An American Wellspring Chapters

An American Wellspring By Alvah M. Hicks Copywrite January 29, 2021 Expanding the Search for Homo Sapiens Sapiens Origins: A Reexamination of the Western Hemisphere INTRODUCTION Many Native American Cultures identify that they have “always been here,” that they are truly indigenous to the Americas. Yet, a vocal majority of American archaeologists have until 1997 however (see National Geographic January 1997) steadfastly advocated a less than 13,500 year old timing for the arrival of people from Northeast Asia by crossing the Bering Land Bridge. An American Wellspring, Volume One, will present a general overview of the science of evolutionary anthropology and theories outlining the origins of Native Americans and synthesize a new alternative that embraces the New World as the cradle of humankind. It promises to illuminate what many theologians and scientists have long characterized as, a forbidden place to start in anticipating our human beginnings. The language of anthropology and its assorted terms will be refined as we traverse along this untested path. The aim is to explore novel hypotheses that will enliven the study of anthropology by highlighting a new robust alternative to the human origin debate. The science of human evolution, and the accompanying theories that drive researchers to interpret our pre-historic past, should be evidently resolvable. Yet, a “grand unification theory” remains problematic as unproven solutions persist as we move into another century of inquiry and debate. Many researchers believe that we need more evidence while some would counter that we will never fully decipher our past as a uniform theory when “missing links” run conceptually counter to equilibrium and archetypal evolutionary process. Solutions can be found by unraveling the knot that binds our past to missing evolutionary links. The testing of a new theory, linking the Americas with human evolutionary studies, may offer resolutions to long recognized irreconcilable observations. The alternative interpretation that follows is offered as a point of convergence, bearing witness and abiding respect for what anthropologists have uncovered while remodeling philosophical explanation and scientific determinism. The potential of a great antiquity for Native Americans challenges the idea of an ancestral bond connecting Homo erectus (He) and Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss). In this, the now long-standing exclusion of the American Indian from “evolutionary discussions” was made without investigating the far-ranging implications a recent arrival for the Cro-Magnons into Europe itself holds. Alfred Russell Wallace and others, including Sir Arthur Keith, believed that the Neandertals were so far removed from our physical and cultural species (that is anatomically and behaviorally modern Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss) that they could not have been our direct ancestor. The Neandertals were for them and many researchers today, a separate species who inhabited Europe only to be replaced by Cro-Magnon ancestors. Could the ancestors of the Cro-Magnon, the first Modern Humans to settle Asia, Australia, and Africa have come from the Americas? This book will investigate this alternative by offering far-ranging solutions to problems anthropologists have long acknowledged. Is this continuing enigma the consequence of eliminating the direction of migratory links to the western hemisphere that could, would, or should now envisage an American Wellspring for Homo sapiens sapiens? The relatively recent (~> 50,000 y.b.p.), human settlement of the Old World by our immediate ancestors conforms to an accepted sudden Peopling of Old-World Continents. That the Americas were occupied by Humans before this Old-World settlement will be put to test. The contentions contained in the passages of this book (Volume 1) present an alternative for the origins of the first Americans as a “Peopling event” by including them in the search for the ancestors of Hss. The problems scientists had in proving that the Mound Builder Cultures were indeed Native American Indians is demonstrative of the mood of 19th Century evolutionists. It was a given, then, to dismiss the Americas as a place to start our human journey and, from this time, this idea remains inadequately attended. This inadequacy only highlights the need for new hypotheses to now replace Clovis-First Theory, a debunked hypothesis that has crucified as taboo anyone or anything that might shortchange it’s “paleontological” limiting premise of a recent “‘Peopling’ of the Americas.” This once uncontestable but now disproven timeframe has set the wrong starting point for more than 90 years. A lasting enigma compounding the deliverance of a much greater antiquity is still-to-be-overcome. Eric Trinkaus suggested to me in 1995 that Monte Verde I is a “game-changer”. Monte Verde I, dated at 33,000 y.b.p. and other like-dated mid-Pleistocene New World sites, portend that a theory encompassing greater antiquity must consider the greater international significance. This work tackles this contention by finding harmony and resolutions linking the New and the Old Worlds in one study. It is difficult for scientists to demonstrate, with fossil evidence, that our species predate Homo erectus, the European Neandertals, and/or, now, the Asian Denisovans, or African Homo erects progenitors. Unfortunately, this directive has left evolutionary science to explore our origins from what must have been a separate species; Homo erectus. Anthropologists have never tested the America’s for an alternative Hss wellspring precipitating our recent so-called modern peopling of Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia. Could the celebrated Cro-Magnon People, who left the profound historical interpretations of life in Ice Age Europe, have been American Indians exploring for the first time the European Continent? This book is an exploration into this long-dismissed alternative. Our quest is a search for our roots in the Americas, beyond a time transcending every Old-World Heritage. It will unite archaeological, genetic, linguistic, kinship, and anthropological sciences by marrying them into a single set of glass slippers empowering the trickster to reveal an invisible truth. This investigation will unite new data with a long dismissed and/or ignored alternative by consolidating insights gained in the last century and a half of anthropological research. It will address the long-dismissed hypothesis that Native American Indians originated in the Western Hemisphere by suggesting that the human species can be trace back into the Americas. We will draw attention, historically and scientifically, to the untested nature of this idea; that humankind evolved in the Americas and entered the Eastern Hemisphere only recently, that is, less then 45,000 years ago. This alternative has had many unheralded advocates, vanguards of an American Wellspring. It is the intention to bring their concerns and insights to life in the pages that follow, to cast fresh light on long lost passages of our human past. Given the wide range of anthropological tools available today it is time to re-examine the viable alternatives and the potential resolution to the human origins debate an inclusion of the Americas offers human evolutionary science. An American Wellspring An Inclusion and Reexamination of the Western Hemisphere: Expanding the Search for Homo sapiens sapiens Origins Chapter One: The Dawn of Modern Science: Evolutionary Theory’s Lost Horizon 1. Earth’s ‘Two Worlds’ aside the European Discovery of the Americas Early European interpretations relating to the origins of the First Americans Theosophical and Philosophical Contentions: The Cart before the Horse End of this submission for review and comments 5-04-2021 Science tackles “Human Origins” Points of Order: Basic Assumptions Regarding a “Peopling of the Americas” We have always been Here: Native American concepts of Autochthonous Origins Chapter Two: Looking out from the Americas: Paradigm Growth & Theory Building Geographic Constraints: Why it took so long to find the ‘Old’ World Archaeological Facts and the Nature of pre-Clovis Man in the Americas A New Anthropological Design New World Paradigms and Paradigm Bias Old World Paradigms and Sudden Replacement Chapter Three: The Sapient Peopling of the Old World 13. An Emerging Theory: Insights and Alternative Explanations 14. Corridors of Migration: Out the Backdoor of the Americas Fossil Evidence: the New and Old World Paleontological Record The Invisible Truth: Inviting Cinderella to the Conference Chapter Four: Pre-Clovis/Paleoamericans: A pre-Paleolithic Basal Hss Signature 17. Neandertals in Europe and Modern Humans in Chile: Problems or Possibilities 18. A Reappraisal of The Genetic Data 19. Franz Boas and the Holocene Amerindian Settlement of Northeast Asia 20. Language Correlates and Related Fields Ascertainment Bias Sudden-Replacement and Out of Africa I and II Science and Scientific Revolutions: Treading on Thin Ice Clovis–First and the pre-Clovis Enigma Chapter Five: Paleoamerican Source for Sudden Replacement 24. Historical Anthropology: Lessons from the Trickster Lessons Gained from Studies of the Past Boldly Going where we have never gone before: from Polynesia to Outer Space From Bone to Stone: pre-Clovis to Clovis: The casual links of Human Passage Pending Resolutions in Evolutionary Anthropology The Human Species Longing to Reveal Great Mysteries An American Wellspring By Alvah M. Hicks © Copywrite January 29, 2021 © 2021 by Alvah M. Hicks. This is an open access portion (Chapters 1-3), of a book distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/license/by/4.0 Expanding the Search for Homo Sapiens Sapiens Origins: A Reexamination of the Western Hemisphere CHAPTER ONE The Dawn of Modern Science and Evolutionary Theory’s Lost Horizon "Knowledge is inherent in all things. The World is a library..." Chief Luther Standing Bear Ogala Sioux The 1984 work “Modern Human Origins: A World Survey of the Fossil Evidence” edited by Fred Smith and Frank Spencer, was pivotable and laid the foundation of this work, an oversight of the multiple-theories contending to make ends-meet. A quote from this pivotal work sets a tone, both figuratively and literally for the direction of this book. A major problem confronting late 19th century human evolutionists was the incipient argument for the relative stability of the human form. From accumulating skeletal evidence it appeared as if the modern human skeleton extended far back in time, an apparent fact which led many workers to either abandon or modify their views on human evolution. One such apostate was Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913). In 1887, Wallace examined the evidence for early “early man” in the New World, and, like the German anatomist Julian Kollman (1834-1918) who three years earlier had made a similar survey, found not only considerable evidence of antiquity from the available specimens, but also, a continuity of type through time. In an effort to explain this, Wallace [1889, pp 454-461] suggested that once man had become morphologically differentiated from his apish kin (during the mid-Tertiary period), he had remained physically stable (Frank Spencer 1984 pg. 7). As we can see from the preceding quote, many anthropologists were/are willing to argue that our modern human form has remained relatively stable, far longer than any relationship Europeans might have had with Neandertals. The turn-of-the-century debate centered on the same alternative promoted today of a sudden replacement by modern humans of Homo erectus populations, who are now known to have evolved in Africa (Johanson and Edey 1981) and settled much of the Old-World. Evidence suggesting that transitional forms suddenly became modern was and continues to be seen as controversial while the main alternative, replacement of the Neandertals, requires a separate origin for modern mankind outside of Europe. Clearly, replacement from the Americas conforming to an autochthonous origin for the American Indian was lost in the emergence of Western European perspectives following the dawn of 'anthropological theory.' A Separate World: The Europeans Discover the Americas Our primary concern in these first Chapters is to lay a foundation for a pending challenge to the Euro-centric contention that has ruled out an American genesis for all human populations living today. An American Wellspring counters the primacy of a “Peopling of the Americas” with an alternative, a Paleoamerican Paleoamericans is used throughout this book to identify pre-historic Ice Age Peoples of the Americas. Paleoindian is a term used to identify the later Clovis Culture adapted to hunting large game including now extinct megafaunal species. “Peopling of the Old World.” It is no less glaring to question that the ascension to humanlike qualities happened more than once on Planet Earth or the greater cosmos we dwell within. “Philosophical givens” are central to ideas directing a scientific consensus, not only regarding Native American origins but also modern human’s first appearance in the Old World. Bold Highlighted ‘Text’ reference terms that can be found in the accompanying Glossary of Terms section or… www.Wikipedia.com . What we term the “Old-World” was explored by newly arriving Hss, per-haps we will find them to be Paleoamerican explorers. These “givens” help establish “taboos”, areas that would cast doubt on philosophical starting points defining “consensus opinion”. Certainly, most consensus is proven correct in time. Yet, when resolution seems unobtainable, the philosophical given (and the “paradigms” that eternalize the theoretical framework) must be questioned. It is when chaos is found that taboos must be re-examined for they may reveal clues to the world of the un-known. With a thorough appreciation of these perspectives in mind, we challenge anthropologists to examine a number of “philosophical givens” and address long standing taboos, one specifically; an Old-World starting place for a recent arrival of Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss). The untested alternative; an autochthonous American Wellspring for Humanity, will be hypothetically sanctioned and drive the discussions set forth in this thesis. A young Passamaquoddy brave once asked, “Why do you call us Indians?” His missionary teacher answered, “Because your lands are east of the Indus River.” (from White Man's Indian; R.F. Berkhofer; 1978) This classic interpretation of the Native American Indian and his world has plagued them from the Columbus’ discovery. The first Spanish explorers’ descriptions of the Indians were those of a lost race devoid of such attributes as agriculture, civilization, marriage, morals, medicine, metal goods, and above all, religion. This limited view of the Native American Indians slowly changed with the discovery of Northwest Pacific Coast Chiefdoms and Mayan, Incan, and Aztecan Civilizations to mention only a few highly “civilized” societies. It should not surprise anyone that New World Indian societies held the world’s most functionally beautiful cities, superior aqueduct and agricultural systems, hieroglyphic texts, written records and books, astronomical ceremonial worship, and intricate social and political organizations. Following the discovery of the New World, it became vitally important to explain for European theosophy the presence of Native People in the Americas. “It is in there’ present condition that we are to behold, as in a mirror, the features of our own progenitors.” (Adam Ferguson, Edinburgh University, 1767) The theory that mankind originated in the New World has had many champions beside those Native to the Americas. Perhaps, the first European to contemplate an autochthonous view was Bartolemue de Las Casas (1484-1566), a Catholic missionary who traveled to Hispaniola in 1502, witness to some of the first encounters between New and Old World civilizations. His missionary duties included the religious conversion of those Native to the Americas and assimilating their divergent cultural orientations. Las Casas was also engaged in the search for gold and silver that accompanied the Spanish exploitation of the indigenous. Diggings of the early Spaniards in the Caribbean Islands revealed that ancient hearths existed well below the immediate horizon of human habitation. Las Casas was intrigued by the implications this had regarding the antiquity of the ‘Indian’. He postulated many alternatives to the religious orientations that he understood as a European scholar. Surmising that these Native people were living their lives in a way that the earliest Europeans may have once lived he could be likened to an anthropologist in a Friars robe. Regarding the placement of the aboriginal nations, Las Casas understood that they were far removed from the cultures of the Old World. He was willing to debate with himself the scope of the isolation of these people. In itself, Las Casas was the first theologian to entertain the length of the isolation that afforded these Indigenous People an origin from within the Americas. Clearly, the discovery of people in the Americas created an alternative to biblical scripture founded in the belief that the earliest societies of the Americas contained the most intrinsic element of human society, an ancient form of reciprocity. Isaac de la Peyrere, in 1655, attended another ancient concept in his work, A Theoretical System upon that Presupposition that Men were before Adam. In this continuation of the work inaugurated by Las Casas, Peyrere addressed theosophical limitations that later anthropologists would directly encounter in the 19th and 20th Centuries. For the first time, Europeans began to look into the Americas as if it were a mirror to their own questions concerning their own origins, even if they were ordained to fit in Judeo-Christian definitions. The principal components of human origins were applied to the Americas well before scientific inquiry into mankind’s past would herald the basic tenants of evolutionary theory. Identifying the arrival of the first Americans set the stage for the revolution into evolutionary thought where-by Carl Linnaeus could, in 1790,  Carl Linnaeus, as set forth in his Systema Naturae (1735)  classify God’s Creation into order’s that would link the myriad forms. This procession led to the identification of a scientific framework, eventually leading to the discovery of evolutionary process. So instrumental was Linnaeus’ work to understanding evolutionary process that it was the Society that reflects his name that Darwin’s work would be first presented. It seems that European beliefs, be they theological or scientific, could not entertain the idea that the ancestors of Old-World peoples could possibly be Native American Indians. The result remains that the theories that guide our observations are bound to the givens we inherited with anything that might challenge becoming taboo. These beliefs have been handed down while we must ask if censure is flawed by consensus and opinion lacking conjecture. Fundamental understanding of the alternative view held by the original inhabitants of the Americas offers, in our view, a new ascertainment bias. We have chosen to follow a path of our own making. The trickster has shown the Algonquin that you cannot live or move into the forest relying merely on strategies that you learned in hunting Caribou in the grasslands. The trick to undoing the obstacles we find in exploring how to navigate the world of scientific inquiry should require researchers to first validate the methods and possible prejudices that might lead us astray in the first place. I am not suggesting we forget what we have uncovered from the past. However, we must be on our guard of internal prejudice that forestalls the recognition of alternative views of the past and there potential scientific merit. Native Americans understood the immensity of the Americas and their place in this vastness, maintaining knowledge of this in interpretations held in historical records. These embellished stories and myths are revealed in the messages depicted in the lives and historical renditions of the past, as for example, Anishinaabe wampum belts. The movements of Old-World people into these remote reaches of the Americans have since altered the historical translations held by the ancestors who have, as they see it, from a time immemorial, inhabited the Western Hemisphere. In historical perspectives the records often incorporated into the written history of the Americas does not include, often enough, the appropriation of histories of the original people who were already here. Their messages remain an integral element of each and every tribe’s original knowledge while historians have long overlooked and underestimated the wealth of historical fact contained in them. By removing cultural artifacts including wampum belts and other depictions of histories and their lessons from the past (the heart of indigenous life), museum collectors have left intrinsic understandings and historical interpretations of the indigenous’ “past”, less-than-what-it-should-be. How people came to find their current place in the Americas is retrieved in these depictions, and thus, great mysteries are revealed. These journeys into the past are retold in myths and stories retrieved by the Fire in Ceremonies entrusting a spiritual connection by exemplifying daily life though traditional revisiting. Traditions are anecdotes, gained in the life of any given people. Be they, reenacted in celebration or simple observances, the defining elements of a Culture enjoined with the past. The lives, journeys, and histories of Native American Tribes has suffered without these hereditary records, contributing to the present condition that finds many Native people reluctant to share what remains of their cultural ways. However, contributions made by non-native to the understanding of their “way of live” can be attributed to numerous adventurers who wrote, painted, and photographed depictions that hold today accurate portrayals of the original people of the Americas. Many of these important insights into Indian Life furnished by early ethnologists have been discounted including the observance of the Sundance Ceremony and other rituals encompassing separate worlds of reality. Can human origins be traced to the New World? An evolutionary explanation that transcends both spiritual and scientific explanation might offer us lessons beyond that of where we originated on planet Earth. Anthropologists continue to discount the plausibility of origin stories by insisting that they be scientifically based. Left unattended, the Power of Myth to reveal what has come-and-gone will continue to elude us. Will the proper interpretation of the past remain, un-known, or exhaustively likened to another separate species (Homo erectus, He) that may have no relationship to our own origins except that it too evolved from a similar Earthly process? This book attempts to bridge the gap between myth and science by identifying the evolutionary impact properly interpreting the Native American belief “that they have always been here”, holds evolutionary theory. Early European interpretations relating to the origins of the First Americans Bartolome de Las Casas became a leading advocate and benefactor of Native American rights, returning to Spain several times to champion for a more humane treatment of the “Indian”. He believed that “they too were the sons and daughters of a benevolent God, and so, worthy of his teachings.” see Prescot, The Conquest of Mexico 1843 Yet, continued persecution of the Indian accompanied an unwitting contempt for their primitive way of life leaving little reason to include them in the “family of man.” In Las Casas there was a champion of the indigenous cause and he returned to Spain to argue that their treatment by the Spanish Conquistadors was not in balance with the wishes of the church and/or the crown. His attempt to identify atrocities accompanying the conquest of Mexico culminated in 1550 when he argued with Juan Gines Supulveda in the Spanish court as to whether the peoples of the New World had a soul. If so, were they worthy of attempts to convert them to Christianity? Las Casas won his argument but, if the Native refused Christianity they were destined for conquest and enslavement. In accompanying this decree, “heathens”, who chose to resist the teachings of the church, were persecuted in the most inhuman ways. In the end, Queen Isabelle’s court attended to the Native Inhabitants membership into “the family of man,” thus allowing them to be considered, subjects of the Spanish Kingdom. Las Casas did not win or lose his case, only gaining the directive from the Court counseling more humane treatment of the hemispheres native people. The crown’s knowledge of ongoing atrocities did not prevent them from continuing in Spain’s new realm. Not only did Las Casas consider that these cultures maintained a code of social conduct that was superior to Old World European Civilizations, but that their technological understandings were highly evolved. Worth noting is the soldiers inquiry as to whether they had “found Heaven upon arriving into the great city of Tahetchuacan?” ibed Las Casas efforts unfortunately required the Indian to assimilate biblical scripture through reduccion, a system that ultimately dislocated Indian people from their families and their culture. His reduccion system later spread throughout colonial Spain and, much later, adopted by protestant missionaries in New England and Africa. Through this reduccion the Catholic Church allowed the savage the same rights of god fearing Old World peoples. Certainly, the alternative of them being ancestral had no explanations from the biblical foundations of the day despite the intriguing question their origins presented. Las Casas view of a possibility great antiquity for the Native Americas was based not only on their primitive nature but on physical evidence including the presence of ancient hearths that were discovered in the silver mines of Hispanola. Isaac de la Peyrere in 1655 Almond, Philip C. (1999). Adam and Eve in Seventeenth-Century Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. undertook the theological investigation in revealing the “presumption that men were before Adam.” He, as most other thinkers of his time, applied religious definitions to the question of the presence of people in the Western Hemisphere, in an attempt to explain a pre-Darwinian rise to humanness from the domains of the Americas. He too, was an exception, able to apply legitimate concepts to Indigenous beliefs; that they originated in the Americas. More common was the Judeo-Christian doctrine that rendered the American Indian Natives as a “lost tribe”. Though inappropriate, this concept eventually permitted the pagan Indian societies acceptance into the family of man whether or not they were descendants of Adam and Eve. see Gould 1999 Tracing the “White Man’s Indian” back beyond the Greeks, Egyptians, and Biblical Hebrews helped answer a confounding question of the 15th and 16th centuries; “Where did the Indian come from and how did he get here?”. Berkhofer; 1978 Unequivocally, the “given” answer to this question was first theorized by Jose de Acosta in 1590 and later championed by others including Thomas Jefferson. Acosta’s description of a migration from Asia (later versions entailing the Bering Land Bridge) has continued to be the most popular – though equivocal – theory accounting for mankind’s presence in the Americas. The continuance of this and other evolutionary theories of ancient man found convenient support in the 19th century mixing of science and religion. The Indian was the one who remained, in his natural form, the remnant of an ancient society. During the 19th century ethnological studies were first applied to the New World helping provide Europeans a backdrop to inquiries of their own origin. Contributions from the Social Front Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, forefathers of the Constitution, gave thoughtful deliberation to the indigenous way of life, incorporated many of these previously unknown systems into the formulation of our dawning American government. They saw in the social systems of the Native Americans a mirror of what must have been part of the European’s long lost original instructions. The discovery that Amerindian social systems were principled in the belief that all men and women, although women did not vote in Colonial times it suited many Tribes in the Americas were created equal; they incorporated them into the American Constitution, vowing that the Americas should not be governed just by laws inherited from Old World monarchies. Jefferson postulated in 1816 that “the diversity of Native American languages were so great “‘that the tribes speaking them could not possibly understand one another.’” From this observation, he estimated that Native Americans had “lived long enough in the Americas to be the parent stock of Asian people!” Jefferson, however, accepted an Asian origin and with it the work of Acosta and the summation that man in order to enter the Americas must have crossed the Bering Land Bridge, although it’s existence was unknown at the time. Another imperative advocate of the Native Americans was George Catlin, a New England portrait artist who sought to accurately portray the Plains Indian Tribes by exploring the original route taken into their lands by Lewis and Clark. Between 1830 and 1835 Catlin was welcome into this world, a world that had remained virtually unknown to the European mind. His notes were the most expressive literary documentation of its time of Plains Indian Life while his paintings portrayed a visual world sometimes accompanying the unbelievable, as were his depictions of (Wiwanke Wachipi) Sundance Ceremonies. For some members of Traditional Plains Tribes, viewing the likeness of their own image disrupted their state of being and many would avoid having their own portraits created. Catlin became a champion of the Indigenous. In living amongst the tribes of the Great Plains he came to appreciate their honesty and integrity, not being the first to qualify this observation. He later traveled to Europe with many of these new-found brothers, returning them to their tribes, themselves enlightened in the ways of the European. Yet, museum collectors and their patrons believed his paintings were not real portraits but exaggerations of a People that had no European comparison. For most of his life Catlin’s depictions of Indian life went relatively underappreciated. Although respected today for the likeness of the world they contained, a positive reception of these works detailing the life of the Plains Indian was not a given. Although much of Catlin’s collection was finally bought the vast majority of the proceeds received from their sale were not made in his lifetime. The man, who is understood as the first European to depict indigenous Plains life, did himself die a poor man in relative obscurity. Admiration for Catlin “Well, we can all appreciate George Catlin and what he did. He preserved images of many great people at a great time in their lives, and he was a master painter as far as I'm concerned, but he was more than that. And if you study him in any detail, you can quickly determine, although he died in poverty, that he was a great humanitarian. He related to the Indian people, even in that short time that he lived with us. And he said some things, and I have a few quotes here that kind of explains his view. And this is what he says:” George Horse Capture, Native American Anthropologists 1937-2013 "I love a people who always made me welcome to the best they had . . . who are honest without laws, who have no jails and no poor-house . . . who never take the name of God in vain . . . who worship God without a Bible, and I believe that God loves them also . . . who are free from religious animosities . . . who have never raised a hand against me, or stolen my property, where there was no law to punish either . . . who never fought a battle with white men except on their own ground . . . and oh! how I love a people who don't live for the love of money." [George Catlin,Last Rambles Amongst the Indians of the Rocky Mountains and the Andes, (London, 1868), pp. 354-55, as quoted in Harold McCracken, George Catlin and the Old Frontier (New York: Bonanza Books, 1959), p. 14.] Another non-Indian benefactor of the indigenous was Charles Lummis, an explorer and photographer of the American Southwest, founder of the Southwest Museum of Natural History. With camera and pencils in hand he provided for the outside world glimpses of the cultural and religious traditions of the Hopi, Zuni, Navajo, and other Southwestern tribes. The illumination of the Hopi Snake Dance Ceremony remains the only visual portrayal of this ceremony afforded the European. This dance is held in a ceremonial kiva where man and snake become one and an explanation of the magical powers in the creation of mystical beliefs are retold. With the aid of hallucinate herbs, Hopi Dancers and rattlesnakes alike are able to merge as one in a trance-like state. Enter-twined are the bodies of the rattlers, who, in sharing the herbs placed at the floor of the Kiva, are able to accept the dancers, going so far as to endow their handlers to carry them in their mouths. In this state, Lummis argued were the boundaries of human understanding and kinship with the natural world. He believed, further, that the cultural knowledge found in independent tribal affinities were so vast that they afforded an existence that would predate man’s arrival into the Old World. Lummis may have been influenced by the same stories later told to Frank Waters as the Hopi believe that every-one’s roots lie in the Americas. The photographs that Lummis was able to capture brought a reality to the European mind that Catlin’s paintings could only suggest were real. Understanding the storied examples behind Catlin’s and Loomis’s images and in properly interpreting their notes the mind of the indigenous can be better understood. In itself, many of Catlin’s depiction’s, those portraying Sundance and other religious ceremonial practices of the Plains Indians, were dismissed by Europeans as unbelievable portrayals of a world that could not possibly exist. The lack of likeness, the independent cultural foundations, and the vast differences that separated the European and the indigenous mind created a rift that carried with it the orientation of a separate reality. In the 19th Century the appreciation of a common heritage was far removed leaving science the obligation of opening closed doors. By embracing the past today, it’s perfections and shortcomings, science can better rediscover our universal kinship. Elder teachings of what we call myths from Native Cultures may be reactivated by reviving ancient DNA and pathways humanity once journeyed as we all colonized the Globe. When it comes to validating or even investigating Native Peoples versions of their own origins the past must be recast by looking outside-the-box encompassing Eurocentric Ideas and Ideals. Ameghino op. cit., 1935; Casas, op. cit.; Lummis, Charles F., Mesa Canon and Pueblo. The Century Co., New York and London 1925., (Charles Lummis was the founder of the Southwest Museum of Archeology). Lewis Henry Morgan, perhaps Americas’ first anthropologist identified the social working of the American indigenous while, foreign researchers found similar discoveries in native societies throughout the world. During the early days of the Americanist’s classificatory-descriptive period (1840 - 1914) his interpretations were instrumental in guiding insight into tribal societies, how they functioned, and their ancient connections to the past. Fundamental concepts were ascribed by Morgan from studies of the Paquady and Iroquois. From interpretations of their way of life and their social structure or moiety (clan structure) kinship systems were properly understood. Morgan began to identify the social significance of clan and moiety and how they ascribed secular ranking with-in tribal societies. A detailed “state of the art” study of Kinship Systems can be found in German Dziebel’s sourcebook; the Genius of Kinship 2007. The Genius of Kinship by German Dziebel PhD, Cabria Press Youngstown, New York; Highly Recommended reading with much more said, of and beyond the discussion herein; also see his website: http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/ . At first it seemed to Morgan that intermarriage would have been prevalent since he was unable to determine the exactness of their social structure. Morgan published early interpretations of this miss-understanding in 1860, Ancient Society, leading Australian mercenary Brian Fitzpatrick Brian Charles Fitzpatrick (17 November 1905 – 3 September 1965) was an author, historian, journalist and one of the founders of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties. to read this work. Fitzpatrick was familiar with the terms and definitions outlined by Morgan inspiring him to write with his own proper interpretations based on his studies of the Aboriginal Australian. It seemed that kinship systems identifying brother, sister, uncle, aunt, in-laws etc. —when interpreted properly—prevented intermarriage and provided an independent, social understanding that had few parallels in aristocratic Europe. Morgan accepted the proper relationships identified and a valid understanding of indigenous kinship structure was placed in its rightful order. From this it was concluded that the social make-up defining kinship was highly advanced and may have been in place from very early on in the history of mankind. Here is an example of assumptions that later change by properly re-interpreting the question at hand. This process led to a better appreciation of the matrix of tribal social order be it African, Asian, Australian, European, or Native American. It was the Indian who had remained unchanged, maintaining in their purest form a more definitive social classification, especially when measured against European Monarchy and elitism, the prevailing, (and still champion!), social system. Morgan’s work was instrumental in guiding the development of what would become the “communist manifesto”. Lewis Henry Morgan’s work played a major role in influencing the later work of Karl Marx and Frederick Engles and communism well into the 20th Century. Subscribed under the pretext of “Utopian Society” Engles and Marx offered a realignment of social structure that has, today, lost in favor of individual rights above and beyond those interwoven within traditional societies. Even the burgeoning capitalist’s system is the outgrowths of freedoms charted in the Bill of Rights that have now been deregulated into divested ownership of the worlds resources and ideas. Patents have no doubt hastened advancements that bring us to our current place as a modern world, but at what cost. That the indigenous examples led to important contributions to many social ideals, be they in the formation of the American Constitution or Marxist doctrines, they remain unheralded contributions in the shaping of the ideologies of today’s governments. This contribution, however, should not be eschewed as a cause of today’s woes, but rather, as valuable lessons from the past. These misunderstood doctrines could help us grasp the nature of our original set for societies, if indigenous systems are ever placed in their rightful order as a source of stability for our cultural orientations. The “Human Origins” Debate as it Rages Today “Americanists”, (a term used to define American anthropologists and archaeologists in deference to the “British School” of thought), interpretations followed on the heal of European advancements with the 19th Century dawn of anthropological thought and its emerging scientific terms and limits. Formulas and theories generated in the Old World were applied to the New World while most evaluations by Americanists rarely questioned the limits applied by European authorities. With this, many of the ideas and interpretations of great antiquity drawn from the New World’s archaeological findings were deemed unacceptable as they were incompatible with interpretations built from archaeological discoveries from the Old World. The domination of European perspectives, enlightened perspectives, if you will, continues to remain unabated to-this-day. These unilateral points of view and the adherence to fundamental believes can be seen as both instrumental and, yet, sometimes, detrimental to science and scientific advancements. The earliest European civilizations (Egyptian, Greek, and Roman societies) became the dominant model, helping shape the contextual advancement of Western Thought. Origins emanating from Europe defined the world in theosophical terms. The history of man is often measured in comparison with European scientific terms, dominated by reflections of markedly “civilized” achievements. Taken in a historical perspective, anthropological science as a device or tool is often found to adhere to ongoing academic formulae, creating a scientific “manifest destiny” that every so often impedes the objective projection of either new ideas and/or the required justification to reexamine the what is already “a given.” In essence, the “consensus reality” that frequently dominates European cultural, religious, and authoritarian process is often defined by models derived from European scientific and theological terms. This general overview is perhaps manifested in the American archaeological psyche where in its first definition the presence of human beings in the Americas was forced to adhere to ideologies characterized in European religious terms. Fundamental religious campaigns attempting to contest the validity of scientific evolutionary perspectives continue to this day and, in this author's opinion, are a threat to scientific evaluations offering New World evolutionary alternatives. For alternatives to Biblical scriptures see: Peyrère, Issac de la, A Theological System upon that Presupposition That Men were before Adam. London. Published first in Latin in 1655. This translation actually appeared in 1656 bound with La Peyrère, 1656; Larkin, Frederick Ancient Man in America. New York 1880; and Landa, Diego De, Relatión de Choses de Yucatán de Diego de Landa, translated by Charles E. Brasseur de. Paris 1864. The boundaries of the conceptual presence for mankind in the Americas were prescribed to fit within the fundamental religious guidelines initiated by the belief that all humans must have had a common divinity with “all our relatives” on Noah’s Ark. Not until the early 19th century were scholarly alternatives to religious conscription readily available. Today the ongoing perceptions regarding our divine affinity to a European God remains a steadfast belief, a conceptual orientation of ideas widespread and manifest throughout much of the world. Anthropological science and the resulting identification of human and Neandertal fossil remains did not surface as a challenge to these religious ideals until the mid-19th century. The discovery of an earlier Neandertal presence and/or subsequent perspectives of a transitional phase leading to modern humans in Europe (and elsewhere) left open little possibility for arguments to the contrary. Stringer, Christopher B., ibid, pg. 51-72; and Stringer, "Some Problems in Middle and Upper Pleistocene hominid Relationships," in Chivers DJ, Joysey KA (eds): Recent Advances in Primatology London: Academic Press, Vol 3, 1978, pp. 395-418; Towards a Solution to the Neanderthal Problem. J Hum Evol 1982, 11:431-438; and "Documenting the origin of modern humans," Stringer in Trinkaus, op. cit., 1989, pg. 67-96. Eldredge, N. and Ian Tattersal, The myths of human evolution. New York: Columbia University Press 1982; and Tattersal, Ian., "Species Concepts and Species Identification in Human Evolution," in Journal of Human Evolution 1992, 22:341-349. Clearly, Homo sapiens are not the same species as Homo erectus. Is there evidence of a "transition or replacement?" Today’s challenges to these early definitions can be found in the “Sudden replacement” (Stringer 1982 and 1989) or “mitochondrial Eve out of Africa hypothesis” (Cann et al. 1987, and others), theories that find themselves countering empirical knowledge drawn from earlier European discoveries. The “traditional” proponents (Multi-regional theorists), continue to maintain that separate hominid populations uniformly transformed themselves in every continent into modern humans. Simply put, the European discoveries of the mid-19th century fossil finds continue to pervade the available evidence that would insinuate that this sudden transition is very difficult to validate with scientific evidence from any continent. In light of today’s vast anthropological knowledge and the valuable reinterpretations of the early general outlines accompanying the initial European anthropological interpretations, a general statement can be inferred; that a scientific consensus does not exist with respect to the origins of modern humans. This present lack of agreement should fuel a need to define alternate explanations, promote the evaluation of new perspectives and heighten the search for new theories that should - in scientific terms - present themselves in a clear and orderly fashion. Science is a conservative activity, and scientists are reluctant to change their explanatory frameworks… Scientists may also be reluctant to change paradigms for the purely psychological reasons that the familiar is often more comfortable than the unfamiliar and that inconsistencies in belief are uncomfortable… When dissonance is present, in addition to reducing it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance. If unexplained facts can be glossed over or reduced in importance or simply accepted as givens, the possible inadequacy of the current theory does not have to be confronted. Then, when a new theory gives a compelling explanation of the previously unexplained facts, it is “safe” to recognize them for what they are. Lightman and Gingerich 1992 pp. 694 Theirs is a reflection of fundamental scientific resolve and the drive for absolute knowledge so often generated by consortiums of previous believers. The world, and what we know we don’t know, would be less than it is today if we did not allow ourselves to challenge traditional foundations, knowledge, and assessments. The current resistance to ideas of change in many scientific fields (in business and in politics) parallels the difficulty that faced turn-of-the-century American avocational and professional anthropologists and many of their own assertions that the American Indian had an autochthonous origin in the Americas. Ameghino op. cit. 1915; and "New Discoveries of Fossil Mammalia of Southern Patagonia" in American Naturalist 1893; Sidis; J. D. Whitney; Alexander Chamberlain; the Americas first graduate Anthropologist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Francis_Chamberlain Theosophical and Philosophical Contentions: The Cart before the Horse Theories and the Planting of Seeds Scientific challenges to religious interpretations during the 18th Century set the backdrop for the subsequent evolution of the science of man, anthropology. The formation of paradigms and, as well, the theories that grew from them, led early scientists to adopt philosophical givens whose basic tenants were grounded in theosophical European concepts of the day. This relationship quarantined alternatives representing a challenge to the most basic belief of an Old World source for our beginnings. The study of mankind’s past became a European science, adhering to philosophical givens emanating from the European Continent. Much like the Christian Religion, the adherence to a new scientific scripture, if you will, led anthropologists to challenge any beliefs that were counterproductive to the emerging Euro-centric paradigm. With this limitation fully entrenched, anthropology created its own collection of “taboos”. Mankind’s journey began in the Old World, period! The assessment of a created order for our place in the Kingdom of God was first advanced by Karl Linne Linnaeus, a Swedish botanists in his classic study, Systema Naturae, published in 1758. This system broke individual organisms into separate inter-related groupings; SUPER KINGDOM, KINGDOM, PHYLUM, SUB-PHYLUM, CLASS, ORDER, FAMILY, GENUS, SPECIES. Systema Naturae was, after Linnaeus’ death, used to suggest that man is part of the “animal kingdom”, even if only an advanced member of the Higher Primate Family. Linnaeus is also credited with naming the human species Homo sapiens (“wise man” or “thinking man”). He was, however, unable to explicate the Judeo-Christian model of “Creation” while his outline accommodates today an ascribed Native American philosophy that “all our relations” are part of a natural order and mankind’s place in it is equally corresponding. In the middle of the 19th Century Charles Darwin (1802 -1882) began to apply the Linnean System of biological and botanical organization to the origins of all species, including man. The revolution of scientific thought centered mankind’s place in this natural order as it is our own past that most intrigued researchers. Although Darwin is credited with the concept that the variation in living species is the result of selection, his first concern was in identifying mans place in the animal kingdom. It was Alfred R. Wallace who first answered the question of descent by postulating that; the “Action of Natural Selection, through Divergence and Character and Extinction, on the descendants of a common parent— Explains the grouping of all organic beings.” Darwin sub-titled his own ground-breaking book; “The Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” Clearly, it was Wallace’s work in South America and Indonesia that ultimately laid the foundation for the theory that humans must certainly trace their earthly origins back to primate predecessors. Did Wallace believe that evolutionary scientists should include the New World members of the Higher Primate family in the search for our human progenitors? Maybe! Alfred R. Wallace (1889) Antiquity of Man in America. The Nineteenth Cent. Nov. pp. 667-679.; 1889 "Darwinism." London: Macmillan. Then and now scientific opinions, linking us to a definite earlier primate form, have been less than willing to test the potential of a higher primate base for our ancestors within the Americas. Since there is no obvious resolution in sight to the 150 year old debate concerning missing links, is it best to explore what is not obvious? I have in this introduction, attempted to examine why this inauspicious solution has not been adequately addressed, why it has been overlooked, and why it remains untested to this day. It would do us well and good to understand the limits of our initial orientation and the ascertainment bias drawn from this as consensus driven, before we tempt to divert our attention to the resolutions anthropologists seek to uncover. European interpretations of the age and relationships of the earth (geology) and its human inhabitants (anthropology) began to take shape during the last half of the 19th Century. Europe became the cradle of anthropologic thought following the conformity of geologic foundations proposed by Charles Lyell and evolutionary principals outlined by Darwin. Their hypotheses, based on physical discoveries, would eventually successfully challenge religious interpretations although they did not go so far as to redirect the question as to the origins of Native Americans as anymore then a migration, out of Asia. There were those, however, who later contemplated an autochthonous Amerindian origin for all Homo sapiens sapiens and they include some of the best thinkers of their time. Evidence for the idea that humans might be able to trace their origins back into the Americas came from discoveries made by armature archeologists, scholars, paleontologists, and occasionally miners looking for gold. The discoveries associated with many early “early man” ‘Early “early man”’ is an early 19th century term that became popular for descriptions of ancient habitations from the Americas. finds remain, for the most part, in a state of limbo. Compounding the acceptance was the problem in dating as many methods used today were not available. These 19th Century claims, suggesting as they did a great antiquity for the human species within the Americas, were unable to gain address in part because the revolution in anthropology was not willing to grow beyond the confines of European theosophy or the emerging scientific mindset. This may be due to the fact that they challenged the antiquity of our modern human form as inferred from European discoveries that suggested a pre-sapient or Neandertal ancestry for the European. Man could not, for them, have originated in the Americas first because the early finds were all fully modern human in appearance, unlike the oldest hominids of Europeans, the Neandertals. Moreover, if living Europeans were not first Neandertals then the Europeans would have to trace themselves to an origin outside of Europe, an unwelcome contemplation of the time or, for that matter, this time. The champions of the alternative, suggesting an autochthonous or in-situ origin for the American Indian, also had scholarly representatives who were respected for their interpretations and work in related research fronts. Among those who chose to support an evolutionary based ancestral antiquity of mankind in the Americas were evolutionist’ Alfred Russell Wallace, paleontologist’ Florentino Ameghino, geologist’ J. D. Whitney, linguist’ Alexander Chamberlain, and anti-conformist’ William Sidis. Perhaps the best known is Alfred Russell Wallace, a younger contemporary of Charles Darwin, who, in fact, answered the question concerning Darwin’s inquiry into the cause of speciation. His travels to South America followed Darwin’s. Wallace’s later work took him to Borneo and he never returned to South America. Unfortunately, his notes and drawings, representing several years work in South America, were lost when the ship carrying him and his work back to Europe sank off the coast of Brazil. I, for one, believe the loss of his South American studies may have affected the direction of human evolutionary science. Fortunately, he survived and returned to Europe where he sought funding that took him to Sumatra, the Island of Borneo and Sabah. It was exploring life on the Indonesian island of Ternate that he would answer Darwin’s inquiry into the cause for the origins and variety of species. In a near death state (resulting from a bout with malaria), came the answer to the question first posed by Darwin as it was revealed to Wallace. In a daze Wallace struggled out of his bed, and, with sweat pouring from his brow, jotted down the answer that had long eluded he and Darwin. Wallace noted “that the tendency of species to find variation are based on an order transcribed to the effects of natural selection.” Wallace recovered and wrote back to Darwin, in a short paper, the ideas conceived during his illness and thus was the theory of “Natural Selection” born. He relayed his insights, in an 1858 letter to Darwin, identifying the mechanism of our own origins as a process of evolution resulting from the consequences of natural selection. It could be said now that niche formation and interdependent roles distinguish the survival of the fit itself. Gaia encompasses the Earth as one whole niche encompassing a symbiotic state. Gaia: a New Look at Life on Earth, by James Lovelock 1979 was similarly proposed by ancient Greek scholars. While Wallace was in Borneo Darwin remained in England, compiling the work he would later publish, waiting, in the light of the Religious backdrop of mid-19th Century Europe, for definitive proof. Darwin shared his correspondence from Wallace with Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, acknowledging that without definitive answers to the cause of speciation, the theory would be unqualified. We must remember that Darwin and Wallace were asking the questions they did in order to determine man’s own place as a member of the animal world for, the fact is, it was our own species that early evolutionists wanted to know the most about. The concept that animal species mirror our own process in climbing the “tree of Life” carries over to the Native concept that “we are all related” that evolution has intended us our own place in the niche. Finally, the time had come to challenge theoretical religious interpretations with scientific validation offering a coherent explanation of mankind’s own evolution, as a process resulting from “natural selection”. Wallace’s letter and earlier unpublished ideas held by Darwin since 1838, were presented to the Linnean Society by Lyell and Hooker Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker (30 June 1817 – 10 December 1911) was one of the greatest British botanists and explorers of the 19th century. in July 1858. Darwin’s work and ideas were the basis for the inquiry that would set the tone for anthropological investigations of the future. Darwin published his 1862 definitive work, “The Origins of Species”, justifying the scientific validation to the questions concerning the tendency of species to change. Wallace, while in Ternate, was far removed from the place and people that derived much of the acclaim he was so much a part of making. Upon his return Wallace was recognized for his contribution to the formation of the theory but remained in Darwin’s shadow. Today Wallace is remembered as “Darwin’s moon”, near to the center of evolutionary science’s grand equation. Yet, evolution’s great leap forward has still to free anthropology of the constraint’s creationists expose when missing links to our own past remain unexplained. The compelling observation (of missing links to our own evolutionary past), underlies religious authority’s ongoing challenge to human evolutionary theory. Wallace’s rational regarding the antiquity of the Native American and the far-reaching age of the modern human anatomy could eclipse his 19th Century discovery of “natural selection” should anthropologists reflect again on his observations surrounding the relative stability of the human anatomy over time. Ian Tattersall brings this possibility to life by assessing the limitations human evolutionary theories now live with. This is a fundamental position in bringing the Western Hemisphere into the human evolutionary equation. (see Introduction pg. iv). European evolutionary sciences followed the dawn of Darwin’s definitive book “The Origins of Species,” providing alternatives to religious explanations. Theosophical explanations remained, however, and the common thread that would link Native American origins with the emerging science of anthropology ordained them as migrants from Asia. Comparisons could be drawn by linking basic tenants of both religion and anthropologic theory. In either case, the “’Indian’” must be traced to the Old World, or so it should seem! These roots were first cast in biblical renditions including the Garden of Eden and Noah’s Ark, followed by the more scientific approach accredited to Acosta’s theory of a migration from Asia later encompassing a crossing of the Bering Land Bridge. From the beginning, European religious doctrine left little room (for the dawning science of anthropology), to embrace the Indigenous Americans as the wellspring of humanity. Conforming to this persuasion anthropology, as a science, manifest itself in its explanation for Native beginnings as one founded in the belief that the Americas was a “new” World, even for the Native American Indian. Enter into this equation that the name given those Indigenous to the American’s; “’Indian’” was itself derived from the understanding that they emanated from east of the Indus River and you have the limitations in a nutshell. Resolution and the Art of Scientific Expression Science, in a noble effort to bring understanding, should be more than willing to investigate alternatives when what seems obvious leads to irresolvable conclusions. Scientific investigation should offer, in its core, an openhearted search for valid explanations and alternatives when they are called for. Natives People have long accepted unknowns as “Great Mysteries” relying on the greatness of our human spirit to trick the tricksters into revealing what society needs in both time and place. For the Indian philosophical givens were rarely capricious. Truth should be bound by natural law. The Indian knew where he came from while the European ‘mind’ could not accept nothing more than a “Peopling” event emanating from the Old World. So it was, with this vast difference of opinion in mind, that American Archaeology would cast its own long foreboding shadow over claims of great antiquity. Theosophical explanations represent the best example of the confining definitions that besought 19th Century investigations into Native American origins. Born from these concepts was a religiously based narrow-mindedness that addressed the Natives presence in the Americas as “lost tribes” led away from the “promised land” at the hands of Satan. The earliest distinctly archaeological evaluation, centered on the origin of the Mound Builders. These scientists challenged the Euro-centric belief that these and other earthworks were created by a more ‘highly evolved’ European race unrelated to the present populations of American Indians inhabiting the Mississippi. This prejudice insinuated that these “achievements” were made by more advanced European societies (a lost race) who, after creating them, were violently displaced by Indian savages. This was the prevailing attitude of-the-day though there were many who hung on long enough to prove them wrong by applying scientific methods to investigations in archaeology. By the end of the 19th Century proof that the ‘Civilized’ Mound Builders were in fact Native Americans helped establish the exactness of archaeological methods as a maturing science. The discoveries and excavation of Mississippian and Hopewellian earthen mounds and evidence of other ancient “Amerindian civilizations” established that mankind’s was a contemporary “rise to Civilization” not confined to Europe. Yet, we know that, despite accumulating advancements in scientific process earlier discriminations left little opportunity for an apotheosis Connecting the Native American to the beginning of mankind would redefine the harmony of their discovered state as a universal state. of American Natives as the ancestral population from which the wellspring of humanity could be derived. If anything, a few closed-minded authorities soon took it upon themselves to denigrate the reputation of anyone willing to lay claim of great antiquity for the Native inhabitants of the Americas. This has had a tremendous impact on evolutionary theory and the lives and efforts of professional researchers then and, now. Retracing Our Steps Examples of European dogma’ run-amuck are demonstrated in the disparaging tone of some early speculations and opinions that helped set the stage and limited scope of future scientific investigations. The Anglo-American concept of a “Manifest Destiny” decreed the Indian Cultures inferior, whose divine rights to this land were seen as, somehow groundless. The roots of this perspective can be found in the initial religious placement of the native Indian by some, as “heathens, led astray by hand of Satan.” By example, the Indian was afforded the same indignity wealthy landowners of contemporary Europe showed to the peasant classes, removing them from the land, as they too were dispensable, while in the Americas whole tribes were involved. These indignities manifest itself in the American experience when Natives including the Cherokee became productive contributors ably adapting themselves to agrarian life-ways that included European-like settlements and Protestant Churches. The “Trail of Tears” followed the active incorporation by the Cherokee of European systems, reflecting the power self-imposed governments have continuously dictated when they identify lower classes and then turn on them. This aristocratic attitude carried over into the sciences, being manifest in the authoritarian values of who came first, what is savage and what is not. Many of these empirical beliefs are retained to this day though we have come to hope that it has no place in science. The origins and antiquity of early “early man” in the Americas was made to fit into an age that could justify the European’s “Manifest Destiny”, to own what others could show no deed of possession. Even though there was supporting paleontological evidence of a great antiquity for the first Americans (for example, human skulls and bones found in the tailing of the California Gold Rush and fossilized human footprints now dated at 1.3M) See Oxford and Berkley University Lab dating from Mexico of human footprints at 1.3 million years ago., and similar finds from scientists living in Argentina, resistance to these assertions prevailed. Not, until well into the 20th Century (1935) was scientific verification of even an immediate post Ice Age settlement of the Americas confirmed. This resulted from often ignored or refuted discoveries made between 1907 and 1925 of “Clovis fluted points.” With the acceptance of Clovis came a new definition based on archaeological observation of an Ice Age Paleolithic hunting Culture employing “Paleo-Indian Traditions”. The presence of these beautifully fashioned stone blades confirmed that American Indians were hunting megafauna that suddenly became extinct following the end of the Ice Age, and the dawn of the early Holocene. Yet, other early “early man” Early “early man” is a commonly used vernacular in interpreting possible great age to both archaeological and fossil discoveries in the Americas. discoveries remain(ed) untested, with the result leaving the question of the antiquity of Native Americans as unresolved to this day. By not testing the evidence at hand, with the methods and means that we have at our disposal today, scientists are discounting the evolutionary potential of the Earth’s second largest hemisphere. Western European attitudes concerning the Native Americans and the potential of an early “early man” presence within the Americas have left, in-adequately, an academic address of the far ranging implications this long dismissed alternative offers human evolutionary science. We need only invite Cinderella to the Dance to test whether the Glass Slipper fits! There is certainly reason enough to contemplate the suddenness of our Old World origin and the isolation, both physically and investigative, an old New World portends. Before 1840, American archeology as a scholarly entity did not exist while relative knowledge of archaeological processes, its benefits and pitfalls, were rudimentary at best. (Willey and Sabloff 1980) It was generally accepted that the New World was peopled from Asia, but beyond this there was little agreement or knowledge of how and when this migration occurred. Unrelated to this issue, but of importance in understanding the sentiment of the scientific European mind, is the question of the origins of the Mound Builders, one of the most important investigations tackled by early American archeologists. Dr. James H. McCulloh, Jr., in works dating from 1817 to 1829, set the stage for this inquiry, arguing as he did that; the mound builders and the Indians were one and the same race. His book was unpopular in that it challenged opinions held by the “moral majority” of the day (Trumping), if you will; that the early Mound Building Civilizations could not have been accomplished by the present populations of “savage Indians.” The conjecture surrounding the idea that “Europeans were the Mound Builders” ascribed that Europeans were once living in the Americas only to have their Civilization wiped out by the Indians who currently lived in and about the mounds. These opinions detailed ideas that were held through what archeologist’s term “the speculative period” a period lasting until 1846. Ultimately, archaeology and anthropology, at the end of the 19th Century, finally resolved this issue by demonstrating that the dental traits from those buried in the Mounds closely resembled the living Native Americans inhabiting the same areas. This established, once and for all, that the human societies of the Americas were capable of civilized achievements. Indeed, they built the largest earthen mounds of the world. This did not stop others from arguing that an earlier European race entered the Americas before a second wave of people, this time from Asia, replaced them. Scholars in the New World during the 70 years that followed (the classificatory-descriptive period), drew many insights while it became easier to express scientific concerns gained in evaluations and discoveries attributed to American archeological surveys. Earlier interpretations pointing to an independent development of “civilized societies” by American Indians finally gained approval with the final say attributed to the earliest American archaeologists. In examining human remains found in the mounds, archaeologists established that the humans who built the mounds were in fact Native Americans, not Europeans. This insight led 19th Century archaeologists to finally resolve the debate, confirming that American Indian had indeed built the North American Mounds, and having done so, independently achieved their own levels of Civilization. Simply, it wasn’t until 1894 that it was established that the Mississippian and Hopewell Mound Builders were indeed American Indians and not “a lost race of Europeans” driven from their lands by the present “savage” inhabitants. Today, it is recognized that the Native American descendents of the Mound Builders had continued the same social-economic systems that were archaeologically verified at the end of the 19th Century. The solution to this debate was formalized by Morgan (1876) and Bandelier (1877, 1878, 1879) and they should be credited with executing archaeological methods that finally established Native Americans as direct descendants of the Mound Builders. Willey and Sabloff suggest that in funding this important work “Cyrus Thomas of the Bureau of Ethnology was responsible for demolishing the ‘lost Mound Builder race’ hypothesis in 1894”. See Adolf Bandelier reference to in; A History of American Archaeology Willey and Sabloff 1974, 1980, 1993 Science and Objectivity: The Origins of Inquiry Greek scholars (through the corroboration of scientific and mythological explanation), placed structure to the distinct forces of nature that bind the world’s systems. During the 19th -Century formation of early anthropological thought physical and cultural elements pertaining to human origins found new definitions in science. Archaeology confirms absolute physical evidence of human settlement while anthropology draws from these discoveries genetic, linguistic, and behavioral implications. Both disciplines represent mankind’s quest to bring meaning to the past by identifying hypothesis and developing paradigms that in the end leads to the building of theories. Theories remain the basis for how Great Mysteries are given definition. In Europe the discovery of fossil remains of both archaic Neandertals and modern Cro-Magnon peoples helped fix the limits of anthropologic thought, defining it in European terms. Similar discoveries in Asia of Homo erectus accompanied by their recent and sudden replacement by Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss) Homo sapiens sapiens is used as Hss with the understanding that it translates best to our species being “a fully anatomical and behaviorally modern human species. We did not go through a recent “modern” anatomical change in speciation if we came from the New World and we cannot use the “modern” nomen as we may have always been fully anatomically human with behavioral advancements linked to adaptation, perhaps best linked to migration(s) into new environments. seemed to fit into the emerging Euro-scientific picture of a missing link into full humanness from what certainly was a separate species. Eugene Dubois 1894 discovery in Java of Pithecanthropus erectus (upright ape-man) confirmed the intercontinental radiation of the African hominid now known as Homo erectus. It was Dubois who gave this distinct species its formal name. Asian Homo erectus and the Neandertals of Europe share a common line of descendants from an earlier African ancestor. Conformity in anthropology was, and continues to be, based on the Western European conviction that has most often been traced to their—and our, if you happen to be of European descent—own continents paleontological discoveries. The fact remains that the initial discovery of fossil evidence of archaic Neandertals and fully modern Cro-Magnon Man in Europe did not predate the discovery of fossilized finds of Homo sapiens sapiens in the New World. These discoveries where numerous and included finds in association with now extinct fauna. For many, including Alfred R. Wallace, Florentino Ameghino, J. D. Whitney, and others these and other similar discoveries indicating that modern mans antiquity in the Americas could be much greater than that of the modern Cro-Magnons of Europe (~40,000 years). Unfortunately investigations of an earlier presence for modern man in the Americas did not fit into the emerging picture emanating from the Old World. It remains clear that Wallace, Ameghino, Chamberlin, and Whitney initiated a debate that was not sanctioned because it did not include the principal component of an earlier descendant from what were believed to be older specimens of Homo erectus. From its earliest inception the belief of an autochthonous Amerindian origin challenged the elementary theories emanating from within the European scientific community. European distracters had their own American disciples, among them; Ales Hrdlicka and Henry Holmes, who remained undaunted in their challenge to any attempt to validate an “‘early early Man’” presence of the Americas, as it came to be called (again see Glossary). American amateur archaeologists and the speculations of an early “early man” presence in the Americas created a difficult alternative to paradigms derived from European discoveries of Pleistocene occupations made by “trained” Old World archaeologists. Certainly, substantial evidence of an advanced Paleolithic record exists earlier in Europe, one that challenges scientists to accept the limited archaeological evidence corresponding with a limited use of stone tools technologies as implied from the growing definitions of New World pre-Clovis Pleistocene occupations. The progression of man’s use of stone tools in the Old World suggests that two separate levels of behavior correspond with later and earlier forms of Homo; sapiens sapiens with Upper Paleolithic and erectus with Middle Paleolithic. The Middle and Upper Paleolithic Industries of Europe represent the best preserved Old World examples of these two separate levels of stone-age activities. The Middle Paleolithic and linked Mousterian Industries date to the subsequent replacement of Neandertals while Upper Paleolithic industries, found in association with fully modern Cro-Magnon Man, indicate that, for the first time, modern human “cultured” behaviors have matured. The fact is that both a Middle or later Upper Paleolithic Stone Age like-Paleolithic are not contemporaneous within the Americas (at least, before the end of the last Ice Age), making it difficult to decipher America’s pre-Clovis stage as it is rudimentary elementary at best. Although undeveloped, the selection of raw materials, (wood, bone, and mostly naturally modified stones), most often used as tools during the American pre-Clovis should not require we dismiss them because they are association within a (limited) archaeological context assembled as to form evidence of human provisioning. Simply dismissing them because advanced lithic components similar to Old World Middle or Upper Paleolithic Industries are not found in the pre-Clovis archaeological contexts negates the fact that human cultures survived and/or even flourished with such rudimentary devises. That these systems have been dismissed points to a lack of interpretation not an invalidation of their human manifestations. Fossil-man discoveries and interpretations drawn from the Old World and Europe entail two separate species of hominids with contrasting behaviors. The more recent activities associated with fully modern human sapient occupations, marking the dawn of Upper Paleolithic in Europe, document a new highly evolved “cultured” life-way. This is evidenced by the depictions from cave paintings and associated artifacts suggesting a clear affinity with advanced hunter/gathering mind-skills. The Middle Paleolithic Neandertals on the other hand, are believed to be less “cultured” than sapiens, unable to articulate and/or appreciate the world in the ways associated with the more articulate Cro-Magnons. Bring into the equation evidence of a limited lithic production from a contemporary pre-Clovis America and you have the making of an archaeological battlefield that has raged for nearly 100 years. One must appreciate the magnitude of the differences that constitute the irrelevance of a once supposed pre-Clovis against the fact that the differences in lithic relatedness constitutes isolation’al factors and diffuseness characterizations as to what came first the cart or the horse or the chicken or the egg, or a spontaneous revolution from pre-Clovis to Cloves without an advanced Old World precipitator. That it took millenniums to develop the Upper Paleolithic from lesser evolved lithic precursor, does not fare well with the hypothesis that landing on the moon (or, the Americas), did not require an earlier knowledge of “fire technologies” or that the most advanced projectile point ever developed, Clovis, dropped out of the sky and hit pre-Clovis People out of the blue with no influence from the Old World. Most, if not all of the earliest paleontological record associated with the Neandertals are found in cave deposits. The fragmentary record of the skulls and bones associated with theses finds suggested that cannibalism may have been practiced by these earliest hominids of Europe. The ineptitude of Neandertals to remove their own decaying remains from the living areas of these caves (along with other primarily scavenged food sources), may have, as a result, contributed to the increased numbers of remains found of these hominids. The failure to keep their caves clean left for today’s paleontologists a greater number of preserved remains of their kind leading to more numerous discoveries. This scenario carries over as to why deleterious mutations, present in Neandertals and/or Denisovans genomes, seem to be shared by humans who only recently encountered these environs. Inbreeding or introgression aside, there is bound to be a consequence as evidenced by encounters when once isolated populations come in contact. This applies to all the more recent indiscriminate associated interpretations of interbreeding or introgression when alternatives remain unaddressed when assessing this factual ‘event horizon.’ There were so many discoveries of Neandertal remains in association with excavations of collapsed caves that 19th Century Paleontologists simply discarded them ‘to the closet’ (where did that term come from?). It must be understood that most early scholars were un-convinced that these non-sapient forms had anything to do with the more recent deposits of our own ancestors, anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens. Kollman and Keith ided. Burgeoning anthropologists believed a missing link, between Neanderthals and modern humans, untenable. The British discovery of Piltdown Man in 1912, (only to later be proven a “hoax”), tabled many other prevailing theories and with it alternatives that might have included the Americas in the search for sapient pre-genitors. This table came to include anything found in the Americas before Clovis, though this has now, reluctantly changed The hoax perpetrated by the acceptance of Piltdown-Man required European anthropologists to impose, based upon planted fossil evidence, a shift from one species to another. We know today that evidence for this shift, fortified by the Piltdown discovery/hoax led British Anthropologists to redirect their thinking. Certainly, the interpretation of a missing link between Homo erectus and anatomically modern Homo sapiens became fashionable even though the Hoax contained no bones belonging to European Neandertals. Unfortunately, the acceptance of Piltdown Man left advocates of equilibrium over time for the modern human anatomy, a “consensus” ‘MINOITY.’ Again the American Wellspring redirects this earlier hypothesis. Proponents of the “relative stability of the human anatomy over time” (the case presented in Out of America), reasons that Homo sapiens sapiens have been anatomically modern well before we first arrived in Europe (~ 50,000 years ago). Today, the European evidence suggests that mankind’s physiology pre-dates any relationship that would link us to archaic European Neandertals or any other Old World population, be they African or Asian relations of Homo erectus. Evidence of replacement for the Neandertals—from an outside-of-Europe source—is sustained in archaeological and paleontological evidence drawn from the 19th and 20th Century. This perspective remains the dominant paradigm, suggesting as it does by definition of “replacement,” that modern man migrated into Europe from elsewhere. C. Stringer and others. That we may have bred with Neandertals after arriving in Europe is to be discussed in full later and in an appendage. See Reich et al. 2012; and others at Dziebel’s http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/ . The picture archaeologists and paleontologists are able to draw of anatomically modern humans and their Upper Paleolithic occupations are most often derived from early habitations in open air sites. The ability of archaeologists to define modern occupations is enhanced by the preservation of lithic stone tools while human Paleontological fossil remains remain scarce. The observance of hearths, and evidence of long-term occupation helps define the character of these clearly advanced hunter/gatherer cultures. Cave paintings depicting the life and times of the last European Ice Age represent accurate historical translations of the world of Upper Paleolithic Europe. Moreover, since excavations of Cro-Magnon habitations rarely produce actual fossil remains, as burials were not often made in or about their immediate living areas, including caves. This behavior is another example that sets our species apart from Homo erectus populations. Scholars remain remiss to include the American Indians as a source for the Cro-Magnons although Carbon 14 dating can now be drawn to support that the initiation of the Upper Paleolithic may have been in southern Siberia. Goebel et al. 2013 Discoveries in southern Siberia, the northern limits of Homo erectus migrations, reveal the Old World’s first evidence of encounters between Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo erectus. This location points us back towards Beringia, to what Native Americans call “the backdoor out of the Americas”. Could the bone tools found in Alaska at Old Crow that pre-date the Asian Late Paleolithic have been derived from an earlier reliance on pre-Clovis industries? Morlan, Richard E. 1970; 1983; 1987 Does this procession help explain why the first modern tool kits of Central Asia pre-date Europe’s Upper Paleolithic? Leannova 1993; Otte M. and A. Derevianko 1996 The fact is the furthest radiations of the Mousterian Middle Paleolithic are found outside of Europe in western Siberia where progenitors of the Upper Paleolithic, dating to 43,000, first appear. Did encounters in southern Siberia between Amerindians and Neandertals influence Homo sapiens sapiens in developing lithic tools? Archaeological definitions and dates associated with the advent of the Upper Paleolithic can be found here, in the Russian Near East, where the first encounters of modern humans and Neandertals occurred. If Homo erectus groups did not migrate beyond western Siberia the first evidence of modern human stone tool use might be found above where Mousterian Industries came closest to the Americas. It could be reasoned that contact between the two species helped initiate the modern human Upper Paleolithic. Comprehensive C-14 dates from the Russian Far East and Siberia have now been published (Kuzman and Orlova, 1998). They represent the oldest C-14 dating of the Upper Paleolithic anywhere in the world. Homo erectus migrations out of Africa into Europe and Asia and finally, into Siberia pre-dates the first encounters between them and AMHS. Is it coincidence that the first advancements leading to the Upper Paleolithic occurred when and where the two species first encounter one-another? More recent work confirms this initial Upper Paleolithic development, Goebel et al. 2008, 2014. Americanists are now beginning to interpret pre-Clovis/Paleo-Indian Traditions although few, if any, advocate that the bone or stone tools, associated with the mid-Pleistocene Amerindian occupations, were precursors to evolving Old World Upper Paleolithic Industries. Elementary stone tools found by early Americanists, including C. C. Abbott, were argued as evidence of a human stage that, in scientific terms, did not compliment the European discoveries. Clearly, the European Upper Paleolithic record affiliated with anatomically modern humans began at the dawn of the last Ice Age (~43-38,000 y.b.p.) while similar sophisticated stone age tools are not found in the Americas until the end of the Last Ice age (~12,000 y.b.p.). As stated earlier, the evidence from Europe indicates that advancements made in the Old World did not find their way to the New until Paleo-Indian Traditions and Clovis hunting industries begin to appear. Why the delay? “The “out-of-America scenario is consistent with the absence of the traces in the American archaeological record of the adaptive strategies and technological tool kits familiar to archaeologists from Europe and Asia sites, for the simple reason that the American adaptations historically preceded adaptations in the Old World.” From German Dziebel’s: The Genius of Kinship: 2007 pg. 382 Clovis Traditions 13,100-12,800 provide distinct comparisons to Upper Paleolithic subsistence strategies devoid of incremental stages or evolutionary sequences. They occur near the end of last Ice Age while archeological definitions supporting pre-Clovis Amerindian habitations show few, if any, links or stages accompanying Old World Stone Age hunting advancements. The argument that there were “pre-projectile point industries” in the Americas before the end of the last glacial age 13,100 years ago must contend that advancements gained in the exploration of the Old World were geographically isolated from the original ancestors of those people, the Amerindians. The subsistence behaviors of pre-Clovis peoples did not include Upper Paleolithic industries as “learned economies” associated with the earliest Amerindian cultures mandates that systematic hunting was not an integral or even elementary element of their (and our) earliest ancestors strategies. See Dillehay 1997 Clues from the Old World The morphological characteristics that separate Homo sapiens sapiens from Homo erectus were long ago used to augment suggestions of a transition between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon Man. Today these earlier opinions are still widely accepted while little if any evidence gathered over the past 100 years used to champion “Sudden Replacement” actually supports the Procrustean transition Multi-regional theorists suppose. Yet, anthropologists convinced of a transitional evolution from one species to another, “Multi-Regional Evolution”, continue to share the limelight as Sudden Replacement proponents have failed to look to the Americas. Why we are not all multiregionalists now 2014, Chris Stringer http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.03.001 Fossil support for widespread migrations of Homo erectus throughout the Old World has established that an African hominid was the first to colonize the Eastern Hemisphere. But this exploration did not include the Western Hemisphere, where Hss remained, themselves, isolated. Thus, the first hominids to occupy more than one continent in the Old World were indeed the descendants of Africa's Homo erectus. Dubois discovery of Java Man in 1891 was later used to support Multiregional evolution although Dubois himself argued that Java Man held no special relationship to modern man. Scientific opinion can identify a lack of affinities between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, but they are countered by early proponents of what would become “Multi-regional Evolution” (first coined by Franz Weidenreich). The alternative model supported by Keith, Kollman, and Wallace was of “replacement” from a then unknown source. 1912 and the Piltdown Hoax Piltdown skull was proven a hoax in 1952 following the Carbon 14 dating of the jaw and skull, once believed the missing link between man and ape. British Association of scientists involved in this so-called discovery branded, for decades to come, that the Euro-centric view housed the scientific validation of human evolutionary theory and the First pre-humans. Several noted scientists have been attributed to the planting of the Orangutan jaw and the acid treated human skull ‘discovered’ in the Ice Age gravel’s. Among those was Sir Arthur Keith, although I for one could not conclude that his earlier arguments; on the relative stability of the modern human form, would not be furthered by such a “plant”. The following quotes (An Appraisal of the Case Against Sir Arthur Keith; Phillip V. Tobias Current Anthropology June 1992 offer some perspectives towards the significance of Eurocentric views and the bearing on human origins research. Second, on Keith's possible reasons for welding a palpably apelike jaw to a human braincase, it is interesting that while this "union" may at first glance appear to work against Keith's theoretical position on the great antiquity of the modem human skeletal form, it did not present an obstacle to the advancement of this viewpoint–as is shown by his 1913 reworking of Woodward's earlier reconstruction (see fig. 2.1 in Spencer 1990b :78 emphasis added). Frank Spencer Department of Anthropology, Queens College, City University of New York, Flushing, N. Y. 12367, U.S.A . 9 xii 91.  I do agree, however, with Tobias that the exposure of Piltdown is a tribute to the vigor of the scientific method. By the middle of the 20th century its position and that of various other early sapiens had become "paradoxical" within "the burgeoning store of fossil hominids, " especially as many other alleged early sapiens remains were shown to be distorted, of dubious date, or non-sapiens. Many palaeoanthropologists were also becoming aware that the existing interpretations of human evolution violated many of the principles being applied to the interpretation of the palaeontological record of other forms of life. Bruce C. Trigger Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2T7. . I3 X 9I. also see Tattersal 2008. Keith’s original views were representative of a fraternity of early anthropologists, maintaining a modern human link between Neandertals and Cro-Magnons had little, if any, morphological, anatomical, or cranio-logical support. In fact, many early anthropologists would often discard to the museum closets, For example; Sir Arthur Keith's Legacy: Re-discovering a lost collection of human fossils Isabelle De Groote, Silvia M. Bello, Robert Kruszynski, Tim Compton, Chris Stringer http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.047 Neandertal remains, considering the brutish ape-like hominid far-removed from the family of man. The point I want to make here is the misdirection human origins research went in accommodating British origins for Homo sapiens sapiens. The Sudden-Replacement hypothesis continues to stumble around in the Old World looking for a single location for the transition to modern human forms and behaviors. Yet, seldom, if ever, have these advocates ever addressed the Americas. Julius Kollman was another apostate willing to argue that the modern human anatomy dated far beyond the modern human arrival into Europe, comparing them more favorably to specimens gathered from the New World fossil record to bolster this argument. Although the earliest theoretical interpretations identified that a single separate origin for modern humans was implicitly supported by the paleontological data, a New World source for this the modern human species remained outside the general scope of investigative research strategies. Yet, we could re-evaluate of the cultural propensity and social structure of Amerindian societies as the root of the human evolutionary tree. We can see that historical translations held in Biblical accounts helped guide not only early religious interpretations of the indigenous, but also, scientific evaluations attempting to confirm that highly evolved societies were generated from lesser, more primitive “savagery”. In attributing the movement of man into the Americas as a “Peopling event” the philosophical given of an Asian origin became the conventional wisdom. Scientific investigations of the day came to accept this philosophical given since it was unpopular to believe or conceive that American Indians actually settled the Indus River after leaving the Americas. Try that hat on! Yet, many turn-of-the-(19th)Century scientific investigators found contentious the notion that we were directly related to Homo erectus, later Neanderthals, and/or Java Man. They argued that the anatomy of the Cro-Magnon’s was itself a highly evolved condition pre-dating their Ice Age arrival in Europe. Still, the Americas remained(s) overlooked as a possible evolutionary source for “when man first was”. Numerous examples can be found suggesting that philosophical givens bias the outcome, even when building theory. The growth of scientific knowledge might best be advanced by re-examining the roots of pre-determined judgments and estimates that have been overshadowed; less we forestall a resolution and starve those of us seeking real solutions. Today, this argument is rarely identified or anticipated in seeking answers to questions scientists ask about human origins. The effects of Piltdown Man and later the determination of an ‘initial’ Clovis Stage, one a Hoax the other now exposed as dogma, have left unchecked what we are conceptualizing herein. The history of the debate concerning human origins has been shaped by the philosophical and sometimes theological interpretations that guide Euro-centric opinion. By building a theory that incorporates an autochthonous origin for the American Indian we are establishing that a new paradigm can be drawn from accumulating data. We will see that the key pieces of this puzzle are, in fact, identified with finally hewed edges that incorporate a vivid picture of earthly origin that began in the Americas. The challenge is to overcome “ascertainment bias” and the limitations and sometimes desperate models that have forestalled an investigation into this far reaching alternative wellspring. The comparison it presents would distinguish the origins of humankind with an even more recent “Peopling event” that of the Eastern Hemisphere. European criticisms of many Americanists (their interpretations, purporting an early “early man” presence), centered on their vocational standing and the seemingly outrageous claims for great antiquity made for the American Indian. While some of these criticisms may have had merit the accusations went far beyond the scope of scientific debate. This delayed an openhearted investigation into the alternatives and may have dismissed them for the simple reason that; they challenged European evidence by redirecting human evolutionary theory. By the time Paleo-Indian Traditions and an Ice Age presence was finally accepted (1936) the origin of man had fallen into the definitions purported in the academic alliance supporting Piltdown Man and in its wake Multiregional Evolution with Sudden Replacement out of Asia and now out of Africa the prevailing models. This British Association’s proclamation of an Englishman as the ancestor for modern humans remained at the forefront of anthropological theory until 1952 when Carbon-14 tests established that the human skull was less than 600 years old. It was later determined that the jaw, found in association with a fossilized human skullcap, was that of an orangutans. In 1952 began the search for the perpetrator of the hoax, not the effects it had in deterring the direction of anthropologic thought. The impact and scope of the Piltdown Hoax underlies the significance of relevance when science can be seen as contemptuous to alternatives, much the same as theological constraints were applied to emerging theoretical scientific alternatives. Keith offers perhaps his last word on the subject and in the last line the significance of getting it wrong; Downe, Farnboro Kent Sept 19 1954 Dear Ashley. You know I entered the Piltdown Discussion as a critic–but so compelling was the honesty of Dawson's manner of speech that not a single soul of us, doubted his word, those who solved the Piltdown problem are of a generation who never fell under the spell cast on all by the living Dawson– and the discovery of methods of detection of the antiquity of fossils. Yet I have now no doubt that he was the author of all the fraud. And you will ask– what could have been his motive? If you knew the wonderful fame won by Schoetensack in 1907 by the discovery of the Heidelberg jaw–you would realise the fame waiting for the discoverer of a skull of that early date. [you would understand Dawson's motive. (passage deleted in original [AM])] And to make his discovery certain–a Simian jaw was added to prove the antiquity of his find. All plotted and carried out with his faithful friends looking on–very skilfully done. But there are features of the skull which still await an explanation. The injury done is to humanity rather than to anthropology.(Emphasis added) Yours sincerely Arthur Keith Ibed, Current Anthropology 1991 Science can be a slow and methodical process, confounded by bias and misinterpretation, and an unwillingness to advocate retracing our steps when confusion occurs. End of this submission for Discussion Next Chapter Science tackles “Human Origins” 27