Meowfoundland wrote:Why do you assume they were "genocided"? Could they not have just been out competed?
Much like the aborigines of Australia! Go whitey!
Advertisement
by Seangoli » Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:05 pm
Rhodmhire wrote:"New archaeological evidence suggests that America was first discovered by Stone Age people from Europe..."
Says the Independent, which is based in the UK.
Hmmm. Interesting coincidence.
by Farnhamia » Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:08 pm
Seangoli wrote:Rhodmhire wrote:"New archaeological evidence suggests that America was first discovered by Stone Age people from Europe..."
Says the Independent, which is based in the UK.
Hmmm. Interesting coincidence.
There are two important names in the article, Bradley and Stanford. They have been drumming this crud for about two decades, and the entire idea is taken less than seriously in the Americas for a myriad of reasons. It had a brief hit of popularity in the field during the 90's. They are simply trying to ride this out as long as possible. Simply put, this concept isn't relevant these days in the archaeological field. It has long since been debunked by relatively simple analysis of the manufacturing styles between the Solutrean and the American Lanceolate complexes. Let alone the fact that every pre-Clovis site that has been found has not used anything even remotely similar to the Solutrean complex(Or later paleo period American complexes).
by Seangoli » Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:17 pm
Farnhamia wrote:Seangoli wrote:
There are two important names in the article, Bradley and Stanford. They have been drumming this crud for about two decades, and the entire idea is taken less than seriously in the Americas for a myriad of reasons. It had a brief hit of popularity in the field during the 90's. They are simply trying to ride this out as long as possible. Simply put, this concept isn't relevant these days in the archaeological field. It has long since been debunked by relatively simple analysis of the manufacturing styles between the Solutrean and the American Lanceolate complexes. Let alone the fact that every pre-Clovis site that has been found has not used anything even remotely similar to the Solutrean complex(Or later paleo period American complexes).
What do you mean, not even remotely similar? The Clovis and Solutrean artifacts are both made out of stone, right? Right?
Exactly.
by New Ziedrich » Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:18 pm
Walden Pond wrote:The first people of North America were from Europe. Thousands of years later, invaders from Asia crossed the land bridge from Siberia and stole our land.
by Fartsniffage » Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:20 pm
Seangoli wrote:Farnhamia wrote:What do you mean, not even remotely similar? The Clovis and Solutrean artifacts are both made out of stone, right? Right?
Exactly.
Heh, a joke, I know.
However, as a serious answer to jovial question, the answer is relatively simple. Although both have similar appearance, and there's only a few ways to actually manufacture stone tools, there are many different methods and reduction techniques that can be used. These reduction techniques can leave tell-tale signs of how a tool was made. Given enough data, you can gain a pretty accurate understanding of each step along the way. These processes will have a degree of variability, but will follow a general pattern within a group as it is sort of learned yet unlearned behavior. You are learning to do so by example and experience, and through said example you are learning your group's means of production rather unconsciously. Trace it back, learn the basic steps involved, and you have yourself a pretty good indicator of how a tool was made.
Problem with the Solutrean hypothesis is that the technique to produce the Solutrean points appears to be quite different than Clovis. Although the basic concept is there(as it is with all stone tools), there are quite a few different trajectories that can be taken once you have begun the process. I can go into more detail if you want, but it gets dull from here on out.
by Rio Cana » Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:28 pm
Acerbic wrote:Doesn't concern me that some ancient Europeans were in America first and were absorbed or defeated by a superior civilization (in this case, the Native Americans). The Native Americans were still defeated/absorbed by another civilization later on.
by The Archregimancy » Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:38 pm
Seangoli wrote:Rhodmhire wrote:"New archaeological evidence suggests that America was first discovered by Stone Age people from Europe..."
Says the Independent, which is based in the UK.
Hmmm. Interesting coincidence.
There are two important names in the article, Bradley and Stanford. They have been drumming this crud for about two decades, and the entire idea is taken less than seriously in the Americas for a myriad of reasons. It had a brief hit of popularity in the field during the 90's. They are simply trying to ride this out as long as possible. Simply put, this concept isn't relevant these days in the archaeological field. It has long since been debunked by relatively simple analysis of the manufacturing styles between the Solutrean and the American Lanceolate complexes. Let alone the fact that every pre-Clovis site that has been found has not used anything even remotely similar to the Solutrean complex(Or later paleo period American complexes).
by 1000 Cats » Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:41 pm
Norstal wrote:You are a hatiater: one who radiates hate.
Meryuma wrote:No one is more of a cat person than 1000 Cats!
FST wrote:Any sexual desires which can be satiated within a healthy and consensual way should be freed from shame. Bizarre kinks and fetishes are acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of as long as they are acted out in a context where everyone consents and no one is hurt.
by The Black Forrest » Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:38 pm
The Archregimancy wrote:
I'm monitoring the behind the scenes professional discussion with some interest. If anyone adds something particularly new and salient over the next couple of days, I'll post it here.
by Walden Pond » Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:54 pm
Your summary is wholly innaccurate.Sociobiology wrote:Wow this is funny, look I have a tool, that sort matches European style and it is from 10,000 years after Asians colonized the continent, that means Europeans got here first ... wait.
New archaeological evidence suggests that America was first discovered by Stone Age people from Europe – 10,000 years before the Siberian-originating ancestors of the American Indians set foot in the New World.
What’s more, chemical analysis carried out last year on a European-style stone knife found in Virginia back in 1971 revealed that it was made of French-originating flint.
The sources are all pretty solid, naming specific evidence and specific scientists. By this logic, no one on NSG should ever cite anything from any "sourceless editorial" (newspaper), and they do with regularity.Sociobiology wrote:plus you have to love people who think sourceless editorials can be relied upon to accurately portray science.
by Walden Pond » Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:00 pm
What? White people can be native.Farnhamia wrote:Walden Pond wrote:Because they're not the first people in America, they came to America and genocided the Native white people.
The "Native white people"? Are you that ... I don't even know what the word is, that you have to dig up people who have been dead millennia to justify yourself?
by Walden Pond » Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:05 pm
I don't see how this follows. You don't need advanced calculus to navigate an ice bridge in a canoe. Regardless, the Ice Age hunters probably did understand two plus two.Wisconsin7 wrote:Beyond the obvious arguments, I think humans would have had some trouble crossing the Atlantic when we were still struggling with two plus two.
Boats have served as short-distance transportation since early times.[1] Circumstantial evidence, such as the early settlement of Australia over 40,000 years ago, and findings in Crete dated 130,000 years ago[2], suggests that boats have been used since ancient times. The earliest boats have been predicted[3] to be logboats. The oldest boats to be found by archaeological excavation are logboats from around 7,000–10,000 years ago. The oldest recovered boat in the world is the Pesse canoe; it is a dugout or hollowed tree trunk from a Pinus sylvestris. It was constructed somewhere between 8200 and 7600 B.C. This canoe is exhibited in the Drents Museum in Assen, Netherlands;[4][5] other very old dugout boats have been recovered.[6][7][8][9] A 7,000 year-old seagoing boat made from reeds and tar has been found in Kuwait.[10
by Seangoli » Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:10 pm
Walden Pond wrote:The tools date from 10,000 years before known Asian settlement, and have been chemically analysed to be from Europe.
by Walden Pond » Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:12 pm
by Walden Pond » Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:17 pm
Europeans != Indo-Europeans. There were humans in Europe long before the Indo-Europeans arrived, and they mixed. The Germanic languages in particular show signs of a pre-Indo-European substrate. To this day, Finnish, Estonian, Basque and Hungarian are non-Indo-European European languages/people.Sidhae wrote:I wonder why do these types of debates always degrade to flame wars...
I don't see what this discovery has to do with contemporary race relations or politics. Those stone-age Europeans weren't even Indo-European (modern European ancestors, respectively) to begin with.
Speaking of which, it still hasn't been accurately determined where Indo-Europeans themselves originated. Some speak of Caucasus and Asia Minor, others point at Southern Russia, Central Asia or even Western China.
by Farnhamia » Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:19 pm
Walden Pond wrote:Europeans != Indo-Europeans. There were humans in Europe long before the Indo-Europeans arrived, and they mixed. The Germanic languages in particular show signs of a pre-Indo-European substrate. To this day, Finnish, Estonian, Basque and Hungarian are non-Indo-European European languages/people.Sidhae wrote:I wonder why do these types of debates always degrade to flame wars...
I don't see what this discovery has to do with contemporary race relations or politics. Those stone-age Europeans weren't even Indo-European (modern European ancestors, respectively) to begin with.
Speaking of which, it still hasn't been accurately determined where Indo-Europeans themselves originated. Some speak of Caucasus and Asia Minor, others point at Southern Russia, Central Asia or even Western China.
by Nazis in Space » Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:26 pm
by Mosasauria » Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:31 pm
by Farnhamia » Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:33 pm
Mosasauria wrote:I'd like some more research done into this.
It seems much more likely that Siberian natives crossed Beringia before any European could cross a North Atlantic land bridge.
by The Archregimancy » Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:54 am
Seangoli wrote:Walden Pond wrote:The tools date from 10,000 years before known Asian settlement, and have been chemically analysed to be from Europe.
I still have to get to Fartsniffage's inquiry (Damn you!), but this is relatively quick. All flints are essentially what Archaeologists call "chert". Chemical analysis on chert is rather well-known to be difficult if not impossible due to the wide variety of inclusions that are present. The problem comes in that there has been no real or true "marker" found that is necessarily exclusive to a single chert source. Two chert samples known to be from the same source have been analyzed and appear to have widely different chemical signature, with one occasionally "appearing" to originate from a wholly different source.
That said, it's an intriguing find but hardly conclusive. In reality, you can't even rule out local sources a great deal due to the wide variation in chemical signatures that can be present in the same source, let alone sources an ocean away. Only in certain cases where a given chert type is known to be relatively homologous is such an analysis really conclusive. Most cherts, however, are incredibly variable which makes this piece of evidence rather suspect.
It is well accepted that the Americas were the last continents reached by modern humans, most likely through Beringia. However, the precise time and mode of the colonization of the New World remain hotly disputed issues. Native American populations exhibit almost exclusively five mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups (A–D and X). Haplogroups A–D are also frequent in Asia, suggesting a northeastern Asian origin of these lineages. However, the differential pattern of distribution and frequency of haplogroup X led some to suggest that it may represent an independent migration to the Americas. Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models. A detailed demographic history of the mtDNA sequences estimated with a Bayesian coalescent method indicates a complex model for the peopling of the Americas, in which the initial differentiation from Asian populations ended with a moderate bottleneck in Beringia during the last glacial maximum (LGM), around ∼23,000 to ∼19,000 years ago. Toward the end of the LGM, a strong population expansion started ∼18,000 and finished ∼15,000 years ago. These results support a pre-Clovis occupation of the New World, suggesting a rapid settlement of the continent along a Pacific coastal route.
by Galla- » Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:56 am
Fashiontopia wrote:Look don't come here talking bad about Americans, that will get you cussed out faster than relativity.
Besides: Most posters in this thread are Americans, and others who are non-Americans have no problems co-existing so shut that trap...
by Tsaraine » Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:12 am
Seangoli wrote:As far as I can tell from the rather vague article, they are continuing to thump their chests about the "connection" without any actual new evidence being found (The sites in questions appear to be well-known, if not disputed, pre-Clovis period sites). They are just retooling their argument.
by Farnhamia » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:13 am
Tsaraine wrote:Seangoli wrote:As far as I can tell from the rather vague article, they are continuing to thump their chests about the "connection" without any actual new evidence being found (The sites in questions appear to be well-known, if not disputed, pre-Clovis period sites). They are just retooling their argument.
A paleolithic technology pun? That's awesome. I commend you, sir.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Australian rePublic, Neu California, Nirvasyl, Riviere Renard, Tungstan, Turenia
Advertisement