Tent?

Doesn’t makes sense to live on ground in a cold, flat and scrubby environment.  If they had fire they could melt the earth and live below ground.  Large mammal bones provide excellent protien rather than fire fuel.  There may have been other food sources like fish.
The genetics posited reflect a multiple ‘land bridge’ migration theory as ‘asian’ genetics bred out over time.  This is just a theory and not the best one.  If we go with out breeding ‘asian’ genetics we may be discounting the original Indigenous migratiin and its origins other than ‘land bridge.’

http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/discovery/the-10-000-year-camp-out-1.1654109#.UxB5bPc1imo

http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/discovery/the-10-000-year-camp-out-1.1654109#.UxB5bPc1imo

Mystery of Native Americans’ missing 10,000 years solved | Mail Online

Natives, Aboriginals.  Indigenous people are the first migration.  Genetically, secondary migrations usually do make contributions.

The land bridge theory only validates that migratins may have occurred.  The idea that indigenous people survived recent ‘ice ages’ is common and scientists look for validation.  Ths theory tries to excuse the dificulty of genetic and other artifacts around 10,000 years.  It does not explain indigenous genetic artifacts on the Calfornia coast at 15,000 years plus.  Rather than focusing on validating migrations other than indigenous and ‘ice age’ survival, although very interesting, the research should focus on actual indigenous people.  The great lakes always were home to indigenous people long before secondary migrations, ‘ice ages, and ‘land bridges.’  More interesting might be the ‘ice age oasis’ where indigenous people survived siberian and polar vortices cold – the current expressions of the ‘ice ages.’  The ‘land bridge oasis’ could be further investigated as the meeting of indigenous people and migrations meeting, probably more popular from cultural perspectives than boring genetics.  Maybe a movie…..

Secondary migrations are recent and not indigenous and the ‘land bridge’ theory needs to be expressed from an indigenous perspective rather than post indigenous migrations.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2569469/Mystery-Native-Americans-missing-10-000-years-solved.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2569469/Mystery-Native-Americans-missing-10-000-years-solved.html

Recent Migrations

Any scientist would be skeptical.  The paper mentiins genome sequenced ties to a migration based on non human artifacts dating and human artifact associated dating with no mention of haplo group, but ties to what mention consider indigenous peoples or ‘clovis culture’ in what we consider still fairly recent dates.  We pay attentiin at 15,000 + human artifact actual human genome sequencing or ‘Genetic Archeology.’ 

We recommend an actual scientific study and publication and disposition by actual indigenous persons rather than risky science and hiding of artifacts under mystery and illusion of culture.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-genome-suggests-native-americans-really-did-descend-from-the-first-americans/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-genome-suggests-native-americans-really-did-descend-from-the-first-americans/