So complete speculation as far as the mound builders being genetically more similar to native Americans than some other haplogroups, then. In the same vein, I recall a lot of others saying the Smithsonian and other organizations were involved in collecting and excavating a lot of the mounds. So they would know but are keeping it under lock and key.
Buddy, you’re taking it a little personal. Nothing what I said is untrue: there IS NO genetic evidence as far as the mound builders go. Your links do not include any sort of analyses of genetic material from any of these supposed giants.
You do understand that genomic analysis has not been possible until the 1980’s, right…? And you Do understand that nothing you’ve quoted includes any sort of DNA analysis, right…?
So you see how you look quoting a website that has the word “debunk” with respect to a study published in 1895 from the Smithsonian, right?
Any evidence of that at all, or just speculation?
The oral lore is respected more in native culture. Morningsky is my favorite storyteller.
Edward Nightingale has extensive research on these North America sites.
So complete speculation as far as the mound builders being genetically more similar to native Americans than some other haplogroups, then. In the same vein, I recall a lot of others saying the Smithsonian and other organizations were involved in collecting and excavating a lot of the mounds. So they would know but are keeping it under lock and key.
Not only is my comment not speculation, I cited two amazingly extensive sources that I've spent weeks learning from.
Your ignorant comment moments later speaks poorly of your willingness to learn.
Buddy, you’re taking it a little personal. Nothing what I said is untrue: there IS NO genetic evidence as far as the mound builders go. Your links do not include any sort of analyses of genetic material from any of these supposed giants.
You do understand that genomic analysis has not been possible until the 1980’s, right…? And you Do understand that nothing you’ve quoted includes any sort of DNA analysis, right…? So you see how you look quoting a website that has the word “debunk” with respect to a study published in 1895 from the Smithsonian, right?