So Much for Siberia . . .

uniface

Silver Member
Jun 4, 2009
3,216
2,900
Central Pennsylvania
Primary Interest:
Other
Upvote 0

My interpretation after reading the article is that this particular group of Nunavik Inuit are unique. I don't think it should be interpreted as a complete debunk of a Siberian origin for some peoples.

Genetic studies, backed up by linguistic studies do show that some Native American groups have Siberian roots (and some Siberian groups have some shallow American roots.) Paleo Eskimo, Na-Dene, Yupik people etc.

The Artic is a tough place to study populations for a couple of reasons. First, some diversity is complicated by isolated populations and extinct populations. (Some Inuits populations make the Amish and European Royal Families look incredibly genetically diverse.) Second, in an environment where preservation should be great, preservation is actually really bad. You'd think locking remains in a freezer would work, but there are surprisingly few old remains. (The groups didn't bury people frequently, animals scavenge surface burials, not easy to find water burials, UV damage from the few surface burials that survive really mess up the DNA in freeze-dried bits of leather and hair.)

The Dorsett Culture predated the Thule/Inuit cultures, and perhaps this is a remnant population of the Dorsett that became culturally/linguistically Inuit?
Here is an older article on some of the population and isolation in the Artic.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ion-genome-genetics-dna-eskimos-inuit-dorset/
 

If genetically distinct from all then there is only one possible scenario, Aliens!
[h=2]"So Much for Siberia . . .", the fox news of tnet.[/h]
 

I just assume the subject line is not saying that there are no Asian roots for other Native Americans. I believe that would be a mistake. Here are other older studies, but not that old, which support Siberia as an area preceding human entry into the Americas:


https://siberiantimes.com/science/c...boy-from-lake-baikal-is-scientific-sensation/



https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25020958



https://www.newscientist.com/articl...of-first-americans-revealed-by-a-boys-genome/

72D3987E-3AF1-4CA3-8CD2-DC38777A8A3D-3105-00000172FAB21886.jpeg
 

The Inuit, I am making this up, found their niche, their own food larder, along the Arctic shoreline, thousands of years before the migrating hunter/gatherer family family groups chased their herds of wild red meat into America. IMO.

Who wants to eat whale blubber, raw shellfish, and ward off polar bears? They kept to their own, and other dry land groups wanted nothing to do with their lifestyle. Probably little intermingling. They weren't even close geographically. All were following the herds of game. Inuit had their tundra reindeer, the others hunted southward, and followed other seasonal migrations of animals. When they ate their local supply, they moved.

The land bridge existing for how many thousand years? Back and forth human groups, animals. Some chased game all the way to South America. It was all about red meat until agriculture came along. Then we had domestic life, 2.3 kids, and Honey Do lists.
 

Post Euro arrival recorded conflict still between Eskimo and more Southerly people.
That would contribute further to greater isolation/less intermingling too.
Not saying conflict (fatal type) existed from Eastern Sibera to Greenland , but it existed in at least some region.
 

If genetically distinct from all then there is only one possible scenario, Aliens!

As I recall, they told the first explorers to encounter them that they had been brought to their current home by big silver birds.

Laugh all you want.
 

it seems like every week there is a new story, and they all seem to push the timeline back and make the picture blurrier, if that’s a real word.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top