Talk:Anzick-1

Peer Review

This is a great article. All of the necessary facts are there without any bias. The reader has the opportunity to learn about osteological analysis and be grounded in the information that allowed information on Anzick-1 to become accepted fact, but in such a way that they will not be overwhelmed by scientific details.

A few suggestions that came to mind: 

• I am personally interested in the technicalities of how DNA is successfully extracted and able to be studied from skeletal remains. What techniques are used and which parts of bone are ideal for extracting DNA? What technology is used to 'read' the DNA?

• What are "some of the cultural" qualities of the remains that you mention in the osteological findings section?

Overall, great article!!! In my eyes, your article fulfills the requirements for a good Wikipedia page and does not exhibit any of the warning sings in the 'evaluating wikipedia' pamphlet.

Deitkm (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this article looks great! As I was reading through the article, I thought it was odd that descriptions of the Osteological Findings were included, but they weren't actually found on the infant remains. For instance, the Skeletal Markers for health and the Cranial Vault Modification sections were included although none of these features were found on the remains.

• Is it possible to condense these sections of this to just describe the various tests that were carried out on the remains?

I hope this information is found to be helpfulRuckers2j (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Solutrean Hypothesis

The Solutrean Hypothesis is and always has been a minority position. Here it is given equal standing with the mainstream view, and then the well is poisoned by listing one proponent, the author of a novel called "White Apocalypse"! I am going to make some adjustments.70.75.233.253 (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The same paragraph refers to mtDNA haplogroup X originating in Europe. I do not have the access to the works cited - do they make this claim? mtDNA X is fairly widespread in West Eurasia and is not thought to originate in Europe AFAIK. It is rather that X is not found in East Asia. 70.75.233.253 (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

A better representation of the Solutrean Hypthesis would be the work at the Smithsonian Institute. It is correct that anyone even calling the Solutrean people "white" is ignorant. They originated in north africa and are not even related to modern Europeans. Clovis culture seems to have originated on the northeast coast, where the oldest stone artifacts are found in great abundance, while they are relative rare in the west. Finding a skeleton in western Montana brings up questions of whether we are seeing a pure Clovis person or the result of the collision with Siberian people who might be Siberian people who interbred with Clovis or simply adopted their tool technology.

Perhaps it is time to give ancient people more credit. American may have been visited by many people, Polynesians, Siberians, Solutreans, Vikings, Chinese, etc. DonPMitchell (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Stanford discusses the consequences of the Anzick-1 genome in this article: * The Solutrean Hypothesis Meets Mainstream Science

Cranial vault modification

A whole " ==...=="-level section is given to Cranial vault modification only to conclude (in the LAST sentence) that "The shape of Anzick-1's cranial vault revealed no evidence of cultural cranial vault modification." This is silly. IF cvm is to be included, then reduce its rank and don't wait until the end of the section to say that it is not present. But as it is, I see no reason for even mentioning it (an aside simply stating that the skull has no modification might do). After all, many cultures do lots of things that we do not mention being absent from the remains. 87.247.33.223 (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Anzick age?

If he was a Clovis why the dates of his life were atleast 200 yrs later than the accepted Clovis era? Someone can find a source to explain this discrepancy? 62.11.3.98 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

His grave goods were Clovis, and he's close enough in time to known Clovis sites that the 200-year discrepancy could be due either to not having found every Clovis site (which is pretty much a given) or a dating error. Sumanuil (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

But there is more than this; by one side, we see that Anzick-1 was about 12,700-12,500+ yrs, but one source that talks about this old baby says, that... Clovis lasted from 13,000 to 12,600 yrs ago, so it would be not the Anzick-1 too late, but the Clovis culture itself! But wait, there is more: in the article 'anzick site' i read that in 2006 the site was called for 13,000 yrs calibrated years. So we have either 1) a younger Clovis culture dating or 2)an older Anzick site dating. I recommend to sort out this stuff, as we know, Clovis culture was pivotal (both in apparence and vanishing) in ancient Americas (including the Blitzkrieg hypotesis). It would be interesting also to know what kind of bones were used for the Anzick tools. Good 2020 (AC). 62.11.3.98 (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)