Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Anthropology

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)

4. Clovis-first has been dead for a while. Also, IMO...

Reply to csziggy (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:26 PM

Dec 2011

...it is way to late to account for the diversity of Amerindian language families. There had to be a whole bunch of migrations from Siberia and coastal northeast Asia for the last 20,000 years to account for it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Where is everyone? Anybody read the Nov. 2011 Scientific American that destroys Clovis First? [View all] csziggy Dec 2011 OP

Interesting Theory Possumpoint Dec 2011 #1

Hmm, maybe some supporting evidence. Yo_Mama Mar 2012 #11

Digs in South America have shown it was inhabited much earlier than shraby Dec 2011 #2

I believe you meant Tom Dillehay & Chile. era veteran Dec 2011 #5

Yup, Tom, not Tim. Sorry bout that. shraby Dec 2011 #6

I had Dillehay for a class right after he found it. Fascinating era veteran Dec 2011 #9

You lucky stiff! shraby Dec 2011 #10

I have a theory too. Look at a marybourg Dec 2011 #3

Clovis-first has been dead for a while. Also, IMO... Odin2005 Dec 2011 #4

What about the obviously Negroid type heads found in shraby Dec 2011 #7

The Olmec heads? They don't look Sub-Saharan African to me. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #8

The Olmec heads are stylized... a la izquierda Mar 2012 #12