3 ms·

It was 16,000+ years ago, so calling them "Far East Asian naives" kinda undersells that the natives at the time were a completely different group than the ones

It was 16,000+ years ago, so calling them "Far East Asian naives" kinda undersells that the natives at the time were a completely different group than the ones we think of as current East Asian natives.

barneygale 6y ago
There's some evidence (linguistic and otherwise [1]) that the Ket people [2] of Siberia are a remnant of the peoples that populated the Americas. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M0QnAqQUmw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M0QnAqQUmw 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ket_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ket_people
konjin 6y ago
There is evidence for trans Beringian trade and population mixing well into the 15th century: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/tiny-blue-beads-european-artifact-north-america-old-180976966/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/tiny-blue-beads-eu...
WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
> calling them "Far East Asian naives" kinda undersells Fine. Far Northeastern Asian Upper Paleolithic Hunter Gatherers then.
- labster 6y ago
  I’m still not sure why we’re talking about ancient naïveté, I figure they didn’t know a lot of things back then.
jhbadger 6y ago
Not really a different group. DNA evidence strongly supports the tie between modern Asian people and Native Americans.