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.
I didn't give you links, I gave you names. Both bodies of work are more extensive than my preference to type.
By the late 1870s, however, scholarly research led by Cyrus Thomas (1825–1910) of the Smithsonian Institution and Frederick Ward Putnam (1839–1915) of the Peabody Museum reported conclusive evidence that there was no physical difference between the people buried in the mounds and modern Native Americans. Subsequent DNA research has proven that time and again. Scholars then and today recognized that the ancestors of modern Native Americans were responsible for all of the prehistoric mound constructions in North America.
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?
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.
I didn't give you links, I gave you names. Both bodies of work are more extensive than my preference to type.
https://www.thoughtco.com/moundbuilder-myth-history-and-death-171536
What you said was wrong, and rather than trying to learn, you chose to stay wrong.
https://www.edgarcayce.org/the-readings/ancient-mysteries/ancient-dna-research/
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?