DNA, land bridge, Beringia, Ice Age, Americas, genetics, South America, humans, Paleoamerican, Naia, Luzia, skeletons, archaeology

Did Paleoamericans Reach South America First?


In “ Textbook Story of How Humans Populated America is Biologically Unviable, Study Finds , recently published in Ancient Origins, it was noted that DNA studies indicate that people could not have crossed the Beringia land bridge to enter the Americas 13,000 years ago because the “entry route was biologically unviable”. Although this finding by geneticists is surprising, it adds even more mystery to the archaeological evidence that anatomically modern humans were in South America tens of thousands of years before Ice Age people could have crossed a viable land bridge between Alaska and Siberia.

Bering land bridge.

Bering land bridge. ( Public Domain )

The earliest dates for habitation of the American continent to occur below Canada in South America are highly suggestive that the earliest settlers on the American continents came from Africa before the Ice melted at the Bering Strait and moved northward as the ice melted. An African origin for these people is a good fit because Ocean Currents would have carried migrants from Africa to the Americas, since there were no Ice Age sheets of ice to block passage across the southern Atlantic.

Important Archeological Sites

Dr. Bryan, in Natural History has noted many sites where PaleoAmericans have left us evidence of human habitation, including the pebble tools at Monte Verde in Chile (c.32,000 Before Present), rock paintings at Pedra Furada in Brazil (c.22,000 BP), and mastodon hunting in Venezuela and Colombia (c.13,000 BP). These discoveries have led some researchers to believe that the Americas were first settled from South America.

The main evidence from the ancient Americans are prehistoric tools and rock art, like those found by Dr. Nieda Guidon. Today archaeologists have found sites of human occupation from Canada to Chile that range between 20,000 and 100,000 years old. Guidon, in numerous articles claims that Africans were in Brazil between 65,000-100,000 years ago. Guidon also claims that man was at the Brazilian sites 65,000 years ago. She told the New York Times that her dating of human populations in Brazil 100,000 years ago was based on the presence of ancient fire and tools of human craftsmanship at habitation sites.

Martin and R. G. Klein, after discussing the evidence of mastodon hunting in Venezuela 13,000 years ago, observed that: "The thought that the fossil record of South America is much richer in evidence of early archaeological associations than many believed is indeed provocative.... Have the earliest hunters been overlooked in North America? “

Warwick Bray has pointed out that there are numerous sites in North and South America which are over 35,000 years old.  A.L. Bryan noted that these sites include, the Old Crow Basin (c.38,000 BC) in Canada; Orogrande Cave (c.36,000 BC) in the United States; and Pedra Furada (c.45,000 BC) in Brazil.

Stone arch at Pedra Furada, Brazil.

Stone arch at Pedra Furada, Brazil. ( Public Domain )

Using craniometric quantitative analysis and multivariate methods, Dr. Neves determined that Paleo Americans were either Australian, African or Melanesians. The research of Neves indicated that the ancient Americans represent two populations, PaleoAmericans who were phenotypically African, Australian or Melanesian and an Asiatic population that appears to have arrived in the Americas after 6000 BC. 

Melanesian Blond girl from Vanuatu.

Melanesian Blond girl from Vanuatu. ( CC BY-SA 2.0 )

Archaeologist have reconstructed the faces of ancient Americans from Brazil and Mexico. These faces are based on the skeletal remains dating back to 12,000BC. The PaleoAmericans resemble the first Europeans.

PaleoAmericans and First European

PaleoAmericans and First European

Researchers working on the prehistoric cultures of these ancient people note that they resemble the Black Variety of humanity, instead of contemporary Native Americans. The Black Variety include the Blacks of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific.

Dr. Chatters, who found Naia's skeleton, told Smithsonian Magazine that: “The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific. "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution."

A cast of Luzia's skull at the National Museum of Natural History.

A cast of Luzia's skull at the National Museum of Natural History. (CC BY-SA 2.0 )

Although Dr. Chatters believes the PaleoAmericans came from Asia, this seems unlikely, because of the Ice sheet that blocked migration from Asia into the Americas. C. Vance Haynes noted that: "If people have been in South America for over 30,000 years, or even 20,000 years, why are there so few sites? [....]One possible answer is that they were so few in number; another is that South America was somehow initially populated from directions other than north until Clovis appeared".

The fact that the Beringia land bridge was unviable 15,000 years ago make it unlikely that during the Ice Age man would have been able to walk or to sail from Asia to South America at this time. As a result, these people were probably from Africa, as suggested by Dr. Guidon.

Prehistoric Sea Travel

In summary, the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska was unviable before 13,000 BC. Even though man could not enter the Americas until after 14,000 years ago, man was probably in South America as early 100,000 years ago, according to Dr. Guidon’s research in Brazil.

The first people in the Americas are called PaleoAmericans. The research of Chatters and Neves indicate that the PaleoAmericans were not Asiatic. These researchers claim the PaleoAmericans, “more closely resembl[ed] the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific.”

The first Americans probably came to the Americas by sea, due to the unviable land route to the Americas before 13,000 BC. As a result, we must agree with Guidon that man probably traveled from Africa to settle prehistoric America.

The archaeological evidence indicates that PaleoAmericans settled South America before North America, and that these Americans did not belong to the Clovis culture. Africa is the most likely origin of the PaleoAmericans, because the Ice sheet along the Pacific shoreline of North America, Siberia and Alaska, would have made the sea route from Asia or Europe unviable 65,000 years ago. The Dufuna boat dating back to 8,000 BC, shows that Africans had boats at this early date. The culture associated with the Dufuna boat dates back to 20,000 years ago.

Dugout canoes hewn from wood at Lake Malawi, East African Rift system.

Dugout canoes hewn from wood at Lake Malawi, East African Rift system. ( CC BY-SA 2.0 )


Top Image: Rock paintings at Pedra Furada, Brazil ( CC BY-SA 4.0 )

By Clyde Winters


Bray, Warwick. 1988. "The Paleoindian debate". Nature 332, (10 March), p.107.

Bryan, A. L. 1987. "Points of Order". Natural History , pp.7-11.

Guidon, N. and Delibrias, G. 1986. “Carbon-14 dates point to man in the Americas 32,000 years ago.” Nature 321:769-771.

Guidon, N., and B. Arnaud. 1991. “The chronology of the New World: Two faces of one reality.” World Arch. 23(2):167-178.

Guidon, N., et al.1996.  "Nature and Age of the Deposits in Pedra Furada, Brazil: Reply to Meltzer, Adovasio & Dillehay," Antiquity, 70:408.

Haynes,Jr., C.V. 1988. "Geofacts and Fanny". Natural History ,(February)pp.4-12.

Kumar, Mohi. 2014. DNA From 12,000-Year-Old Skeleton Helps Answer the Question: Who Were the First Americans? [Online] Retrieved  16 August 2016 at :

Martin, P. S. and R.G.Klein (eds.), Quarternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution , (Tucson:University of Arizona Press,1989) p.111.

Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1989. Extra-continental biological relationships of early South American human remains: a multivariate analysis. Cieˆncia e Cultura, 41: 566–75

Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1990. The origins of the first Americans: an analysis based onthe cranial morphology of early South American human remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 81: 247.

Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1991. Morphological affinities of the first Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains. Journal of Human Evolution, 21: 261–73.

Neves, W. A. and Meyer, D. 1993. The contribution of the morphology of early South and Northamerican skeletal remains to the understanding of the peopling of the Americas. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 16 (Suppl): 150–1.

Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F., Prous, A. and Ozolins, E. G. 1998. Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: morphologial affinities or the earliest known American. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 26(Suppl): 169.

Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F. and Ozolins, E. G. 1999a. Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli Aike, southern Chile. Intercieˆncia, 24: 258–63.

Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F. and Ozolins, E. G. 1999b. Modern human origins as seen from the peripheries. Journal of Human Evolution, 37: 129–33.

Neves W.A . and Pucciarelli H.M. 1991. "Morphological Affinities of the First Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains". Journal of Human Evolution 21:261-273. 

Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: A multivariate analysis with progressive numbers of variables. Homo 50:263-268

Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli-Aike, Southern Chile". Interciencia 24:258-263. [Online] Available at: 

Neves, W.A., Gonza´ lez-Jose´ , R., Hubbe, M., Kipnis, R., Araujo, A.G.M., Blasi, O., 2004. Early Holocene Human Skeletal Remains form Cerca Grande, Lagoa Santa, Central Brazil, and the origins of the first Americans. World Archaeology 36, 479-501

Neves, W. A., and M. Hubbe. 2005. Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102:18,309–18,314.

NYT (New York Times). (2015) Human’s First Appearance in the Americas  [Online] Available at: 

Powell,J.F. (2005). First Americans:Races, Evolution  and the Origin of Native Americans. Cambridge University Press.

Winters,C. (2013). African Empires in Ancient America. [Online] Available at:

Winters,C. (2015). THE PALEOAMERICANS CAME FROM AFRICA, jirr. Vol. 3 (3) July-September, pp.71-83/Winter. [Online] Available at:


Clyde Winters's picture

You said " Hence the importance of the very recent find of knife marks on bones in the Yukon dated before 20ka - those people coming a little too late (though no skeletal finds are known yet) were already trapped, north of the Ice Sheet. But those coming earlier were already south."

Ariane Burke, a professor in Université de Montréal's Department of Anthropology, observed that "Our discovery confirms the 'Beringian standstill [or genetic isolation] hypothesis,'" she said, "Genetic isolation would have corresponded to geographical isolation. During the Last Glacial Maximum, Beringia was isolated from the rest of North America by glaciers and steppes too inhospitable for human occupation to the West. It was potentially a place of refuge."

If the people in the Yukon were isolated, how did the people you claim moved South got there when the rest of North America due to glaciers and steppes was too inhospitable for human occupation? Cite the research paper claiming “those coming earlier were already south” and that they came from Siberia.

Read more of Burke’s statement at: .

It is not the case that ice blocked access to North America from c.12,000 back to c. 100,000 (speaking broadly - as implied by the statement "Due to the Ice blocking passage by Sea
from Asia and Europe, and the Beringa land bridge these people could not
have entered the Americas via Siberia." The glacial maximum lasted about 10,000 to 12,000 years, i.e before 12,000, thus it would have been clear most if not all of the previous 80ky. Check ice maximum maps on professional sites. Hence the importance of the very recent find of knife marks on bones in the Yukon dated before 20ka - those people coming a little too late (though no skeletal finds are known yet) were already trapped, north of the Ice Sheet. But those coming earlier were already south.

Oh wow, that was a lot of kale to digest. To begin with, black Athena is a ridiculous book It draws conclusions from data without even considering other ideas. Bernal wears cultural blinders and can only see what he wishes to see.
You can't take Classical Greece and extrapolate Archaic Greece from it. They are two completely different peoples and cultures!
He makes some stupendously stupid statements about the settlement of Pre Mycenaean by Africans that are patently false.
The Greeks learned to write from the Phoenicians? Really? Um...ever hear of Linear B? A wholly Greek script used by the Mycenaeans.
The thing you have to remember is that the entire ancient world underwent a cataclysmic change around 1200 bc. Entire empires were wiped out by the so called "Sea Peoples". Mycenaeans, the Hittites, the Cannanites, the Minoans, ALL of the ancient superpowers suddenly disappear. Only Egypt survives. Who were the Sea Peoples? No one really knows but, one thing appears to be true. They absorbed the people they conquered. This means that cultures of the Med Basin were amalgamated. West Asian, African and European ideas got all mixed together. The subsequent 2-300 years are called "The Greek Dark Ages". There is a complete break in historical continuity at this point. Very little is known from this period. One thing that is known is that this is the period when the Hellenic Greeks came into the Peloponnese and displaced the old Mycenaean culture. In the process they adopted the ancient Mycenaean gods, history and customs to their own culture. This is the age of Homer and the early Hellenes. It is during this time that Homer is thought to have adapted the Phoenician alphabet for his own uses. For the next 800 years the Iliad and the Odyssey will be the tool used to teach writing to the Greeks. What follows is the Classical Hellenistic period. The Era of Cleisthenes and Athenian Democracy, the era of the Spartan Agoge and the Persian wars. Throughout this period there is a massive sharing of ideas and information throughout the Aegean and Mediterranean basins. In the following Alexandrine era the pace of cross pollination only increases. With the ascent of Rome the entirety of Europe, North Africa and western Asia essentially become a unified cultural entity. So, as you can see, the movement of ideas throughout the region is multi-directional. Bernal's idea that Africans somehow settled Greece is patently false as is the notion that Africa is the source of Greek culture. One could just as easily claim that Egyptian Culture springs from Greece as the Ptolemys were Greeks. Yup, Cleopatra was not African at all. She was Greek and Greek was the language of the Egyptian court. These are facts but, they do not validate the claim. The rest of your post is just so much goblty gook. As I said in a previous post, You are too focused on what you want to be true to even entertain the idea that you may be wrong. Broaden your horizons my friend. If you truly want to know I'll be happy to share a number of scientific resources with you on the subject.

Clyde Winters's picture

The idea of implicit racism has nothing to do with boys playing it provides an explaination for why we feel the way we feel about varied subject; And how we view the role of people not belonging to our culture and ethnicity  The idea that our cultural traditions influence how we percieve certain phenomena is not new to academia. The idea that none evidentiary factors influence how we view history is not new.  Martin Bernal in Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, was one of the first researchers to note how the Western academia beginning in the 18th century began to rewrite history denying an African influence on ancient Greek civilization , and ancient history generally.

We assume that any article or book written by an establishment member of the academe is based on valid historical truths, erudite scholarship and impeccable research. Although insiders and outsiders alike, believe this to be true, sociological research indicates that there are unconscious cognitive structures within each individual that determines how they perceive "reality". These structures are called doxa.

 Commenting on these schema Berlinerblau in  Heresy in the University: The Black Athena Controversy and the Responsibilities of American Intellectuals noted that "These types of theories share the assumption that human beings know things that they do not even know that they know; that they "possess" knowledge about the world which exists in some sort of cognitive substrate, beyond the realm of discourse" (p.106). Loïc Wacquant says that doxa is " a realm of implicit and unstated beliefs". Given the research suggesting that doxa exist, support the view that some researchers, like Willy,  allow their hatred of multiculturalism and belief that Africans played no role in ancient history , define their discourse on teaching and writing about the anthropology and history of Black and African people. Moreover, it suggest that when topics such as Africans being in America before Columbus is attacked by  some members of the academe and laymen , these attacks are accepted without any reservation or test of the validity of the claims.

This doxa was evident in Willy’s response to the present article and the comments herein. Willy has made numerous unsubstantiated  claims , about the PaleoAmericans which I have falsified by presenting abundant evidence in support of my claims. Yet he continues to ignore this research, while not presenting any evidence supporting his views.

I have presented numerous citations of articles claiming the PaleoAmericans were not contemporary Indians, that have not been falsified by other researchers, yet, Willy continues to deny the reality of this research. Given the abundance of evidence proving the non mongoloid origin of the PaleoAmericans,Willy can only be rejecting this evidence as a result of doxa and implicit racism , because this rejection of the evidence by Willy is not based on data, because non exist. Willey’s comments therefore must be unconscious biases because he has given no evidence that Neves’, Powell and etc., research has been falsified. Absence of evidence supporting his view, makes it clear Willy is making judgments about PaleoAmericans based on his own bias about Black people.

Yes it does matter who picks their nose first. Professors Dr. Friedrich and Dr. Scott Nappe , says picking your nose and eating it is healthy for two reasons: 1) it keeps your nose far cleaner and 2) it may boost the immune system.

So granted as you noted: “There is enough evidence out there floating around to show that in many cases the 'science' is used for ulterior motives other then having the truth be known ? So what is the causal reader really going to believe ?”.  The answer is simple weight the evidence a researcher provides to support his/her claims.

 I am a falsificationist . As a result, I believe a statement or hypothesis   is nullified and  "shown to be false" through the presentation of abundance of evidence supporting or falsifying a claim.

The causal reader  must evaluate the evidence presented during a debate. In this debate I have cited numerous references supporting my claim. Willy has presented no evidence. Given the weight of the evidence a causal reader should accept the proposition supported by the most evidence.

The moment you brought in the charge or racism it became boys playing. You have your opinions based on what you have chosen to believe in . He has his opinion based on what he has chosen to believe in. "banging your head (s) on some mad buggers wall " gives you nothing but a headache. How are we/you going to define what is a causal reader? There is enough evidence out there floating around to show that in many cases the 'science' is used for ulterior motives other then having the truth be known ? So what is the causal reader really going to believe ?

Anything is possible is it no?

Does it really matter in the grand pattern who was the first to pick their nose


Next article