posted
Ice Age Child Found in Prehistoric Alaskan Home
Cremation site hints at how first Americans lived—and where they came from..
A team works in an excavation trench at the Alaskan site where an Ice Age child's remains were found. Photograph courtesy Ben Potter, University of Alaska Fairbanks .
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
Published February 24, 2011
In what's now central Alaska, one of the first Americans—only three years old at the time—was laid to rest in a pit inside his or her house 11,500 years ago, a new excavation reveals.
The ancient home site and human remains—the oldest known in subarctic North America—provide an unprecedented glimpse into the daily lives of Ice Age Americans, scientists say.
What's more, if the remains yield usable DNA, the child could help uncover just who was living on the North American side of the land bridge that likely still connected the Americas to Asia at the time, experts added.
One thing that apparently isn't a mystery is how the child was memorialized.
"You can see that the child was laid in the pit—a fire hearth inside the house—and the fire was started on top of the child," study co-author Joel Irish said. Charred wood from the pit allowed scientists to assign a radiocarbon date to the site.
After the cremation, the child's hunter-gatherer clan apparently filled the 18-inch-deep (45-centimeter-deep) hearth with soil and abandoned the dwelling. No other artifacts exist above the fill line.
Before now the oldest human remains found in Alaska dated back only a few hundred years.
Even the new find represents only 20 percent of the child's skeleton, offering few clues as to how the child died. But what's left makes it clear that the youngster died before burial and was placed in a position of peaceful repose.
(Related: "Oldest Skeleton in Americas Found in Underwater Cave?")
Daily Life in Ice Age Alaska
"From our perspective, the child is certainly extraordinary, but the house is also unique," said study co-author Ben Potter.
Remains of salmon, ptarmigan, ground squirrels, and other animals suggest the hearth was in use for weeks or months before it was turned into a grave, the study says.
The dwelling's floor had been dug about 11 inches (27 centimeters) into the ground. Poles may have supported walls and a roof, according to telltale stains in the sediment.
In other words, this was a home—the oldest known in Alaska.
"All of the other finds dating to this period or earlier tend to be associated with either short-term hunting camps, or workshops where people are gathering high-quality stone materials and working them into tools," said Potter, an anthropologist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Anthropologist Ted Goebel, who wasn't involved in the research, agreed. "What's most exciting for me is that we finally seem to hit upon a residence site where it looks like people were actually living."
Something Fishy About Ice Age Cremation Site
Now that an Ice Age Alaskan home has been found, scientists are poised to unlock secrets of how early North Americans lived and behaved, said Goebel, of Texas A&M University's Center for the Study of the First Americans.
It's already clear the residents had a taste for salmon—the remains of about 300 of the fish were found in the pit.
In addition to remains of young ground squirrels, the salmon are among evidence that the house was a summer residence for a seminomadic people. Both animals are abundant in the warmer months.
Previous evidence of dwellings had been associated with temporary camps in areas that would have been frequented in the fall, according to the study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Science.
Located amid boreal forests along the Tanana River (map), the new home site "paints a much broader picture of how these peoples used all the major species in the landscape," said study co-author Potter.
"We picture these people as foragers hunting large game, like bison or elk. But the fishing element is kind of new, and it's kind of striking that there are so many fish."
The apparent seasonal pattern of hunting and fishing, Potter added, is similar to that practiced by later Alaska natives.
Human Remains to Yield DNA?
A local Native Alaskan community, the Healy Lake Tribe, has named the Ice Age child Xaasaa Cheege Ts'eniin, or Upward Sun River Mouth Child, after the native name for the site.
Several native groups are working closely with the archaeologists, and some have expressed interest in comparing their own DNA with that of the child to help paint a clearer picture of the child's ancestry and perhaps of their own.
Already, a preliminary study of the child's teeth suggests he or she is biologically affiliated with both Native Americans and with Northeast Asians.
Though the specifics are hotly debated, it's generally believed that the first Americans migrated across the long-gone Bering Strait land bridge from Siberia about 13,000 years ago.
(See our interactive atlas of ancient human migrations.)
Study co-author Irish, a bioarchaeologist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, noted that some of the site's stone artifacts, construction style, and animal remains recall those found in today's Siberia.
They're particularly reminiscent, he said, of Siberia's Ushki Lake. At that roughly 14,000-year-old site, excavations have revealed a culture that has some parallels with later Native American cultures. Ushki is also home to the only other known burial site of this era in the vicinity of the Bering land bridge, also called Beringia.
"The Alaskan record looks much more like Siberia or the Russian Far East record than it does anything in the lower 48" U.S. states, study co-author Potter added.
(Also see "Siberian, Native American Languages Linked—A First.")
Texas A&M's Goebel, who's worked at Ushki Lake, said such similarities can be found in many cultures of the ancient north, so he doesn't consider the parallels proof that the two cultures are tied.
DNA could clear up the picture considerably, and the ancient child's remains offer an unprecedented opportunity. (Related: "First Americans Arrived Recently, Settled Pacific Coast, DNA Study Says.")
"We're really interested in using the record from Alaska to define how the first Ice Age humans crossed the Beringia land bridge," Goebel said.
"But with no [human remains] we've never been able to say who those people were, what they looked like, and how they might be related to other populations.
"Now we might be able to get our first real specific look at what an early Beringian looked like, in terms of their genetics."
posted
TruthAndRights - Haven't you figured it out yet? As long as the White Man has control of the information - THE TRUTH WILL "NEVER" COME OUT!!!
The reason for that is quite simple, the truth ALWAYS conflicts with the White mans history and his place in history.
Remember in Egyptian history, after a usurper took power, he often tried to eradicate all traces of the one he usurped. Well that is what the White man has been trying to do to the Black man. So anything that conflicts with that, will never see the light of day.
Remember when they came out with that White looking bust of Kennewick man: and then later, had to admit that he was a Polynesian, He,he.
This new find in Alaska is not unique, there are many better quality finds, (See map) but still the data is not published, and WILL NOT be published.
Of course, one reason is that the current Indians won't get it through their heads that they are "RECENT" arrivals, and not the original people.
But here is one of the real reasons: They would have to start explaining who these people are.
BTW - I'll bet that this is something that you have never seen before - what Eskimos looked like 200 years ago.
osirion Member # 7644
posted
^ you are such a strange white guy.
Mike111 Member # 9361
posted
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ you are such a strange white guy.
osirion - I really would like for you intellectually challenged types to make more of an effort.
The Eskimo pictures are new to the forum. A person with the ability to think, might have said something like: "Wow - Eskimos with nose bones, how strange".
But alas, all you can muster is "you are such a strange white guy" - how sad.
MelaninKing Member # 17444
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: TruthAndRights - Haven't you figured it out yet? As long as the White Man has control of the information - THE TRUTH WILL "NEVER" COME OUT!!!
The reason for that is quite simple, the truth ALWAYS conflicts with the White mans history and his place in history.
Remember in Egyptian history, after a usurper took power, he often tried to eradicate all traces of the one he usurped. Well that is what the White man has been trying to do to the Black man. So anything that conflicts with that, will never see the light of day.
Remember when they came out with that White looking bust of Kennewick man: and then later, had to admit that he was a Polynesian, He,he.
This new find in Alaska is not unique, there are many better quality finds, (See map) but still the data is not published, and WILL NOT be published.
Of course, one reason is that the current Indians won't get it through their heads that they are "RECENT" arrivals, and not the original people.
But here is one of the real reasons: They would have to start explaining who these people are.
BTW - I'll bet that this is something that you have never seen before - what Eskimos looked like 200 years ago.
TEACH!
great find in these early INUIT drawings. Destroys the lie that INUITS lost all their melanin by way of environmental adaption. Keep it coming because, the best is yet to come.
Mike111 Member # 9361
posted
^It's plain in everyday life, that humans change color by admixture, yet that nonsense persists. Anyway skin color is not the issue here, the nose bone, the facial decorations and the hat are the things.
The hat is Chinese, the nose bone is Polynesian, and the nose trinkets are Indian. Combine that with the African lip plates in the south, and you see that the Americas before Columbus, was truly a Mulatto melting pot.
Whats bothering me, is except for the hat (which may not even be Chinese), ancient Americans show no cultural affinity with China. They show only Africa, South Asia, and the South Pacific. I'm looking into that now.
Mike111 Member # 9361
posted
^Speaking of the White man lies, bullsh1t, and hiding of the truth: (here even I was fooled by the sheer volume of lies, and my own laziness).
Like in Africa and Arabia, the White man and his mulattoes have convinced everyone that the original people looked like the modern mulatto.
AZTEC?
Of course we know that is not true, but in the case of the Aztecs, I never bothered to look into it, because I stupidly believed what was "Supposed" to be accurate Spanish descriptions of Aztecs.
QUOTE: The Aztec Physical Appearance
The Aztecs were short and stocky, the men rarely more than 5 feet 6 inches tall and the women more delicately built with an average height of about 4 feet 8 inches. Skin color varied from dark to light brown, and the typical Aztec face was broad with a prominent, and often hooked, nose. eyes were black or brown almond-shaped, and frequently with epic anthic folds at the outer corners, one indication that the ancestors of the Mexicans had migrated into the New World from Asia in the long-distant past.
Hair was coarse, black, and straight. Men usually wore it cut in a fringe over the forehead and allowed it to grow to the level of the nape of the neck at the back, but the priests had their own distinctive hair style and the warriors wore pigtails and various kinds of scalp lock. The women let their hair grow long. Normally it was allowed to hang loose, but on festival days it was braided with ribbons. A more elaborate coiffure was created by binding the hair into two plaits which were wound round the head with the ends projecting like two little horns above the eyebrows.
They sounded like regular Indians to me, so I just never bothered to investigate.
Even though I had artifacts which suggested otherwise.
Apparently this couple are some of the last Aztec.
Doug M Member # 7650
posted
The descendants of the Aztecs in Mexico are generally named Nahua or Nahuatl based on the language they speak, Nahuatl, which is part of the Uto-Azteclan language family.
posted
Doug M - I see absolutely no Mongol influence in these people. Except for the unusual nose, they appear pure African.
MelaninKing Member # 17444
posted
^ Neither do I. Both appear to be healthily melanated, although they both appear to have small chins but in all other respects, they appear fully African. Look at them Afros.
Doug M Member # 7650
posted
Anyone who claims that the Aztecs or other native American people were fully and totally nappy headed African looking people is silly. Native Americans, primarily descend from Aboriginal Asian types, which includes Australian Aboriginal types and other Asian types who migrated to the Americas over thousands of years. I do not doubt that some of these ancient types had curly hair, but this was not the majority and this is even among jet black natives, just like in Asia.
I am noticing that some folks are engaging in some reverse racist discourse that says only blacks with curly hair, along with dark skin are "real blacks". Which is nothing more than the regurgitation of white peoples pathological discourse. Blacks come in all shapes and sizes as most of the development of various phenotypes(even without skin color) happened first among black peoples. That means different facial shapes, body shapes, hair types and so on.
And even above and beyond all that, any fool should know that by the time of the Aztecs and Mayans the populations in the Americas included a full spectrum of features from light to dark and in between as a result of the diverse populations therein. So again, such nonsensical claims are based purely on nonsensical reverse-racist psychosis not any sort of facts.
So yes, while some Aztec sculptures look like this:
posted
Originally posted by Doug M: Anyone who claims that the Aztecs or other native American people were fully and totally nappy headed African looking people is silly.
The picture does not lie (unlike people) and since when are all Africans nappy headed?
Native Americans, primarily descend from Aboriginal Asian types, which includes Australian Aboriginal types and other Asian types who migrated to the Americas over thousands of years. I do not doubt that some of these ancient types had curly hair, but this was not the majority and this is even among jet black natives, just like in Asia.
How do you know who was the majority?
I am noticing that some folks are engaging in some reverse racist discourse that says only blacks with curly hair, along with dark skin are "real blacks". Which is nothing more than the regurgitation of white peoples pathological discourse. Blacks come in all shapes and sizes as most of the development of various phenotypes(even without skin color) happened first among black peoples. That means different facial shapes, body shapes, hair types and so on.
No argument there
Please post a citation other than Mike's own web site that says these people are "the last Aztecs". Like I said, the Aztecs are still in Mexico along with other rural indigenous populations across Central and South America.
I see no current Mexicans who look anything like those people. The pictures that you posted are of the typical mulatto Amerindian.
The statement about Aztec extinction comes with the photo.
And even above and beyond all that, any fool should know that by the time of the Aztecs and Mayans the populations in the Americas included a full spectrum of features from light to dark and in between as a result of the diverse populations therein.
Here again, no argument
So again, such nonsensical claims are based purely on nonsensical reverse-racist psychosis not any sort of facts.
Why is it reverse-racism to say what is obvious by way of artifactual proof? And why is it not racist to say that there were no pure African types in the Americas, when we know for sure that these people were the original settlers of the Americas?
Doug M Member # 7650
posted
Mike I did find the citation for the photo, but again, that simply is one photo and without more documentation saying that all Aztecs were wiped out (which they weren't), I cannot accept that alone as "proof". But that isn't the core issue.
The core issue is that somehow most/all or a large majority of Aztecs had nappy hair. I don't doubt for a second that some did. But I wouldn't say that most or the majority did.
As for direct African settlement, again, curly hair is found on black folks all around Asia and the Pacific and they didn't just get there from Africa yesterday. Given that the primary settlement of the Americas came from Asia and the pacific it only makes sense that some of them had curly hair. So that does not "prove" direct African settlement.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't doubt for a second that Africans reached the shores of the Americas before Europe. However, the issue is proof and simply looking at statues alone is not enough, as populations with "African looking" features and traits have been in Asia and by extension the Americas since the beginning. What you need is more substantial evidence which has not been provided by anyone yet.
posted 
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
