User talk:Jorge Stolfi/Pre-Siberian American Aborigines

__NOINDEX__ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 21:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuegians
Why are they included here? Has anyone even actually seen Fuegians? They look very akin to most Indigenous Americans and even more like Siberians or Arctic Natives than most other Native American populations. I believe that Charles Darwin himself even commented upon first encountering them that they resembled more the natives of the far north and Arctic than others he had seen in South America. There are no physical characteristics that makes Fuegians appear to have descended from Aborigines or native Australians more so than any other indigenous American population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.130.45 (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea is not that they are direct descendants, but that they may share some cultural commonalities (and perhaps partial lineage) with the hypothetical pre-Siberian inhabitants. As far as the 'Patagonian myth' goes, you can describe a people in any way, shape or fashion using anecdotal evidence - personal impressions do count for something, but I don't think they can substitute for good solid evidence. Personally, I think it doubtful that Fuegians are anything other than an Amerind population, but their isolation has led to marked differences with other Amerinds in nearby Chile and Argentina. That said, who knows who preceded them. Twalls (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lagoa Santa story
Must correct the story of Lago Santa; Walter neves actually had the first ide when mesured Lagoa Sanat skulls that had been taken to Copenhagen by Lund. See Jorge Stolfi 08:57, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Critics
The phrase [...] who crossed the Pacific Ocean and arrived in South America long before the ancestors of today's American Indian peoples came there. doesn't seam to make sense.

Perhaps it's just poorly phrased, cause I understand that there's a theory that this people got to America, but why before the so called American Indians? How can you then say they are not the same thing? Or at least, that they mixed up? or that they coexisted!

And what's worse, I can't help thinking this is just an original research (check google) Mariano (t/c) 09:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually saw the TV documentation this article seems to base on... I don't know if there is any online source to support this theorie, but I remember the TV documentation very well. I didn't write this article, so there are at least two of us who seem to remember the same things. This TV documentation seemed to be based on pretty good science and as far as I remember made those claims that the American Aborigines were there before because of radio carbon dating or such dating techniques. The not mixing up was proved by genetics. The claims that there may have been a war was made by old paintings of Americna Aborigines in caves. But as I said, I didn't write the original article so I don't know for sure on which sources it is based and since I recall the TV documentation which clamed the same thing and seemed pretty accurate to me I didn't and still don't doubt this article Echalone 15:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this article needs more substantiation than recollection of an unnamed documentary. There are some sources given, but the material in the article does not really accurately or helpfully describe the information they contain. It is in need of a thourough overhaul, if it is not in fact better to merge with something like models of migration to the New World. I've placed a cleanup tag on it.--cjllw | TALK  23:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've found a few mentionings in the web about the theorie. I don't know if it's useful, but it is mentioned in slashdot: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/11/2059244&tid=191&tid=14 sadly the news article in yahoo to which is referred in this slashdot article isn't there any more... but I have found another article which indicates that there may have been two other cultures before the nowadays known native Americans: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12890443  There is also a forum where they were talking about the same yahoo news entry: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-97503.html User:Echalone 14:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The articles wou give are not coherent among eachother. One of them claims that there was African inmigration to the Americas, whereas the other points to people from Siberia. Mariano (t/c) 12:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What about mtDNA? Has it already been isolated from the skeletons of the alleged "Pre-Indians"? It should just be done automaticly. 82.100.61.114 00:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Name
The article has an awkward name; it's a mouthful. The article only mentions a handful of the candidate sites, and just today I added references to the original scholars who put this theory forward. I don't think it should necessarily be restricted to South America, either. It should cover proponents, proposed routes, remains and sites. Perhaps a name like "Theory of Early Migration to the Americas" would be more appropriate. I'm not sure about "Pre-Siberian", although it does have its merits. Some scholars view Siberia as having served as merely a transit point. Thoughts on the name, content? Twalls 23:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's Models of migration to the New World which is linked from this article.
 * Pre-Siberian means that later migrants came from the Siberian interior (where there is a mtDNA connection with contemporary Native Americans). This is consistent with usage in Russia itself of Siberia for the center of the continent and Russian Far East instead for the Russian Pacific coast plus Sakha. Phenotypically, what seems to interest Americans for political reasons is that they are less Mongoloid or of East Asian appearance, but nobody wants to say pre-Mongoloid. --JWB 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reads Like Original Research To Me
In my opinion, despite the fact that the article has a fairly lengthy list of "references" (although I notice it's less strong in the "footnote" department) it seems to consist mostly of conjecture on the part of the editor(s) who put it together. WP:OR is quite clear, Wikipedia is not the place to cobble together new theoretical positions or extrapolate new perspectives on existing ones. Merging this article with an existing one is a possibility, but as it stands, I have my doubts regarding its appropriateness in the encyclopedia. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, and if Pre-Siberian American Aborigines is really a "school of thought" amongst some Paleo-Archaeologists who specialize in this particular field there should at least be a mention of their hypotheses or theories supporting the article's subject matter. So far, there's nothing. --71.189.120.175 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont see any source talking about Pre-Siberian American Aborigines in general. I not such king of source can be provided and prove reliable then this article should be nominated for deletion. It is horrible to errase things, so I propose then to migrate information found here, if the article is going to be deleted, to the following articles


 * Models of migration to the New World
 * Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact
 * Origins of Paleoindians
 * Or to the article about the archaeological site, people or culture in question. Dentren  |  Ta lk  20:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Can this even be called a "theory"? It seems to be an hypothesis at best, if not merely speculation. I'm going to edit it to "hypothesis" based on the lack of substantial references. If something comes along supporting its status as a theory, by all means revert.209.43.10.176 (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Shandong Project
"In 2005, our project identified a few bifacial points which feature the “flute” flaking technique, widely present in North America. If proven to be a true flute technology, similar to the Clovis technique of North America dated to 12,000 – 11,000 BP, it presents additional evidence of the technological connection between Old World and New World." dougweller (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)