Discoveries Challenge Beliefs on Humans’ Arrival in the Americas

page: 1
37
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+11 more 
posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
This is good to hear, because it is something I have believed for a long time.
www.nytimes.com...


Researchers here say they have unearthed stone tools proving that humans reached what is now northeast Brazil as early as 22,000 years ago. Their discovery adds to the growing body of research upending a prevailing belief of 20th-century archaeology in the United States known as the Clovis model, which holds that people first arrived in the Americas from Asia about 13,000 years ago.

“If they’re right, and there’s a great possibility that they are, that will change everything we know about the settlement of the Americas,” said Walter Neves, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of São Paulo whose own analysis of an 11,000-year-old skull in Brazil implies that some ancient Americans resembled aboriginal Australians more than they did Asians.

Up and down the Americas, scholars say that the peopling of lands empty of humankind may have been far more complex than long believed. The radiocarbon dating of spear points found in the 1920s near Clovis, N.M., placed the arrival of big-game hunters across the Bering Strait about 13,000 years ago, long forming the basis of when humans were believed to have arrived in the Americas.


www.nytimes.com...

Clovis Age Western Stemmed Projectile Points and Human Coprolites at the Paisley Caves
www.sciencemag.org...

In Texas, archaeologists said in 2011 that they had found projectile points showing that hunter-gatherers had reached another site, known as Buttermilk Creek, as early as 15,500 years ago. Similarly, analysis of human DNA found at an Oregon cave determined that humans were there 14,000 years ago.




Paleontologists in Uruguay published findings in November suggesting that humans hunted giant sloths there about 30,000 years ago.


news.discovery.com...



humans lived at a coastal site called Monte Verde as early as 14,800 years ago.




molecular geneticists showed last year that the Botocudo indigenous people living in southeastern Brazil in the late 1800s shared gene sequences commonly found among Pacific Islanders from Polynesia.

DNA study links indigenous Brazilians to Polynesians
www.nature.com...

I always thought this was a possibility too.

Humans First Appearance in America
www.nytimes.com...

youtu.be...



www.nytimes.com...

In Piauí, Brazil, archaeologists say stone tools prove that humans reached what is now Brazil as early as 22,000 years ago, upending a belief that people first arrived about 13,000 years ago.
edit on 103030p://bMonday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Mexico....you forgot that find in Mexico that has been vindicated as over 20,000 yrs



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: stirling
Mexico....you forgot that find in Mexico that has been vindicated as over 20,000 yrs


Do you have a link?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777
Valsequillo and hyuateco both yield dates in the 40 k range, based on diatoms.
The barzena carving is 24 k years old.

Also Snowmass co, a cached mammoth carcass, only the front half. 42 k
Burnham ok mammoth butcher site 50k
Witt site fresno county ca , human femur 17 K years and a mammoth tooth at 62 k from a shell midden.
Blue fish cave Canada, human worked bones at 23 k
Pendejo cave nm, human worked bones and a clay lined fire pit, with human fingerprint 23 k
West shore of China lake Mojave desert , human occupation at 18k
Only a very small community still holds on to the Clovis first paradigm.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Thank you, if this is true why do they keep pushing the Clovis first theory?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Also when reading about so called Australians being early inhabitants, that is a mis characterisation,
it's more accurrate to say "archaic morphology" as those earliest people had an archaic morhpology, if they were Australian then those australian specific haplo groups would show up, but they don't.
Also new studies indicate that the earliest split in modern humans is the split between some ameridians and everyone else.
There is also a growing body of evidence that there is a link between said amerindians and homo sapiens Neanderthal.
Hispanics received the diabetes risk gene from Neanderthal, and modern humans obtained our fat catabolism mechansism fro Neanderthal.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
So what do you guys think about this?

Incontrovertible Evidence Proves the First Americans Came From Asia
At last, archeologists have resolved the debate over the first Americans (hint: they walked). Then they screwed up a perfectly good answer to an ancient puzzle.



A recent analysis of the child’s DNA published in the February issue of Nature reveals a genome sequence showing the Montana Clovis people are direct ancestors to some 80 percent of all Native North and South Americans living today.

www.thedailybeast.com...



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Humans could also have actually originated in South America and used ships to settle Africa. There is no evidence yet of this, but that just means there is no evidence. If they are not looking at this possibility, they will not accept the evidence as real that they find and will discount it. Consensus of the time is that man originated in Africa, anyone challenging the consensus is considered not normal. The people in Eurasia and the Mediterranean region want to be the oldest, that is what is driving this. They could have it all wrong. There is also evidence that at least some Europeans were settled from Eskimos way up by the north pole before the Ice age and that they migrated to India.

I'm sure that evidence isn't widely accepted either by many in the field. It could be an option that things were a lot different than we think also.

S&F



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: punkinworks10
Also when reading about so called Australians being early inhabitants, that is a mis characterisation,
it's more accurrate to say "archaic morphology" as those earliest people had an archaic morhpology, if they were Australian then those australian specific haplo groups would show up, but they don't.
Also new studies indicate that the earliest split in modern humans is the split between some ameridians and everyone else.
There is also a growing body of evidence that there is a link between said amerindians and homo sapiens Neanderthal.
Hispanics received the diabetes risk gene from Neanderthal, and modern humans obtained our fat catabolism mechansism fro Neanderthal.


Enjoying your info, punkinworks



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: punkinworks10

Thank you, if this is true why do they keep pushing the Clovis first theory?

Honestly it's only a very small number of American archeologists and anthropologist that are trying to shout down the new work.
One has even gone so far as to say the obvious tools found at Toca de priea in brazil, 23k years , are the product of capuciun monkeys.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777
For the latest in genetics and anthpology and archeology of human dispersals I reccomend
anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...
Dr Dziebel supports an unorthodox view, Out of America for culturally modern humans.
And
dienekes.blogspot.com...
Mostly genetics on this site but very good discussions

And Austin Whitall's patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com...

edit on 21-4-2014 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-4-2014 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: punkinworks10



Thank you, if this is true why do they keep pushing the Clovis first theory?


No one is pushing that theory, and no one has for a couple of decades now.

Harte



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
People tend to forget that documentaries of History and Discovery channel are there to misguide them. They tend to forget that "Great" Historians from famous universities claim that humans started to create societies at about 7000-5000 BC, native societies based only in agricultural life while facts in Mesopotamia and Crete have shown the existence of sewer systems below the cities, made at 5000 BC.

The history schools, universities and tv teach are nothing but a Scam! I mean, what we have been taught is that the ancients were all liars, all of them believed in mythical creatures which never existed, in gods they had never seen, described worldwide floods that never really happened, etc, etc... Now, how come civilizations who build huge cities which need sewer systems, civilizations who build Pyramids, civilizations who find out the mathematics and physics we use today live in a lie for thousands of years is honestly the best question everyone has to think of. Are we that liers? No. Then, how we call all the ancient civilizations who believed in the things i wrote above liars?

Does this make any sense? Absolutely not! However, if you take as facts what the ancients where saying you can explain everything. You can explain why the latest Ice Age came at around 9000 BC (which matches with the submergence of Atlantis), you can explain why the Pyramids in Egypt were built much earlier than 2000-3000 BC as a few wise-historians claim, why we had an Ice Age every 10-15000 years, why the descriptions of a world wide flood match in the Jewish, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Native Americans myths and most of all how the myths of each civilization are somehow (logically) connected with the myths of other civilizations.

So, to sum up, i strongly believe that we are hundred thousands or millions years on Earth as a specie, that firstly in history there is a HUGE cover up by the New or "Old" WO and that, as many other things, we need to search on our own to find the truth.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JesusChristwins

I agree



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: JesusChristwins
I second that also, everything you said. Something, someone or some group doesn't want us to know the true history. Why? it just has to be they are trying to stop something we have that they do not. They are embarrassed by the truth, so they try to fool us.But its all coming out now!




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

I've always thought people were traveling to the Americas long before what we are taught.
I found this interesting "How could Polynesians made it to Brazil?"

In what may be another blow to the Clovis model of humans’ coming from northeast Asia, molecular geneticists showed last year that the Botocudo indigenous people living in southeastern Brazil in the late 1800s shared gene sequences commonly found among Pacific Islanders from Polynesia.
How could Polynesians have made it to Brazil? Or aboriginal Australians? Or, if the archaeologists here are correct, how could a population arrive in this hinterland long before Clovis hunters began appearing in the Americas? The array of new discoveries has scholars on a quest for answers.
OP Source

I saw an episode of 'America Unearthed-The Spearhead Conspiracy' a couple months ago and they brought up The Kennewick Man (Kennewick Man is the name for the skeletal remains of a prehistoric man found on a bank of the Columbia River in Kennewick, Washington, on July 28, 1996.) and how The Polynesians could have sailed to the Americas. I looked for the episode on youtube but it's not available. I did find a nice review of the episode however.

The focus of America Unearthed S02E13 “The Spearhead Conspiracy,” a spear point in Hawaii allegedly connected to Mexico, occurred too recently (2009) to have a great deal of scholarly material, and the question of a Polynesian connection to Mesoamerica is obviously not beyond the realm of possibility. Archaeologists, have in the past used Hawaii as an ethnographic comparison and model for the Maya in terms of the obsidian trade, and a highly controversial claim holds that the Mapuche of Chile—though not Mexico—share a word for obsidian with Polynesians from Easter Island.
Full Review of Episode
The Kennewick Man looks like he could be Polynesian rather than Native American.

The Kennewick Man

Powell said that Kennewick Man was not European but most resembled the Ainu[6] and Polynesians.[9] Powell said that the Ainu descend from the Jōmon people who are an East Asian population with "closest biological affinity with south-east Asians rather than western Eurasian peoples".[10]
Furthermore, Powell said that dental analysis showed the skull had a 94 percent chance of being a Sundadont group like the Ainu and Polynesians and only a 48 percent chance of being a Sinodont group like that of North Asia.[9] Powell said analysis of the skull showed it to be "unlike American Indians and Europeans".[9] Powell concluded that Kennewick man "is clearly not a Caucasoid unless Ainu and Polynesians are considered Caucasoid."[10]



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ancientthunder
...so they try to fool us.But its all coming out now!



Exactly!!!



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

It's only slightly to the left of mainstream consensus that we reached the Americas up to ~25kya. Some fairly conservative academics have been discussing that possibility for several years including one of my favourite staff (Byrd). Sadly, she doesn't call in very much these days and could have added some thought-provoking and well-sourced points.

Folk talk about Clovis (13kya) and pre-Clovis influxes of populations when really the emerging context is on course to demonstrate that it was earlier. Solutrean hypothesis was shredded last year so we're fixed on the original premise that early humans migrated across Beringia. Hanslune would be another academic member who shares these views.

It's been a while since I was immersed in the subject so I'll catch up with the discussion rather than post some old links and find out they're wrong or outdated.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: JesusChristwins
So, to sum up, i strongly believe that we are hundred thousands or millions years on Earth as a specie, that firstly in history there is a HUGE cover up by the New or "Old" WO and that, as many other things, we need to search on our own to find the truth.
That would be Anatomically modern humans? Roughly a couple of hundred thousand years. Sure. Millions? Cool...Prove it.

Your suppressed human history jive is belied by the simple fact that this thread exists, supported by the scientific community . The story of the peopling of the Americas has changed dramatically over the last couple of decades, and as more evidence emerges, will continue to be fine tuned. I know a bunch of archaeologists and quite frankly, they are enjoying the debate.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
More and more evidence is being unearthed all the time that discounts the mainstream historical record yet they haven't updated it yet. The Clovis account is STILL taught as the most valid hypothesis of how humans arrived in the Americas initially. At what point is enough evidence to drop this hypothesis in lieu of a new one? It's like mainstream archaeologists are too stubborn to update their models, possibly because the one they came up with is so neat and tidy.





new topics
top topics
 
37
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join