|Amerigine is a scientific treatise written by American writer and poet B. Jonson and published in 1979 by Savant, a not-for-profit literary publisher.|
When certain archaeological finds came to light in 1961, the presence of man in the Americas became interesting from an origins perspective. From that first immersion in the subject and corresponding usage of the word amerigine in a class paper, the study of the peopling of the Americas has been controversial. Digs sponsored by the university and supported by state archaeological resources revealed some incredible insight into archaeological thought and how situations and interpretations related to the realities discovered in situ were later recorded in associated data. Further research into similar data unassociated with these particular digs uncovered anomalies in the anthropological record, which, added to my already shaken opinion of current theory, caused me to publish a paper on early Americans, Divergent Modalities in Anthropological Data Classification of Early Man and Migrations, 1969. This work also used the term amerigine and refuted the interpretation of these suspect data. Of course, the paper was completely ignored. For the next 10 years further refining work has been done concerning early man in the western hemisphere and will be explained in the body of a proposed work documenting the expeditions, research, and data involved and meant for publication.
An explanation of the word amerigine, along with a treatise on studies of the Ameriginals themselves, will form the basis of this proposed paper. The study and core subject is meant to be controversial, because it is a work about scientific mores of importance that have been ignored. The purpose of the paper is to raise the consciousness of the scientific world and alert the mass conscience, for the contents of such a study could hold an explanation for a mystery that has plagued anthropologists since the beginnings of their science.
The term amerigine is applied to any peoples whose evolutionary origins lie in the Americas. Most scientists will believe the term to be an oxymoron, since they hold to the mainline theory that the first men in the Americas came across the Bering Land Bridge and which theory goes further to date the first crossings as an exact science. However, the range and variability of dates postulated for the first crossings should give even the average reader some indication that the prognosticators of these dates do not really have a basis for their “reality”. Most accepted evidential dates for earliest hominid presence in the western hemisphere are in the range of 8 to 10 thousand years ago [BP]. Reputable scientists have published articles as recently as the late 1970s that confirm and even praise the accuracy of these dates. But the reality is that for two decades or more direct evidence has provided dates from forty to eighty thousand year B.P. that are only in dispute because of dating technique controversy. The actual dates may be much earlier.
The Dating Game
Two factors in the scientific world that delay and complicate new thought can be attributed to information that the layman is fed by his trustworthy scientific heroes. The first factor is one that has plagued science since its beginnings and is transparent to an outside, uninterested observer. The insistence of scientific gnomes that their personal theory is the final one, the one that answers all the questions is a simple emergence of the human ego. But such an attitude is especially dangerous in an individual who has risen to the ranks of power in the scientific community. His or her career, their very existence in the community is built on the foundation of the personal theories and ideas that course through work and research. This individual feels, maybe rightly so, that if some young upstart can topple the theory he founded and the science of his day is built on that his career is finished.
Ironically, the foundations upon which those theories have been built are eroded by these defensive actions. The basic scientific principles upon which our entire study of nature is made and valued are eroded at the same time because when scientists protect their own project or reputation above the truth, then truth no longer exists. When data, technique, and knowledge gained only from textbooks or fieldwork and governed by strict, unbendable guidelines dictated from the past are valued above intuition, the science becomes stagnant.
The other important factor leading to tunnel vision in the scientific community is the process of dating artifacts. Fundamental problems with dating techniques come not from any lack of skill or qualified facility but from reliance upon dates as absolutes. A fact many laymen fail to realize, largely because it is considered almost sacrilege to doubt science, is that once dated by a facility that has the scientific community's blessing, the vast majority of artifacts are never again scrutinized in a laboratory for dating purposes. Even today, no one has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that any dating techniques are accurate. More and more scientists attack techniques more modern than carbon dating but since carbon dating is still the only accepted technique no one questions its accuracy. After all, researchers must have something with which to work.
An even worse indictment of dating techniques lies in the politics of the dating system. Herein is the crux of the entire study of early man. Like any political body, the anthropological community controls the rules by which it operates. Only the few worthy scientists can use the facilities, others barred by funding or privilege requirements. Professors with tenure control the evidentiary grail with a crusader’s iron hand.
Professional versus Amateur
As a matter of disclosure, it must be pointed out that the research to be represented in this proposed volume is the result of the efforts by an amateur in the world of Anthropology. Notwithstanding its serious intent, many noted persons would scoff at any scientific value the work represents. However, the fact would still remain that many scientific and exploratory revelations have come about at the hands of amateurs. Since the author has provided all funding for the projects and expeditions leading to the contents of the proposed work, no outside influence can inhibit or commandeer the outcome of the data.
Because the amateur is not responsible to anyone for reputation, or required to present a popular viewpoint by politics or salary constraints, this work will be entirely based on facts and date that are gathered independently, and unbiased as to present theories or ramifications of academic meddling. It is the desire of the author to discover the truth, with little regard for current beliefs in dates other than to be aware of the postulated and uncorroborated evidence of present technologies.
It has been stated that a professional gets paid to work and an amateur pays for the privilege to work. The advantage of an amateur, however, spans a much greater divide. For example, many artifacts lie hidden in archaeological coffers because they cannot be accurately placed in the geological or archaeological record. Maybe they were not found in situ and cannot be dated. Worse, they may not fit precisely into someone’s idea of reality. Some such artifacts now lie dormant in one of the most respected institutions in this country, The Smithsonian, overlooked even by the discoverer. There are millions in institutions around the world and they may as well have remained buried in the dirt without the original effort, for the value they represent to science. The existence of such an object is proof enough that a trail exists for the enterprising scientist to follow to some alternative or enlightening conclusion. Amateurs can avoid the obvious problems an undated artifact presents by postulating events that might have spawned such evidence.
Most modern scientists have many facts, or evidence, at their disposal for the study of theory. These artifacts, associated with theoretical ideas, lead to conclusions that are described in proposals and counted by repetition and collaboration. These data collections form the basis of proof systems for theories or beliefs that cannot yet be proven to the satisfaction of the community. The world of Anthropology would like us to believe that they have been working from a plethora of evidence with which to base their theories. Unfortunately, this is not the case when it comes to the study of the origins of man. Unique evidence from Africa for man's presence over 50,000 years ago is scant and, if exhibited together, would cover the surface of a small conference table.
Evidence for the presence of early man in the Americas is almost non-existent. There are, however, a few examples that have been uncovered. Caves offer the best sites in the western hemisphere, because the geography of the areas that would have been the best for man's emergence is mountainous and covered with tropical jungle and has temperate or tropical, highly humid conditions. A wet, humid climate is not favorable for the preservation of artifacts or human remains.
Evidence of early man in Alaska does not exist at all past about 11,500 BP.
The lack of viable artifacts from the region of the supposed Bering Land Bridge route to the Americas indicates that there may be some flaw in the theory that man's origins in the new world resulted from a migration across this bridge from Asia. As there have been many examples of evidence that later cultural ties exist between the two continents, there must be some explanation of the relationship that brought the same traits from one region to the other. The boat theory is a good idea, as are other alternative theories about how this transfer of technology happened. But the one possibility that has been overlooked is the idea that at least some of these traits crossed, not from Siberia to the Americas, but from the opposite direction.
It is not the intention to prove or disprove a major anthropological theory but to offer constructive suggestions for alternative explanations for events that might seem simple when viewed from the bias of accepted but unproved ideas. A study of all the evidence and ideas supporting the theory that man traversed the land bridge from Asia into the Americas would result in the same conclusion if one were to assume the direction was the opposite. Indeed, several of these ideas become much more convincing when studied from this new perspective. Notwithstanding this revolutionary idea, the truth is that such migration probably happened in both directions. In any case, no conclusion based on either idea explains early man dates further south.
Tectonics and Dispersion of Species
Tectonics is a subject not often applied to the study of early man because tectonic activity occurs much too slowly to affect the dispersal of species related to man. However, evolutionary and migratory development of species is thought to be largely responsible for the dispersion of man on earth, whether in the formative stages of man's development or in his wanderings over the surface of the planet. Therefore, a look at tectonics as applied to how movements of the earth's crust effected dispersal of man's evolutionary ancestors is important when considering where man evolved. A study of this relationship will reveal some interesting coincidences. Accepting the evidence and studies that indicate man evolved in the African plains when they opened up during the apparent drying out of the tropical forests, we can extrapolate the conditions that were favorable and similar to this evolution in other parts of the earth.
There are several areas that meet the conditions, but none so obvious as the northern parts of South America. Over the 200 - 300 million-year period that is studied by plate scientists, the area including and surrounding the Guyana Highlands of northern South America remained at the same latitudes as those areas in Africa that gave rise to early protohumans. It is not surprising that this latitudinally similar area has a similar environmental history. Any plant or animal species that traversed the vast continent that is today divided into Africa and South America would still be represented in the evolutionary offspring on both continents.
Anthropologists are quick to point out that no apes exist on the continent of South America and therefore no divergent evolution of apes, protoapes, or protohumans could have occurred. However, if a theory can be postulated that would encompass both a reason for the absence of ape remains and also explain how a population of protohumans could have evolved within these parameters, then many possibilities exist for divergent human evolution in multiple locations.
Let us consider one explanation for the disappearance of Neanderthal man in Europe. The theory goes that the Neanderthals were a dead end on the tree of evolution. Even if competition from other human ancestors had not occurred, it is postulated, the Neanderthals were doomed by natural selection in several traits. It is understood that this theory has its detractors, but one of the bases for the idea is that some species have been shown to become extinct by this process. A logical idea might be that apes did exist in the Americas at some point, but have become extinct. If it could be shown that the apes in Africa are members of a species that is becoming extinct, then the idea that there were apes in South America that have already become extinct becomes more plausible. It is a fact that monkeys exist in South America with an entirely different set of genetic traits than those of African monkeys. The explanation for these major differences has not been determined but the fact remains that monkeys exist on two divergent continents that were once connected physically.
The important point is that the lack of evidence for apes does not necessarily mean there were none present. Environmental conditions would have made virtually all record of such animals scarce, even relative to the few specimens that make up the evidence for protohumans in Africa.
The origin of dispersion is the issue in studies of early man in the western hemisphere as this idea describes a flow of humans coming across to Alaska from Siberia and filling up both continents in a flurry of colonization and exploration. The evidence for such theoretical dispersal, however, shows the first entries around 11,500 BP. There has been too much evidence found elsewhere that shows much older dates for this rubbish to be acceptable in the mainstream, yet it has been and is still accepted “without a suitable substitute”. Suitable to whom?
Evidentiary proof that the Paleoarctic Tradition was in full force in Alaska is held in a lithic assemblage based on a core and blade technology. Distinctive blades, cores and burins from this tradition have been recovered all over Alaska, dated in the 8-10,000 BP era. This evidence is not surprising nor does it offer views contrary to a treatise on ameriginal origins. What is surprising is that so many scientists accept this Paleoarctic Tradition as being the only explanation for the peopling of the western hemisphere. It should be obvious to anyone reviewing the vast differences in indigenous populations of the western continents that genetics were introduced from many different origins. All this confusion must be sorted out before any sense can ever be made of the origins of the ameriginal stock.
What cannot be explained and is a major issue in the Bering Land Bridge Theory is why there is no fluted-point technology found in Siberia. Traditions older than paleoarctic, as scanty as the evidence may be, show clearly that colonization of Alberta and even as far north as southern Alaska came from the south. Even as far north as Iterak Creek, there exists paleoindian lithic assemblage with no flutes, which is related to traditions of the amerigine of mid-continent North America.
There is a definite barrier that has resisted movement across any possible land bridge until around 11,500 BP and this barrier was just as strong as the current barrier standing against the involvement of available but unstudied data, evidence, and just common sense. Given the antiquity of sites in South America that pre-date the oldest Clovis sites by thousands of years, evidence for early human migration to the mid-continent of North America should be sought in southern regions. There are plenty of data in the form of stone artifacts from which to study. In the hunt for ameriginal people in Venezuela, for example, the evidence is represented in the petroglyphs found in the Lake Valencia region west of Maracay. In addition, evidence already exists that has been compromised by tenured persons and politics and should be reviewed with an open mind and with new dating techniques.
Conclusion and Proposed Work
With earliest dates of 11,500 BP for paleoindian artifacts in Alaska (which could have come from the south) and no evidence at all of Clovis tradition in Siberia, it is not probable that there were major migrations through proposed “ice corridors” to the Americas. The simple explanation that watercraft might be responsible for a migratory movement into the Americas is acceptable but it is doubtful that such a dangerous journey would have carried large numbers of emigrants. In addition, such migrations are much too late to explain the existence of ameriginal humans based on evidence being found currently that points at much earlier dates in the evidentiary record. If no direct evidence for earlier migrations exists, then from where did the amerigine come?
This work is in the public domain worldwide because it has been so released by the author.