I couldn’t find any academic analysis of my question. Is it pointless…a what if? Absolutely. Just consider me a curious mind. What if…they never settled. But I am asking of people who DO understand the science, what is your pro and con analysis of people settling the Americas at that time in human history and the subsequent human events. Not blaming or criticizing. Just wondering…if…that was a bad move in the annals of human history. 32.221.243.140 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Accessibility Issues

I am colorblind and the map captioned "Potential extent of human survivability during the last glacial maximum" uses a color scheme that is absolutely indecipherable to me. Danielthechemist (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Peopling Of The Americas At Earlier Times And From Alternative Routes

From AP News and the Smithsonian:

"Scientists analyzed triangular and teardrop-shaped pendants made of bony material from the sloths. They concluded that the carved and polished shapes and drilled holes were the work of deliberate craftsmanship. Dating of the ornaments and sediment at the Brazil site where they were found point to an age of 25,000 to 27,000 years ago, the researchers reported."

“We now have good evidence — together with other sites from South and North America — that we have to rethink our ideas about the migration of humans to the Americas,” said Mirian Liza Alves Forancelli Pacheco, a study co-author and archaeologist at the Federal University of Sao Carlos in Brazil."

"Still, the evidence from multiple sites forces scientists to rethink old assumptions that people arrived only in one great wave of migration over the Bering land bridge, said Briana Pobiner, a co-author and paleoanthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington.

"Some may have died out, “but it’s very likely that multiple waves of people came to Americas,” she said."

Source: 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:58A4:470D:908C:C142 (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Smallchief (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

References

New addtion

We have to review this see what can be saved...

Additon

recent and modern trend in the field is for studies on genetics and bioinformatics to support a main traversal route originating in Australasia which travelled by sea through either an island-hopping route or a direct route from Australasia to the Americas. For instance a major study in Nature entitled "Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas" published by Pontus Skoglund, a Swedish population geneticist working at Francis Crick Institute and formerly at Harvard Medical School, and others found that "Amazonian Native Americans descend partly from a Native American founding population that carried ancestry more closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders than to any present-day Eurasians or Native Americans". Scholarly work is currently ongoing in support of this Pacific Ocean sea-based traversal route where viability and historical ability for this route to have been undertaken with primitive sea-faring technology was demonstrated by the Kon-Tiki Expedition. Amounting evidence in support of pre-LGM (before the Last Glacial Maximum) human settlement of the Americas before glacial ice had melted creating a land pathway for traversal is part of this recent, modern trend of supporting a ocean-based, non-coastal traversal route where for instance scholarship on archeological findings of the Chiquihuite cave, Mexico point to human activity in the Americas to over 30,000 years ago as well as other studies in recent scholarship demonstrating pre-LGM human activity in the Americas. A third possible route was demonstrated as being possible by the Kon-Tiki expedition in which primitive technology that was available over 10,000 years ago demonstrates the possibility of the Americas having been settled via boat over the Pacific and peoples like the Māori people having made long voyages over the expanses of the Pacific Ocean. This theory has been supported by academic studies finding genetic connections between the natives inhabitants of islands around Australia and native South Americans. For instance a 2015 study in Nature found that "genome-wide data...show[ed] that some Amazonian Native Americans descend partly from a Native American founding population...closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders".

Moxy- 13:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

One thing that's clearly not salvageable is the mix up between the Australasian signal among certain Amazonian groups like the Surui with claims of trans-Pacific voyages linking Polynesia and the east coast of South America. To connect these is WP:OR. –Austronesier (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with OR....but there is a real debate about the dates...not sure we should go into details here as Chiquihuite cave#Controversy covers "Scholars disagree over the significance of the excavations at Chiquihuite Cave"Moxy- 14:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The author of the proposed addition to the article forgot to mention that at least one -- and probably more than one -- of the cited references says it is unlikely that the genetic connection between Australasia and the Amazon was due to trans-Pacific travel, but rather to the two different groups having a common ancestor and parting ways many thousands of years ago with the Australasians going south and the Americans going north crossing the Bering Strait.Smallchief (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That's right, and in fact none of the scholarly sources discussing the "population Y"-signal ascribe it to trans-Pacific travel. Even the "source" for the statement "This theory [i.e. a maritime settling of the Americas] has been supported by academic studies finding genetic connections between the natives inhabitants of islands around Australia and native South Americans" actually says: "So how did Australasian DNA end up in South America thousands of years ago? The genetic revelation might conjure images of an epic oceanic voyage from Polynesian islands to South America, Kon-Tiki style. Yet scientists believe the truth may be less dramatic", and continues to cite Castro e Silva who explains how Australasian ancestry has entered the Americas via the Beringian land bridge.

There is some quite persuasive genomic evidence for pre-Colombian trans-Pacific travel (from South America to eastern Polynesia), summed up in this paper by Atholl Anderson[8], but that's a completely different story. –Austronesier (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

True., However, the dispersal of the sweet potato probably took place less than one thousand years ago and people have lived in the Americas for at least 13,000 years so any trans-Pacific crossing by boat to spread the sweet potato had little impact on the peopling of the Americas. It had already been peopled for a long time. Smallchief (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course, given the late date of all these prposed transfer events, they wouldn't fall under "peopling" at all, but contact/interaction. As I said, it's a different story: interesting, but not really relevant for the topic of this article. –Austronesier (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

DId you read the Nature article, yes or no? It literally said that genetics were closer to Australasians than any eurasian. THis necessarily points to 'peopling.

ALso your name is "Austronesier" so you are literally speaking about yourslef in advocacy of what I said COI. Future2023Living (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"The bulky sweet potato spread across the globe long before humans could have played a part". Moxy- 03:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. The article you cited is another blow to the trans-Pacific-by-boat thesis. Smallchief (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Some of the sources did in fact say that this was due to pan pacific travel. YOu deleted non original research. You cherry picked certain articles that said this but overall there were articles that said the truth regading the genetics australasian genetics of south america pointed to needing to reworking theories -> soe sources included explicitly and implicitly mentioned this possibility and you simply cherry pick certain articles because of a conflict of interest ethnically you do not want to see edits made to this article because you perhaps are from Europe ancestrally and you like arguing falsely that you conquered the likes of Genghis khan by conquering americas. Future2023Living (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

those who advocate for the deletion of my article are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/ Why? Because they are probably exhibiting an ethnic conflict of interest as they are ancestrally from europe with a conquered background relating to CHinese/Korean/Mongols/ect. They don't want the page updated with true information from Nature and other journals because they like being thinking falsely that by conquering the americas, they conquered their rivals from East Asia. However the truth of the matter is these editors advocating for deletion of my edit were out conquered through time quantitatively more by these east asian peoples and thus want to faslely think that the genetics of south america are primarily east asian in origin rather than what the hard science is sayign which its from Australasia. So there is a major ethnic conflict of interest and you should see all my sources in the addition pointed to a third route namely the transpacific by ocean kon-tiki style route and this is the common sense interpretation of multiple genetic studies that I sourced like the on from nature and it's not even original research cause those who are saying otherwise above are simply cherrypicking out of studies from other european ancestral people who also aren't saying the obvious conclusion but even then you cherry picked from those sources when the overall you can find in the sources.

There isn't original research cause you cherry picked from source material when in fact the entire sources if you look at all the sources I added implied or explicitly mentioned the transpacific route as a third route Future2023Living (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/ will be to say as minimal as my edit was and pretend falsley you have legitimate reasons see above my previous comments

as the phrase goes, "when youre in a hole stop digging." Future2023Living (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith."

Other relationships meaning "the relationship one has with their own ethnic group" Future2023Living (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Go read all the sources I mentioned and you'll find it wasn't me who wrote them and mentioned pan-Pacific ocean travel or kon-tiki style voyages.

READ ALL THE SOURCES BEFORE YOU SAY "ORIGINAL RESEARCH".

In one of my sources it was claimed back int he 1930s that there was a possibility of australasia contact with South America. This is dishonest CONFLICT OF INTEREST. You deleted my whole section about a third avenue route that goes back to original research proposed in 1930.

"If you're in a hole stop digging." goes the saying Future2023Living (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I added it- this goes back to 1930's theorizing

it's not original research

Hrdlicka, Ales (2013-07-27). Melanesians and Australians and the Peopling of America: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, V94, No. 11. Literary Licensing, LLC. ISBN 978-1-258-77421-9.

the 2013 date is a republication of something going back to the 1930s Future2023Living (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It may or may not be avaiable here

https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/23914/SMC_94_Hrdlicka_1935_11_1-58.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Future2023Living (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I added this source to make it even more clear Future2023Living (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

See updated revision for some even more clear theory that is not original research I added something even more abundantly clear

Hrdlicka, Ales (2013-07-27). Melanesians and Australians and the Peopling of America: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, V94, No. 11. Literary Licensing, LLC. ISBN 978-1-258-77421-9.

It's a 2013 republication of a publication from Smithosonian that went back to 1935 theories of americas inhabiting the americas via a trans-pacific ocean migration

The sources I already included had proposed Kon-tiki style but it is not original research to theorize australiasian trans-pacific voyage routes Future2023Living (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is original research when you cite genetic studies from 2015 and later that do not question the Beringian lang bridge migration(s) in support of a hypothesis presented in a 1935 book. You're reading things into modern academic papers that are not expressed there. –Austronesier (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Personally, austronesier, how do explain maori-like australasian genetics getting there?

It's absurd or ludicrous to think they magically went up to taiwan, conquered, and then went down the coast. That's wishfully thinking false - IQ and conquest history go against this. IN fact there isn't that sort of genetics present in taiwan or siberia or appearance. There wasn't the skillset or ability to conquer northbound rather only for east asian to conquer southbound.

We also know iq all time history is connected with conquest history where for instance its not a coicidence european history was so dominant over middle east like ALexander the Great Recoqnuista ROme, Crusades, ect as european IQ is higher and war ability is higher so similarly its nonsensical that somehow south american genetics flowed upward to taiwan then down

Also simple common sense says that the Maori people look just like the south americans and cherokee and iriqous

So when I see a conflict of interest loud and clear and you take issue with leaving on the page a substantial section devoted to this third theory of transpacific ocean migration -> says that you have a conflict of interest for the aforementioned reasons

Do a basic facial comparison analysis of the Maori people and south americans. Common sense sense most natives look like maori and not japanese/taiwanese/ect.

So you are being wishful in your thinking that you are not being COI and vandalizing when the info should be left as it is

Seriously , aside from all the accusations about original reserach or conflict of interest, how do you explain that Nature study? It's also others.

What the scientists said was because they also have a conflict of interest and deep in their hearts they understand what their research means but they cover it up but regardless the page is being vandalized. Future2023Living (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

you all live in 1+1=3 mindset Future2023Living (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier I see another admin beat me to the block and their appeal was denied. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It's the thought that counts :)

@Moxy: While I believe that Chiquihuite cave can potentially play an important role for the topic of this article, its mention by the now-blocked editor in the context of a purported trans-Pacific peopling was another OR red herring, since Ardelean and his team don't talk about entry routes. I'd prefer to hat/archive these three discussions and start a new one about Chiquihuite Cave without disruptive noise if wanted. –Austronesier (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier good idea, go ahead. Doug Weller talk 06:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have added context to the cave entry here.....it's linked so most can read more if the like. Moxy- 13:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Lets move 'clovis first' to 'falsified theories' to declutter this lemma

The whole article reads like a giant edit war. This war has now ended. The clovis-first party lost. Lets save the little dignity they have left by moving their falsified thesis to its own lemma where the erroneous reasoning can be discussed in detail. --89.12.98.65 (talk) 89.12.98.65 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Clovis culture Moxy- 12:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)