Page 2 of 6
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:36 amby Farnhamia
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.
New evidence suggests Stone Age hunters from Europe discovered America 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. A remarkable series of several dozen European-style stone tools, dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, have been
discovered at six locations along the US east coast. Three of the sites are on the Delmarva Peninsular in Maryland,
discovered by archaeologist Dr Darrin Lowery of the University of Delaware. One is in Pennsylvania and another in Virginia. A sixth was
discovered by scallop-dredging fishermen on the seabed 60 miles from the Virginian coast on what, in prehistoric times, would have been dry land.
Does this information change how you view race relations in North
America? How you view the "Native Americans" and "First Nations"?
Why would it have anything to do with race realtions in North
America? I suppose people might have crossed from Europe during the Ice, but so what? They didn't stay. And there's a problem with artifacts dredged up from the ocean floor: they were dredged up from the ocean floor. Kind of hard to analyze the site, don't you know.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:37 amby Sociobiology
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.
plus you have to love people who think sourceless editorials can be relied upon to accurately portray science.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:40 amby Utopia FTW
As everyone knows the first people on America (which in reality should be named Vespuccia) were the Atlanteans, followed by the first Egyptians which were also really Atlanteans.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:40 amby Farnhamia
Walden Pond wrote:Meowfoundland wrote:I view them exactly the same as I did before. Why should my views change?
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?
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:43 amby Wisconsin7
Beyond the obvious arguments, I think humans would have had some trouble crossing the Atlantic when we were still struggling with two plus two.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:55 amby Tekania
Walden Pond wrote:Meowfoundland wrote:I view them exactly the same as I did before. Why should my views change?
Because they're not the first people in
America, they came to
America and genocided the Native white people.
You don't know that they genocided. There's also a high liklihood that they were simply absorbed.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:56 amby Farnhamia
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.
The idea is that they came over the ice sheet that extended from Europe to North
America, in boats, subsisting on the sea life, seals and what-not, on the way.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:59 amby Sidhae
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.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:24 amby Schwabenreich
I wonder, considering how much people migrated in these times, is there any gurantee that these people, whom passed through europe to the americas (if the theory and evidence is correct that is), that they were more related to modern europeans, then the people who migrated through what is now modern Siberia?
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:38 amby Farnhamia
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.
True enough. Central Asia and China are out of the running for Indo-European origins, I think, the contenders being the Ukrainian steppes, Anatolia, the Balkans and the Baltic. I lean toward the Ukrainian hypothesis, myself, the kurgan culture and all that.
But yeah, why race relations in North
America should be affacted by this is beyond me.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:52 amby Schwabenreich
I can only really see this challenging the term 'first nations'. Anything more then that, at the moment, to me, seems silly.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:02 amby Xsyne
Schwabenreich wrote:I can only really see this challenging the term 'first nations'. Anything more then that, at the moment, to me, seems silly.
Doesn't even challenge that term, nations come way after this.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:04 amby Seangoli
Farnhamia wrote: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.
The idea is that they came over the ice sheet that extended from Europe to North
America, in boats, subsisting on the sea life, seals and what-not, on the way.
Which brings up many questions, not the least of which that the Solutrean tools were not exactly built for seal hunting or marine resource procurement. There is very little, if any, evidence that they actually could exploit marine resources (Such as seals), being as how their tools were largely adapted towards big game hunting.
Or the fact that they Bradley and Stanford willfully fudged the numbers on ice coverage to make their hypothesis work. Or perhaps their continuing tactic of stating "We have the smoking gun, but you can't see it until we publish our next book. Available for 19.99!"
The two are not taken very seriously in the archaeological world for a reason.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:04 amby Ragnarsdomr
The current largely Germanic population of Europe is nothing like these Europeans would have been. So, culturally speaking, the best guess I could suppose at who they would have been related to would be the Basque, and that's a stretch as I'm not hugely engaged in pre-Hellenic European history. Still, it's silly to assume anything like that. Should we care that the Germans were originally Asian immigrants, or that the Hebrews most definitely did not originate in Israel? 'Course not, population movements happen, and what matters is the current culture, not previous ones that were out-competed by the modern one.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:15 amby Seangoli
Schwabenreich wrote:I wonder, considering how much people migrated in these times, is there any gurantee that these people, whom passed through europe to the americas (
if the theory and evidence is correct that is
), that they were more related to modern
europeans, then the people who migrated through what is now modern Siberia?
To the bolded: It is not. Their evidence is slim to nil, correlative at best (And that's even stretching the term), and they have been known to alter their data or outright lie to support their hypothesis. And outright ignore data the contrary, such as the manufacturing style between the Solutrean complex and
far later American lanceolate complexes being almost a world apart. The complexes in question are only superficially similar, and once you get down to the details it's rather apparent that major differences occur.
Let alone the fact that nothing of "Solutrean-like" appearance shows up in the Americas until nearly 10,000 years after the Solutrean complex in Europe has disappeared. Pre-Clovis artifacts have very little resemblance to the Lanceolate artifacts of either the earlier Solutrean or the later Clovis periods. 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.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:49 amby The Black Forrest
Meowfoundland wrote:Walden Pond wrote:Because they're not the first people in
America, they came to
America and genocided the Native white people.
Why do you assume they were "genocided"? Could they not have just been out competed?
Or absorbed.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:52 amby The Black Forrest
Sidhae wrote:I wonder why do these types of debates always degrade to flame wars...
It was the intent when you start with
Does this information change how you view race relations in North
America? How you view the "Native Americans" and "First Nations"?
And then follow up with geniciding white people comments.
I was going to post the article as I find this interesting.
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.
Oh you big silly. Europe means white people. Didn't you get the memo?
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:01 amby United State of America
The Matthew Islands wrote:God damn immigrants Teking our jerbs even the stone age.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:02 amby Vousielle
If this was ever the case it was never a significant population. Otherwise there would be faaaaaar more genetic diversity among the native peoples. I don't understand the point of this post really.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:07 amby Risottia
Walden Pond wrote:Does this information change how you view race relations in North
America?
No, doesn't change anything. I've always considered Native Americans and Imported Americans as barbarians, both of them.
Equal trolling is equal, you know.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:09 amby Volnotova
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.
New evidence suggests Stone Age hunters from Europe discovered America 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. A remarkable series of several dozen European-style stone tools, dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, have been
discovered at six locations along the US east coast. Three of the sites are on the Delmarva Peninsular in Maryland,
discovered by archaeologist Dr Darrin Lowery of the University of Delaware. One is in Pennsylvania and another in Virginia. A sixth was
discovered by scallop-dredging fishermen on the seabed 60 miles from the Virginian coast on what, in prehistoric times, would have been dry land.
Does this information change how you view race relations in North
America? How you view the "Native Americans" and "First Nations"?
I think the whole talk about race relations is a total joke.
I think the whole talk about race is a total joke.
That said, it looks intriguing to me.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:10 amby Tekania
My POV? What happened between whose ancestors thousands upon thousands of years ago has absolutely no relevance to how people should interact today.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:10 amby Samuraikoku
How is this supposed to change anything?
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:45 amby EnragedMaldivians
Walden Pond wrote:Meowfoundland wrote:I view them exactly the same as I did before. Why should my views change?
Because they're not the first people in
America, they came to
America and genocided the Native white people.
And by "genocided" you would probably include that they may have inter-bred with them; going by the bizzare stormfront logic that "race-mixing" = white genocide..
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:53 amby Nazis in Space
Btw, there is some evidence suggesting that modern indians - the ones wandering in over the bering strait, and being most closely related to modern north- and central asian folks - were not the first to colonise the continent, being preceded by a seaborne colonisation of people that'd resemble modern aboriginies or melanesians (Traveling along the coastline from asia to north america), who are in turn most closely related to modern africans.
Basically, the first owners of America may well have been darkies.