and New World populations, that having to do with the genetic make-up of these two populations and finally that having to do with the linguistic variations and connections between these two populations. It should be noted that these three lines of evidence support the same conclusions but they are in fact independent of each other, arising from entirely different causes and circumstances. In fact, it is their very independence from each other combined with the fact that they all tend to support the same scientific claims that makes them so convincing (Greenberg, Turner, & Zegura, 1986, p. 477).
This paper examines the dental evidence supporting a tripartite migratory pattern first. The dental evidence is somewhat complex for a non-specialist, but it can be summarized into four noteworthy observations that produce important conclusions. These are the following: (1) All New World groups resemble each other in terms of dentition more than they do any Old World group; (2) dental variation among the native peoples of the northernmost part of the Americas is greater than that of the people native to the southern part of the hemisphere; (3) the native peoples of the New World are more like Asians in their dentition than they are like Asians (or Asians are like Europeans); and (4) all native peoples can be divided by their dentition types into three different groups. (Greenberg, Turner, & Zegura, 1986, p. 481). The logical consequences of these points are the following: first, that humans must have come to the New World in three distinct migratory patterns; second, that the first human settlements must have been in the northern part of the continent and third, that New World populations must have come from Asia because of the similarity with Asian dentition patterns. This last is one of the most significant aspects of the evidence drawn from the dental record because it refutes claims that the first Americans were related not to Asians but ...