Discovery of America - 10/14/19
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
The Norse got here first ,tho some say the Egyptians did.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
I guess the Indians didn’t discover it?
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
Originally Posted by nmitchell
The Norse got here first ,tho some say the Egyptians did.
not to throw a monkey wrench into the workings, but likely the siberians from east asia discovered america.
then columbus, and maybe even ol leif, and maybe a few egyptians also landed and claimed america as their own.
i like the idea of discovering america, but the idea of invading america is really something to talk about in some detail.
there were already folks here from the siberian countryside; and maybe from extreme south america from polynesia?
i don't know. all i know is what i was told in public school to memorize, to learn, and to use the info to pass a gov't test.
we all must remember that the responsibility of the winners of a Great Battle is that they have to write the memoirs of the effort.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
Originally Posted by hanco
I guess the Indians didn’t discover it?
The ancestors of the the people we refer to as Indians certainly did not discover North America. There were Europeans here prior to them (Solutreans / Clovis), but they weren't the first either.
Interesting from an anthropological standpoint but entirely moot as it regards who has a claim to the place today.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
Originally Posted by Stickfight
Originally Posted by hanco
I guess the Indians didn’t discover it?
The ancestors of the the people we refer to as Indians certainly did not discover North America. There were Europeans here prior to them (Solutreans / Clovis), but they weren't the first either.
Interesting from an anthropological standpoint but entirely moot as it regards who has a claim to the place today.
the people who claim the land are the folks who have the technology, ideology, and the votes that allow them to do so.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
Flipping funny...
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
Great show, I remember watching it every week as a kid.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
Originally Posted by Stickfight
Originally Posted by hanco
I guess the Indians didn’t discover it?
The ancestors of the the people we refer to as Indians certainly did not discover North America. There were Europeans here prior to them (Solutreans / Clovis), but they weren't the first either.
?? People got here prior to the Siberians coming to Alaska? Who? First I have heard of this. Have any cites to sources? This is interesting, would like to read more about it. I thought the established school of thought was Siberians, then Norse, then Columbus, with unproven speculation about Polynesians and Irish and possibly Chinese visits sprinkled somewhere in the timeline. If an archeological team has proven landfall prior to Siberians, I'd like to read about it. Thanks.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
To the victors goes the history.
Honestly who gives a rats ass. We built it...and that can’t be argued.
God has a plan...that’s all I know
Honestly who gives a rats ass. We built it...and that can’t be argued.
God has a plan...that’s all I know
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
Dunno why the libs are all pissed off at Columbus.
He brought diversity to the Americas.
Diversity is supposed ta be good.
He brought diversity to the Americas.
Diversity is supposed ta be good.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
Originally Posted by Fubarski
Dunno why the libs are all pissed off at Columbus.
He brought diversity to the Americas.
.
He brought diversity to the Americas.
.
And PIZZA ! 😜
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
The Indians didn't discover it first. the nurse did,
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
Originally Posted by Stickfight
The ancestors of the people we refer to as Indians certainly did not discover North America. There were Europeans here prior to them
(Solutreans / Clovis),
but they weren't the first either.
Genetic data shows 80% of native American Indians are actually direct descendants of the Clovis.
2017, evidence of people living in a cave system Yukon Territory western Canada, [Bluefish Caves], may indicate
they left Siberia and arrived at Beringia some 24,000 yrs ago.
but then came Noah and the great biblical flood, right?
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
Originally Posted by Starman
Originally Posted by Stickfight
The ancestors of the people we refer to as Indians certainly did not discover North America. There were Europeans here prior to them
(Solutreans / Clovis),
but they weren't the first either.
Genetic data shows 80% of native American Indians are actually direct descendants of the Clovis.
2017, evidence of people living in a cave system Yukon Territory western Canada, [Bluefish Caves], may indicate
they left Siberia and arrived at Beringia some 24,000 yrs ago.
but then came Noah and the great biblical flood, right?
And 98% of statistics are made up on the spot...
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170328-the-first-people-who-populated-the-americas
quote] BBC:
the people who arrived in the Americas – when the ice finally retreated and allowed entry – were genetically different to the individuals
who had left Siberia thousands of years earlier. "Arguably one of the most important parts of the process is what happened in Beringia.
That's when they differentiated from Asians and started becoming Native Americans," says Connie Mulligan of the University of Florida
https://anthro.ufl.edu/mulligan/
quote]
In 2015, a study using more advanced genetic techniques came to a similar conclusion. Rasmus Nielsen of the University of California,
Berkeley, US, and colleagues found that the "vast majority" of Native Americans must have originated from just one colonisation event.
"There's been no turnover or change in the population group as some people had previously hypothesised," says Nielsen.
In fact, about 80% of Native Americans today are direct descendants of the Clovis people,
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/aab3884
quote] BBC:
the people who arrived in the Americas – when the ice finally retreated and allowed entry – were genetically different to the individuals
who had left Siberia thousands of years earlier. "Arguably one of the most important parts of the process is what happened in Beringia.
That's when they differentiated from Asians and started becoming Native Americans," says Connie Mulligan of the University of Florida
https://anthro.ufl.edu/mulligan/
quote]
In 2015, a study using more advanced genetic techniques came to a similar conclusion. Rasmus Nielsen of the University of California,
Berkeley, US, and colleagues found that the "vast majority" of Native Americans must have originated from just one colonisation event.
"There's been no turnover or change in the population group as some people had previously hypothesised," says Nielsen.
In fact, about 80% of Native Americans today are direct descendants of the Clovis people,
https:/
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
Starman, from whence did the clovis people come, pray tell?
allus heard the polynesian bloodlines landed in the south end of south america and spread north.
the american indians met up with them down around Mexico somewheres. just hearsay, i know.
but where there's smoke there might be a bit of fire, sooner or later?
add-in the egyptians, maybe the Vikings, and others.
and when columbus arrived, death came with him.
allus heard the polynesian bloodlines landed in the south end of south america and spread north.
the american indians met up with them down around Mexico somewheres. just hearsay, i know.
but where there's smoke there might be a bit of fire, sooner or later?
add-in the egyptians, maybe the Vikings, and others.
and when columbus arrived, death came with him.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
Originally Posted by Stickfight
Originally Posted by hanco
I guess the Indians didn’t discover it?
The ancestors of the the people we refer to as Indians certainly did not discover North America. There were Europeans here prior to them (Solutreans / Clovis), but they weren't the first either.
Interesting from an anthropological standpoint but entirely moot as it regards who has a claim to the place today.
Never heard of Clovis coming from Europe...
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
Originally Posted by Gus
Starman, from whence did the clovis people come, pray tell?
allus heard the polynesian bloodlines landed in the south end of south america and spread north.
the american indians met up with them down around Mexico somewheres. just hearsay, i know.
but where there's smoke there might be a bit of fire, sooner or later?
add-in the egyptians, maybe the Vikings, and others. ...
allus heard the polynesian bloodlines landed in the south end of south america and spread north.
the american indians met up with them down around Mexico somewheres. just hearsay, i know.
but where there's smoke there might be a bit of fire, sooner or later?
add-in the egyptians, maybe the Vikings, and others. ...
I dont know how much this helps you, but the second link is taken from this Rasmus Nielsen page;
https:/
https:/
scroll down Nielsens page , and you are sure to find additional genetic research of interest.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/15/19
The first were the Siberians or paleo-Iindians or Clovis or whatever you want to call them. They came from Asia. They wandered in without inowing they had discovered a new continent.
There may have been other accidental landings but the first known "discovery" was the Norse, about 1000 AD. They made at least one settlement but were soon driven out. They had no lasting effect.
Columbus should get the credit for the real discovery America because his voyages had lasting effects. The "Columbian exchange" not only led to European settlement but a wide interchange of natural rexources and foodstuffs not known between the continents until then. Also diseases. European diseases, previously unknown in the Americas, wiped out almost all the Indians before the Americas were settled.
There may have been other accidental landings but the first known "discovery" was the Norse, about 1000 AD. They made at least one settlement but were soon driven out. They had no lasting effect.
Columbus should get the credit for the real discovery America because his voyages had lasting effects. The "Columbian exchange" not only led to European settlement but a wide interchange of natural rexources and foodstuffs not known between the continents until then. Also diseases. European diseases, previously unknown in the Americas, wiped out almost all the Indians before the Americas were settled.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/20/19
Originally Posted by auk1124
?? People got here prior to the Siberians coming to Alaska? Who? First I have heard of this. Have any cites to sources? This is interesting, would like to read more about it.
Across Atlantic Ice by Dennis Stanford makes the best case I know of for the origin of the Clovis people. Virtually all of the Clovis dating around Clovis excavations supports an east to west migration and the earliest sites predate what is thought to be the period where the ice corridor that would allow migration from Asia to be possible.
People with a social/political agenda purposely conflate Stanford's case with the Clovis First doctrine and claim he is racist.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/20/19
Originally Posted by Starman
Genetic data shows 80% of native American Indians are actually direct descendants of the Clovis.
This isn't true at all.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/20/19
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
The first were the Siberians or paleo-Iindians or Clovis or whatever you want to call them. They came from Asia.
The Clovis people didn't come from Asia, nor were they the first humans in North America.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/20/19
Well, it sure weren't Negros!
Re: Discovery of America - 10/20/19
People came from Australia. Up thru South America. The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific. "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution."
Re: Discovery of America - 10/20/19
I am not the final authority on this issue. But, the facts are varied. Just pulled from my bookshelf the book "Lost World, Rewriting Prehistory -How New Science is Tracing America's Ice Age Mariners by Tom Koppel. A lot of evidence demonstrated the travel down the coast of Alaska, BC Canada and the PNW of America.
I always enjoyed the Solutrean idea but there is too much to show genetically the Siberian route is more prominent.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...les-in-the-americas-were-not-from-europe
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/16/the-solutrean-hypothesis/
https://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-evidence-supports-solutrean.html
==
No doubt we will never have a final answer here on the fire, but we can all agree it wasn't Columbus who discovered this land mass. The mere fact there were already people and cultures in North and South America when he came here is proof of that. Me, I believe the Vikings were the first to come over as the first europeans.
I always enjoyed the Solutrean idea but there is too much to show genetically the Siberian route is more prominent.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...
https:/
https:/
==
No doubt we will never have a final answer here on the fire, but we can all agree it wasn't Columbus who discovered this land mass. The mere fact there were already people and cultures in North and South America when he came here is proof of that. Me, I believe the Vikings were the first to come over as the first europeans.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/20/19
Siberian route is probably were most came from. But there are a few others that have been found. I am no archeologist.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/20/19
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
The first were the Siberians or paleo-Iindians or Clovis or whatever you want to call them. They came from Asia. They wandered in without inowing they had discovered a new continent.
There may have been other accidental landings but the first known "discovery" was the Norse, about 1000 AD. They made at least one settlement but were soon driven out. They had no lasting effect.
Columbus should get the credit for the real discovery America because his voyages had lasting effects. The "Columbian exchange" not only led to European settlement but a wide interchange of natural rexources and foodstuffs not known between the continents until then. Also diseases. European diseases, previously unknown in the Americas, wiped out almost all the Indians before the Americas were settled.
There may have been other accidental landings but the first known "discovery" was the Norse, about 1000 AD. They made at least one settlement but were soon driven out. They had no lasting effect.
Columbus should get the credit for the real discovery America because his voyages had lasting effects. The "Columbian exchange" not only led to European settlement but a wide interchange of natural rexources and foodstuffs not known between the continents until then. Also diseases. European diseases, previously unknown in the Americas, wiped out almost all the Indians before the Americas were settled.
There is some solid evidence that the Europeans got syphilis from the Indians, not the other way around as most think. This is an excerpt from an article in ARCHAEOLOGY.COM
Identification of syphilis on an Old World skeleton predating Columbus would be strong evidence that the disease either originated in the Old World or occurred in both hemispheres. ... Syphilis, it seems, developed in the New World from yaws, perhaps 1,600 years ago, and was waiting for Columbus and his crew.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/20/19
Originally Posted by sierraHunter
I always enjoyed the Solutrean idea but there is too much to show genetically the Siberian route is more prominent.
Where do the genetic data to baseline Clovis people come from? There isn't any that I know of, and all that is being done is compare haplogroups of current populations and use that to guess at where Clovis came from. I think the tool evidence is much more diagnostic. Your second link says this about the DNA evidence:
Quote
In my opinion, the DNA evidence alone is enough to conclude that some people from the old world came to the Americas, and a Solutrean crossing fits the genetic data the best.
Maybe you didn't read it?
Your other 2 links conflate, purposely I think, "Clovis First" and "Solutrean". They are not the same thing. Across Atlantic Ice includes an entire chapter acknowledging that nothing in their research shows that Clovis were the first here and some sites in the process of being analyzed when the book was written were showing human activity in pre-Clovis layers. The conflation is being done for political purposes, so that the argument that white men in America owe the people we call "natives" something because they were here first.
Re: Discovery of America - 10/20/19
I'd like to see some bona fides from the know it alls. 
Re: Discovery of America - 10/20/19
Originally Posted by Stickfight
Originally Posted by sierraHunter
I always enjoyed the Solutrean idea but there is too much to show genetically the Siberian route is more prominent.
Where do the genetic data to baseline Clovis people come from? There isn't any that I know of, and all that is being done is compare haplogroups of current populations and use that to guess at where Clovis came from. I think the tool evidence is much more diagnostic. Your second link says this about the DNA evidence:
Quote
In my opinion, the DNA evidence alone is enough to conclude that some people from the old world came to the Americas, and a Solutrean crossing fits the genetic data the best.
Maybe you didn't read it?
Your other 2 links conflate, purposely I think, "Clovis First" and "Solutrean". They are not the same thing. Across Atlantic Ice includes an entire chapter acknowledging that nothing in their research shows that Clovis were the first here and some sites in the process of being analyzed when the book was written were showing human activity in pre-Clovis layers. The conflation is being done for political purposes, so that the argument that white men in America owe the people we call "natives" something because they were here first.
I did read them. This shows genetics possibly, along with the chart maps, of both an eastern and western influx into the America's. The only studies I have found linking the Clovis style of arrowhead link to the West coast influx. My point was not to say nothing came from the east, but I don't think it is the Clovis line of peoples. I do not dismiss the fact that these two influxes into the America's could each be unique. I just don't agree that it must be the eastern, or Solutrean, side that settled first.
As to genetic proof - all we have to work with is working backwards from current traits and haplogroups. If there was another unique group that was the genetic line for the original Clovis then we would have more data for the story. As a person trained in science with advanced degrees in human biology I have seen too much evidence to trust carbon dating to be the factual truth. It is merely one of the most used techniques at this time. Some believe migration into Asia before into Europe. Either way migration occurred in both directions and could just as easily have occurred into the America's both directions. The trail of evidence cited in the book I have documents travel down the coast and not in a frozen overland bridge into the western areas of this continent.
As to who came first. I suspect we may come to find it was neither of these migrations. Just to add more to ponder on: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...
and
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...
Re: Discovery of America - 10/20/19
Originally Posted by sierraHunter
The only studies I have found linking the Clovis style of arrowhead link to the West coast influx.
Then you couldn't have read ad understood anything recent, or even the material cited in your second link. It directly points to, and includes a photo from, a presentation showing a Clovis diagnostic biface point found in Virginia that was produced from flint that came from France.
Originally Posted by sierraHunter
I just don't agree that it must be the eastern, or Solutrean, side that settled first.
Luckily the Solutrean hypothesis does not make claims as do who settled first nor does its validity depend on Clovis doing that.
Originally Posted by sierraHunter
As a person trained in science with advanced degrees in human biology I have seen too much evidence to trust carbon dating to be the factual truth
That is OK, the opinions of people with advanced degrees more relevant to this than yours have been shown to be wrong when new evidence came forward. Also, as I am sure someone with your training is aware, other dating methods than carbon were used on many of the recent excavations. Do you dispute the accuracy of them all or just carbon?
Re: Discovery of America - 10/20/19
Originally Posted by Stickfight
Originally Posted by sierraHunter
The only studies I have found linking the Clovis style of arrowhead link to the West coast influx.
Then you couldn't have read ad understood anything recent, or even the material cited in your second link. It directly points to, and includes a photo from, a presentation showing a Clovis diagnostic biface point found in Virginia that was produced from flint that came from France.
Originally Posted by sierraHunter
I just don't agree that it must be the eastern, or Solutrean, side that settled first.
Luckily the Solutrean hypothesis does not make claims as do who settled first nor does its validity depend on Clovis doing that.
Originally Posted by sierraHunter
As a person trained in science with advanced degrees in human biology I have seen too much evidence to trust carbon dating to be the factual truth
That is OK, the opinions of people with advanced degrees more relevant to this than yours have been shown to be wrong when new evidence came forward. Also, as I am sure someone with your training is aware, other dating methods than carbon were used on many of the recent excavations. Do you dispute the accuracy of them all or just carbon?
==
I don't dispute any of this. My first post said I didn't have all the answers. I would expect the clovis point may be found in many places in the future. There is a period of thousands of years with a moving population throughout all of this land mass. My comment as to carbon was to simply imply that any of these could be in error as to dating with that system. I personally don't care where the earlier people came from; east or west. But I do agree there are indications from both directions.
I have no problems with newer research. I do find much of what is called "research" today is cherry picked to fit preconceived hypothesis. Unfortunately for all of us the era of research merely showing the data found is; in this day and age; getting mixed with the idea it has to fit into some other model. It is just as likely that the first humanoids were neither of these migrations but only the future of discovering newer artifacts is going to answer that.
As a final comment - as the hunting public seems to be the cause of extinctions then we probably can just assume someone had to have been here. This due to the fact that over the past 20,000 years a lot of species have disappeared and people just had to be the cause of that.