"In the process of ordering Sykes new book, I noticed the following that may be of interest to those open to the idea of a Paleolithic migration from Europe to America - the 'Solutrean Hypothesis'.
"It is titled, "Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America's Clovis Culture" by Sanford and Bradley. The publication date is 28 February 2012.
"I have never accepted the premise of this theory for what seem to me to be obvious reasons - there are no European mtDNA haplogroups in the Americas, they all originated in Asia. Secondly, how could the skin boats ever hold the thousands of pounds of flint needed for people to "eat their way" across the ice filled Atlantic - and why would they venture so far? Anyway, some can still see the merits in this hypothsis and it continues to exist and morph with additional evidence (e.g., pollen) so it has a long shelf life and shows no sign of being swept away from the fringes of science despite, in my opinion, skating on really thin ice (pun intended).
"johi" has already made up her mind... in another thread, same forum, on the exact same subject (Caucasoid Native Americans), she vomits:
"Sykes has a well earned reputation as a "sensationalist". A master at self - promotion. He would be more than happy to revive some long buried "theory" to grab more attention. This work will feed into the "my ancestor was a Cherokee princess, grandma told me so" lot who will be extatic to think that maybe their Y-R1b and mtDNA-U5 haplogroups came from some exotic migration to the Americas by Paleolithic Europeans. Based on the promo literature, there appears to be nothing new that would cause us to re-evaluate our thinking on aspects of the genetics of the USA. Gee, more Southerners are likely to have African ancestors than Northerners - brilliant.
"Will wait to comment further, perhaps there is an undiscovered gem in the midst of it all.
[She should always wait, indefinitely, before giving her biased opinions.]
"there are no European mtDNA haplogroups in the Americas, they all originated in Asia."
How do you reach such a narrow-minded conclusion, without real evidence to back it up? I've been told my mtDNA haplogroup is "European" -- and I'm Cherokee, matrilineally. Do I not exist? Am I a liar? I'm sure others are just as offended by that sort of propaganda, as I am. I'm not the only NA with "anomalous" mtDNA.
In old history books, the very earliest reports from Explorers to North America were scattered with stories of unusually 'white' (ie, Caucasoid) "Indians": Mandans, Tuscarora, Susquahanna / Andaste, Anastasi, some clans of the Cherokee, Mikmak, etc.
(This is a pdf file for a recent study which clearly describes how the 7 Cherokee clans are uniquely different from one another, in their mtDNA patterns).
Why the need to exclude us? Why favor the later-arriving Asians over more ancient Caucasoids, by validating their heritage and denying ours? Keniwick man; Penon woman; the Windover mummies: lots of evidence proving that we exist.
We're in the minority (through no fault of our own -- we were the victims of genocides even before 1492), but we still exist. How dare anyone suggest that we don't?
"European" is the wrong terminology, anyway, for what is actually ancient paleolithic Caucasoid DNA. DNA ought to be characterized a bit more chronologically and somewhat less regionally, due to the Human tendency to migrate a lot (although migration patterns are no less important, we need to open our eyes to all the possibilities, and drop the cliches). Regional characterizations may sometimes bring in errors in judgement, otherwise.
DNA analysts need to learn how to distinguish Native American clades of "W" (or X, H -- whatever rare clade I am really) from indigenous European clades of the same group, and from any Indo-European clades of "W".
We know for instance, that only certain particular clades of "W" are found in Northern India, where nevertheless generically speaking, "W" is more heavily concentrated. One blanket designation or description for all "W"s (or all of any group) is insufficient.
I feel like many others do, that uncommon clades and groups are generally given far less respect and attention, than more common ones.
I'm a Native American who is ~related (although distantly) to ancient paleolithic, Cro-Magnon type, indigenous Europeans.
That shouldn't be surprising to anyone, considering that most other NA's are related to Asians.