Where was the PaleoAmerind standstill?
Michael K. Faught
Archaeological Research Cooperative, 703 Truett Dr., Tallahassee, FL, 32303, United States

Excerpts I find interesting:

“...(Anderson, 2010:322; Mulligan and Kitchen, 2013; Mulligan et al., 2008; Raghavan et al., 2014; Reich et al., 2012; Schurr, 2004; Tamm et al., 2007). According to these biological studies, the earliest PaleoAmerind group must have been isolated from their direct ancestors, and others, anywhere
from 26,000 to 18, 000 cal yr BP, essentially during the LGM...”

“...I argue that this standstill did not take place in western or
eastern Beringia, submerged or terrestrially, or even in greater
Siberia to the west, but rather that it happened in the Americas
where multiple environments ideal for population isolation existed
at those times...”

“...PaleoAmerinds are modeled as a single cohesive
social group, or multiple connected social groups, who arrived in
the Americas sometime before 14,300 cal yr BP...”

“...Theoretically, these people should have left archaeological residue or other traces (e.g., skeletal or biomolecular), or both, of their propagation
from one or more landfalls. Na-Dene and Eskimo/Aleut-speaking
social groups produced archaeological material culture correlates
in Beringia Dyuktai/Denali and Paleo-Eskimo that track their
sequential propagations (Carlson, 1996; Dumond, 1980; Raghavan
et al., 2014). However, there is no archaeological correlate for
PaleoAmerinds in Beringia, eastern or western, during the LGM as
expected by current models, nor is there any such correlate in
greater northeast Siberia east of 130 longitude or north of 55
latitude (Dumond, 2011; Hoffecker, 2011; Kuzmin and Keates,
2005; Vasil'ev, 2011). Nor is there convincing evidence in unglaciated
eastern Beringia (i.e., Alaska and Yukon) where a refugium
is proposed as the locus of the standstill isolation (Llamas et al.,
2016)...”


“...If PaleoAmerinds trekked across the Bering land bridge, then there should be a non-Na-Dene/non- Eskimo/Aleut archaeological culture during the LGM, with evidence of propagation and adaptation southward into North America after 14,300 cal yr BP, and sites in South America should
date sites to the north...”


“...Most researchers reject the probability, or even possibility, of
peopling of the Western Hemisphere via late Pleistocene ocean
crossings, especially across the Pacific. One reviewer of this article
called the idea “far-fetched.” Meltzer called its crossing “… very
doubtful” (Meltzer, 2009 pp. 195). Madsen (2015 pp. 229) discounts
it out of hand, and Anderson (2010) and Auerbach (2007) do not
consider it at all. The Pacific is daunting. I understand and accept
the arduous nature of crossing wide expanses of water, as well as
the requirement that the migrants must have included quite a large
number of people. Nevertheless, this alternative warrants
consideration...”

“...However, none have identified an LGM archaeological culture in
northeast Asia and all appeal to biological references to fill the gap
(Goebel et al., 2008; Graf et al., 2015; Hoffecker et al., 2016; Meltzer,
2009; Pitblado, 2011). The geneticists consider a priori a Beringian
(or greater Siberian) route for all indigenous Americans...”

“...Paradoxically, some geneticists now cite the above-mentioned
archaeological literature as if archaeology supports their models
(Achilli et al., 2013; Fagundes et al., 2008a, 2008b; Perez et al.,
2009; Tackney et al., 2015). Apparently they are unaware, or unconcerned,
that archaeologists cannot identify an archaeological
culture during the LGM in Beringia where it is needed...”

“...This situation is a classic example of affirming the consequent
(Dincauze, 1984) or, in this case, beginning with the conclusion.
One result of beginning with the conclusion is that it narrows the
choice of out-groups when seeking biological relationships.
Comparing samples from only northeast Asia or eastern Siberia. For instance, Reich et al. (2012 pp. 371) show Amerinds as phylogenetically
related to groups in both Southeast Asia and Siberia...”

“...However, in western Beringia and greater Siberia, there is a lack
of evidence for people adapting to the cold LGM environments
between ca. 26,000 cal yr BP and 18,000 cal yr BP, where the pre-
Clovis PaleoAmerind standstill archaeological culture is expected
(Kuzmin and Keates, 2016). Goebel et al. (2008 pp. 1500, Fig. 3)
illustrate this lacuna with a dashed line and query marks beginning
with Yana RHS at ca. 32,000 cal yr BP in north central Siberia
(Pitulko et al., 2004, 2016) and skipping 18,000 years to Swan Point,
Alaska, at 14,000 cal yr BP (Goebel et al., 2008; Holmes, 2011)...”

“...Goebel (2011), Graf et al. (2015), and others have characterized
Nenana technology in Alaska as a possible non-Denali, Clovis progenitor
archaeological culture (Goebel et al., 1991; Pitulko et al.,
2016). The Nenana assemblages contain blades and bifaces
without microblades, along with distinctive, thinned but not fluted,
trianguloid Chindadn bifaces (Goebel et al., 1991). The recent report
of Chindadn points at Nikita Lake at 13,800e13,600 cal yr BP
(Pitulko et al., 2016) and at the Dry Creek site slightly later (Graf
et al., 2015) link the groups living in these two widely separated
regions, but they have not been found to be early enough to
represent the expected Beringian LGM standstill population...”

“...Regardless, there is no other archaeological culture in eastern or western Beringia that reflects an isolated, pre-Clovis, pre-Dyuktai, pre-
Nenana, LGM standstill population propagating into the Western
hemisphere (sensu Greenberg et al., 1986; Mulligan et al., 2008;
Tamm et al., 2007; etc.) Regardless, there is no other archaeological culture in eastern or western Beringia that reflects an isolated, pre-Clovis, pre-Dyuktai, pre- Nenana, LGM standstill population propagating into the Western hemisphere (sensu Greenberg et al., 1986; Mulligan et al., 2008;
Tamm et al., 2007; etc.)...”

“...PaleoAmerinds are indicated at Paisley Caves because
two of five Amerind mtDNA haplotypes, A2 and B2, are recognized
in the earliest coprolites (Gilbert et al., 2008). It is important in this
regard to see critiques by Poinar et al. (2009), Fiedel (2014), and the
additional research and evidence presented by Jenkins et al. (2013).
Sistiaga et al. (2014) have recently shown that one of the supposed
human coprolites is more likely a herbivore mammal specimen and
not human. Clearly, more sampling is called for. Regardless, A2 and
B2 are Amerind and B2 is immediately Southeast Asian related, not
Northeast Asian as I describe below, and A haplogroups are present
in southern latitudes of Asia as well...”

“...These three sites are not the only pre-Clovis sites I could list.
Additional pre-Clovis sites include Buttermilk Creek in Texas, estimated
at 15,000 cal yr BP (Waters et al., 2011), and Miles Point and
Parsons Island in Maryland around 20,500 cal yr BP (Collins et al.,
2013; Lowery et al., 2010). Gonzalez et al. (2014)...”

“...were multiple, distinct lithic tool traditions contemporaneous with,
but not related to, Clovis(Madsen, 2015:218e223). Two were in
North America (Denali and Western Stemmed Point [Beck and
Jones, 2010; Davis and Schweger, 2004; Faught, 2008; Graf et al.,
2015]) and possibly as many as four in South America (Abriense,
Itaparica, Paijan, and fluted point related Magellan [Borrero, 2015;
Dillehay, 2000; Lourdeau, 2015; Maggard, 2015])...”

“...South America is of interest because of numerous alleged pre-Clovis aged sites, including confirmed, proposed, and equivocal examples (Aceituno et al., 2013; Boeda et al., 2014; Dillehay, 2000, 2002; Maggard, 2015). In addition, there are Clovis-aged, but distinct, lithic traditions in South America that imply social group divergence by the time Clovis-like Magellan (fishtail) assemblages occur (Borrero, 2015; Dillehay, 2000; Faught, 2008; Madsen, 2015; Miotti et al., 2003)...”

“...the clade that is closest phylogenetically to
Amerind B2 is haplotype B4b1, and this clade has been found in
Austronesian speakers of eastern Indonesia, Filipinos, aborigines of
Taiwan and Hainan, as well as people in southern China (Kumar
et al., 2011; Peng et al., 2011; Mona et al., 2009; Tabbada et al.,
2010)...”


“...The distribution of these B haplotypes provides strong
support for a Pacific crossing, followed by the A haplotypes that are
frequent in Japan and East Asia...”

“...In fact, the clade that is closest phylogenetically to
Amerind B2 is haplotype B4b1, and this clade has been found in
Austronesian speakers of eastern Indonesia, Filipinos, aborigines of
Taiwan and Hainan, as well as people in southern China (Kumar
et al., 2011; Peng et al., 2011; Mona et al., 2009; Tabbada et al.,
2010)...”

“...On the other hand, molecular analyses of NRY (paternal) and
mtDNA (maternal) genetic material result in unequivocal relationships,
as well as phylogenies useful for reconstructing direct
ancestries...”


“...The distribution of these B haplotypes provides strong
support for a Pacific crossing, followed by the A haplotypes that are
frequent in Japan and East Asia...”

“...The assumption that PaleoAmerinds inhabited most of the
Americas before Na-Dene and Eskimo/Aleut people entered has
underpinned most biological studies. However, the standstill or
incubation model that places the ancestral PaleoAmerinds in
Beringia for thousands of years before Dyuktai/Denali is not supported
by the evidence. There is sparse archaeological evidence in
Beringia or greater Siberia during the LGM, the place and time of
the putative pre-Clovis PaleoAmerind standstill. Sites in North and
South Americas are older than the oldest known sites in Alaska,
indicating that people were already living south of the ice sheets
when the first Dyuktai artifact-making people arrived. Even though
many scientists begin with the a priori conclusion that Beringia is
the only viable pathway for migration, it has not been demonstrated
archaeologically or biologically...”


Charlie Hatchett