Jim, I understand your questions about X and no Clovis in Asia, but there are explanations that don't require unsubstantiated claims of a European migration. First of all, there is X in Asia. We're still arguing about the relationships between the European, Asian, and Native American variants, but every Native American mtDNA haplogroup has now been found in Asia.
Secondly, the Clovis-first scenario has been dismissed by many archaeologists - including me
. I accept a pre-Clovis presence in North America and think that Clovis developed in here. If Clovis did indeed develop here, the absence of Clovis in Asia makes perfect sense. And, the mere fact that there were people here before Clovis neither requires nor in and of itself supports the idea of a European migration. The scenario that best fits the evidence is probably one of multiple migrations from Asia, taking various routes at different times. It'll take more than "hey, these things kind of look alike" to convince me that a Solutrean migration occurred.
Secondly, the Clovis-first scenario has been dismissed by many archaeologists - including me

Comment