Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas/Archive 3

Request for more DNA evidence
I'd like more Dna evidence, it's sad that only a few theories on who they are, & were they came from exist. If they from Asia which is a fact, where in Asia, what Asian languages are related to their present languages are they related to?, if it one migrantian, I believe but many, I believe it happen more recent these many present theory believes, maybe about some 4,300 year at most or later. I wonder why there so many connections with the not just ancient "turkish" & other ethic group marsh dwellers in the middle Eastern, but also Russian steppes peoples, plus polyensians with the native American of all America not U.S.A.

I'd read somewhere, a few African migrants now the "natives" came to Brazil region a few thousands years ago, is that true?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we'd all love to see more DNA research, but you can only sample so many groups, and human remains, if available, deteriorate over time, making analysis of older remains tougher. The 4,300 YA figure is um, so 1907. The undisputed layer at Monte Verde has been dated to about 12,000 BC -- and evidence points to an older layer at the same site. Why should Asians in Asia be expected to speak related languages? Languages change drastically over time, and there are so many language isolates in the Americas to begin with. Even a hypothetical Indo-European proto-language goes back only a few thousand years. On the other hand, Yupik is an Eskimo-Aleut tongue spoken in Alaska and Siberia.


 * Are you referring to the Luzia skeleton from Brazil? Yes, she and other nearby discoveries have markedly different morphology than your typical Amerind remains, but I don't think anyone is suggesting a migration directly out of Africa. There is the pre-Siberian American aborigine theory, which would likely entail a Pacific coastal migration or even one along the rim of Antartica during the Last Glacial Maximum or before. It's far, far from proven, but the theory might explain the older dates found in South America. Twalls 05:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Still language could allot, if a language was Indo-European, or Semitic, African, or mixed. History is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Altaic languages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Similar words between American Indian dialects and Turkish of Modern Turkey
Interestingly they have many same words with Turkic People. They must be related with Turkic People in some where may be before the Huns. Here are the list of some related words with American Indian and Turkish of Modern Turkey:

Some examples:

Notice the similarity. If there are some similarities between Turkish of Modern Turkey and Indian Dialects then there must be more similarity between Indian and old Turkic. Is there anyone can provide more examples including similar words between American Indian and Turkic(expecially non-Oghuz like Yakut,Kazakh,Kyrgyz,Tatar,Chuvas etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.10.59 (talk • contribs) 3 December 2007


 * Sorry no, I don't think there's any cause to mention or discuss here this utterly discredited notion, evidently derived from some reconstructivist work in the "Turkish History Thesis" or "Sun Language Theory" variety. This list is quite worthless. Although it may be seen plastered about on various discussion boards (unsourced), if it is not actually taken from one of the Turanist or Kemalist authors of nationalistic mythmaking and (pseudo-)histories active in the 1930s (Zeki Velidi Togan is a possible candidate), it is clearly influenced by that movement. While it may be interesting to note that for a brief period under Ataturk some quite bizarre, irredentist and ultimately false claims were officially promoted, no-one outside of a handful of ultra-nationalists gave these the slightest credence. If mentioned at all it should be on articles relating to mythologising trends in Turkic history and linguistics, not here.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 08:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, what does "Indian Dialects" mean? There are thousands of New World languages that differ greatly from one another. I don't recognize this one. Pfly 19:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what "Indian dialects" refers to either, but it's funny that modern Turkish orthography is used to represent them. Clearly, these are mere false cognates, and as usual, CJLL Wright sets the record straight.


 * You know what always got me? "Su" means water in Turkish, but it means "Fire" in Basque! Likewise, Turkish 'şad' means 'happy' and 'beter' means 'worse'!! Twalls 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh! I wonder how those sun-theory proponents would have accounted for that, given their central tenet that some old Turkic language (funnily based on modern Turkish cognates) is ancestral to all languages. I think that's partly why the supposed "Indian" words are written in the modern Turkish orthography- in effect, there are supposed to be no words 'foreign' to Turkic languages, only words that may be 'reclaimed'. And preposterously enough, I understand that it was claimed this all literally came about when early Neolithic folks (proto-Turks, natch) one day looked up into the sky, saw the sun and exclaimed "Aa!"&mdash; and the development of language went on from there. Like I said, curious & interesting stuff in a way and worthwhile documenting somewhere- but nothing at all to do with this article. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 06:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The topic title meant "American Indian" not Asian Indian and he explores a possible relationship of American Indian languages with those of the Turkic language family since there are many Siberian tribes who spoke Turkic languages (i.e. the Yakuts or Sakha). Some anthropologists and linguists studied the language relationship of native American tribes in the US west Coast with those of Chinese and Japanese with theories on a maritime migration took place along the Pacific coast from east Asia or Siberia to the Aleutians or Alaska and all the way down to California. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Original peopling of the Americas
I moved the Vine Deloria bit to the end of this section. I'm not sure it should be included at all. The guy was a great Native activist, yes, but that book cannot really be considered a contribution to the subject at hand. He dismisses all modern archaeology, geology, and other sciences. I mean, the guy is a Young Earth proponent, lumps all Native oral histories together (thus misrepresenting them and taking selected ones literally) and even claims that dinosaurs coexisted with native peoples. Twalls (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never heard that about Deloria. That's pretty slanderous.  Do you have a source for that stuff about Deloria?  Smilo Don (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Slanderous? I'm not maligning his person or character at all, I'm just highlighting some of his proposals. Google his book Red Earth, White Lies (1995) and reviews of it. Regards, Twalls (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Columbus' Historical Geographical Mistake
The first paragraph says Columbus referred to indigenous peoples of the Americas as Indians as he thought he had reached India. This is not so. It was not a mistake. He got the name from the Italian, "in dio", meaning "in 'the all-knowing/all-wise' (god)". It was not a mistake. Just a title, or nickname, if you will, that he gave to the natives. It just evolved from Indio to Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominatrixdave (talk • contribs) 06:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have heard this argument made many times, by many different people, yet I have never seen any evidence to support this claim. On the other hand, I have never seen any evidence to support the India claim either.  Is there any evidence?  Does anyone know? IanCheesman (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States notes that in Columbus's time the area comprising the modern nation of India was known as Hindustan, not India, and thus the theory that Columbus mistakenly named Native Americans "Indians" seems somewhat nonsensical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.199.220 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)