For the neophite there is also Charles Mann's 1491. The last thing i read on the subject was on "gene/dna" research in archeological finds of human remains which both predate any finds in Europe and bear no relation to possible Asian origins. This was at a site in the Amazon Basin.
For the neophite there is also Charles Mann's 1491. The last thing i read on the subject was on "gene/dna" research in archeological finds of human remains which both predate any finds in Europe and bear no relation to possible Asian origins. This was at a site in the Amazon Basin.
Charles Mann is an outstanding popularizer of history and archeology. As a journalist, he is prone to a journalistic habit: interviewing authors instead of reading their books. But 1491 and 1493 are well-written and quite accurate.
Yep, exactly. It is a fascinating thread to follow. More questions than answers. But the DNA evidence is the strongest. I got going down this trail after having my DNA sequenced. Very mysterious findings I'm still tracking.
Linguistic evidence of the early Americas is another revelation in the last c.40 years. Though he is very controversial among "Americanist" linguists, Joseph Greenberg is generally convincing to my mind. He began his career as an Africanist (that's how I encountered him) with equally controversial theories about language classification there. The experts resented him as an outsider, resisting those ideas which are now orthodoxy; the same may happen with his American studies.
Greenberg posited that there were only three distinct language families in all the Western Hemisphere: EskimoтАУAleut, NaтАУDene and Amerind (first and by far the largest). The main implication is that each family grouping was evidence of three successive migrations from Siberia to North America and then present distributions. That's very big history to me.
<> J Greenberg, Language in the Americas
____, The Languages of Africa (These are NOT books for reading)
<> Current Anthropology 1987 (summary w/ critiques)
OK, Time for a break from LFAA for a couple of hours.
For the neophite there is also Charles Mann's 1491. The last thing i read on the subject was on "gene/dna" research in archeological finds of human remains which both predate any finds in Europe and bear no relation to possible Asian origins. This was at a site in the Amazon Basin.
Charles Mann is an outstanding popularizer of history and archeology. As a journalist, he is prone to a journalistic habit: interviewing authors instead of reading their books. But 1491 and 1493 are well-written and quite accurate.
Excellent resource. Ordered.
Looking forward to a rec from you, Charlie.
Yep, exactly. It is a fascinating thread to follow. More questions than answers. But the DNA evidence is the strongest. I got going down this trail after having my DNA sequenced. Very mysterious findings I'm still tracking.
Linguistic evidence of the early Americas is another revelation in the last c.40 years. Though he is very controversial among "Americanist" linguists, Joseph Greenberg is generally convincing to my mind. He began his career as an Africanist (that's how I encountered him) with equally controversial theories about language classification there. The experts resented him as an outsider, resisting those ideas which are now orthodoxy; the same may happen with his American studies.
Greenberg posited that there were only three distinct language families in all the Western Hemisphere: EskimoтАУAleut, NaтАУDene and Amerind (first and by far the largest). The main implication is that each family grouping was evidence of three successive migrations from Siberia to North America and then present distributions. That's very big history to me.
<> J Greenberg, Language in the Americas
____, The Languages of Africa (These are NOT books for reading)
<> Current Anthropology 1987 (summary w/ critiques)
OK, Time for a break from LFAA for a couple of hours.