Evidence of human occupation in Mexico around the Last Glacial Maximum

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
Funny you should mention that as this came up in one of my feeds today...Hijacking History: the problem with the “Black Olmec” myth

Since apparently none of the "indigenous" peoples probably evolved there, they pretty much all had to come from somewhere else. Central America was apparently quite the melting pot during and after the last Ice Age when almost everyone headed south to get away from the scrubbing of the rest of North America 12,000 or so years ago. But again, no genetic evidence (so far) of African interbreeding in South America. Is this what the Clovis people looked like?

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Since apparently none of the "indigenous" peoples probably evolved there, they pretty much all had to come from somewhere else. Central America was apparently quite the melting pot during and after the last Ice Age when almost everyone headed south to get away from the scrubbing of the rest of North America 12,000 or so years ago. But again, no genetic evidence (so far) of African interbreeding in South America. Is this what the Clovis people looked like?

A friend of mine is an Anishinaabe Elder and Memory Keeper. He tells me that his people recount stories of the coming of the ice, and I have no reason nor scientific evidence to refute him so I take him at his word. That's the best I can do to answer your question.

Quick edit to state...way creepy avatar, Dude!

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Jonjonj
It would make sense that any society to the North would head South during a glacial maximum wouldn't it? Maybe the problem with science is not giving any common sense value to what were, essentially, our ancestors.

Except for those who came from the south.

Or the West across the ocean. Or the East from southern Africa or beyond.

Well the southern-north pattern would come out of the west. As to southern Africa? Never say never.

Just thinking of the South Equatorial currents. I don't think there have been any discoveries in genetic tracking that have shown any shared haplotypes or anything between southern Africa and Brazil, but the currents are there. Also, I suppose the southern Africans really didn't do a lot of long-distance seafaring. Some of those Olmec statue heads sure look African, though.

Yes, but they have found DNA from Australian Aborigines in South America so maybe we are looking the wrong direction. Given they were in Australia at least 50k years ago who knows when they came to the Americas and what they may have looked like then.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Since apparently none of the "indigenous" peoples probably evolved there, they pretty much all had to come from somewhere else. Central America was apparently quite the melting pot during and after the last Ice Age when almost everyone headed south to get away from the scrubbing of the rest of North America 12,000 or so years ago. But again, no genetic evidence (so far) of African interbreeding in South America. Is this what the Clovis people looked like?

A friend of mine is an Anishinaabe Elder and Memory Keeper. He tells me that his people recount stories of the coming of the ice, and I have no reason nor scientific evidence to refute him so I take him at his word. That's the best I can do to answer your question.

There are quite a lot of these stories amongst different tribes along with flood stories that scientist are suspecting indicate the fast melting of the glaciers. There is a lot of evidence mounting that the glaciers melted very fast in some areas and caused catastrophic flooding. It's hard for us to imagine the world then, the cost lines were much further out, the Bearing land bridge, heck England wasn't even an island it was part of the European land mass. Then fairly quickly the landscape and climate changed greatly everywhere.

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Since apparently none of the "indigenous" peoples probably evolved there, they pretty much all had to come from somewhere else. Central America was apparently quite the melting pot during and after the last Ice Age when almost everyone headed south to get away from the scrubbing of the rest of North America 12,000 or so years ago. But again, no genetic evidence (so far) of African interbreeding in South America. Is this what the Clovis people looked like?

A friend of mine is an Anishinaabe Elder and Memory Keeper. He tells me that his people recount stories of the coming of the ice, and I have no reason nor scientific evidence to refute him so I take him at his word. That's the best I can do to answer your question.

There are quite a lot of these stories amongst different tribes along with flood stories that scientist are suspecting indicate the fast melting of the glaciers. There is a lot of evidence mounting that the glaciers melted very fast in some areas and caused catastrophic flooding.

In the Great Lakes Basin, which is kinda my turf, meltwaters were jammed up by ice in the St. Lawrence Lowlands, so the lake levels were much higher. Archaic Lake Iroquois was the precursor to Lake Ontario and its successive shorelines are quite evident on the landscape. So when the ice dams breached...they would have drained in a pretty catastrophic manner. As an aside, one associate of mine would survey what would have been promontories into the archaic lake, looking for PaleoIndian (PaleoAncestor?) sites and by golly, that's where he found them.

Sorry, the point being that the actual arrival of the ice is a whole nuther thing!

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
A friend of mine is an Anishinaabe Elder and Memory Keeper. He tells me that his people recount stories of the coming of the ice, and I have no reason nor scientific evidence to refute him so I take him at his word. That's the best I can do to answer your question.

Quick edit to state...way creepy avatar, Dude!

That's Brad Pitt's hair.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
A friend of mine is an Anishinaabe Elder and Memory Keeper. He tells me that his people recount stories of the coming of the ice, and I have no reason nor scientific evidence to refute him so I take him at his word. That's the best I can do to answer your question.

Quick edit to state...way creepy avatar, Dude!

That's Brad Pitt's hair.

Maybe...but it ain't his face. Or should I say "Gesicht"?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Jonjonj
It would make sense that any society to the North would head South during a glacial maximum wouldn't it? Maybe the problem with science is not giving any common sense value to what were, essentially, our ancestors.

Except for those who came from the south.

Or the West across the ocean. Or the East from southern Africa or beyond.

Well the southern-north pattern would come out of the west. As to southern Africa? Never say never.

Just thinking of the South Equatorial currents. I don't think there have been any discoveries in genetic tracking that have shown any shared haplotypes or anything between southern Africa and Brazil, but the currents are there. Also, I suppose the southern Africans really didn't do a lot of long-distance seafaring. Some of those Olmec statue heads sure look African, though.

One fact that speaks against a robust naval expertise is that the island just off the coast - but out of sight of Africa were not colonized by the Africans themselves. They got to Madagascar after the Polynesians did.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Since apparently none of the "indigenous" peoples probably evolved there, they pretty much all had to come from somewhere else. Central America was apparently quite the melting pot during and after the last Ice Age when almost everyone headed south to get away from the scrubbing of the rest of North America 12,000 or so years ago. But again, no genetic evidence (so far) of African interbreeding in South America. Is this what the Clovis people looked like?

A friend of mine is an Anishinaabe Elder and Memory Keeper. He tells me that his people recount stories of the coming of the ice, and I have no reason nor scientific evidence to refute him so I take him at his word. That's the best I can do to answer your question.

Quick edit to state...way creepy avatar, Dude!

Its possible but they would have had come much earlier.

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Since apparently none of the "indigenous" peoples probably evolved there, they pretty much all had to come from somewhere else. Central America was apparently quite the melting pot during and after the last Ice Age when almost everyone headed south to get away from the scrubbing of the rest of North America 12,000 or so years ago. But again, no genetic evidence (so far) of African interbreeding in South America. Is this what the Clovis people looked like?

A friend of mine is an Anishinaabe Elder and Memory Keeper. He tells me that his people recount stories of the coming of the ice, and I have no reason nor scientific evidence to refute him so I take him at his word. That's the best I can do to answer your question.

There are quite a lot of these stories amongst different tribes along with flood stories that scientist are suspecting indicate the fast melting of the glaciers. There is a lot of evidence mounting that the glaciers melted very fast in some areas and caused catastrophic flooding. It's hard for us to imagine the world then, the cost lines were much further out, the Bearing land bridge, heck England wasn't even an island it was part of the European land mass. Then fairly quickly the landscape and climate changed greatly everywhere.

If you mean over a period of a thousand year yes, very fast geologically, in a few day/weeks/month or years no. There is a whole heck of a lot of water in the oceans.

The current average depth (if all the water in the ocean was at one 'height' is 3688.08 meters, I believe it rose 120 meters, after the ice age that is 0.03% (1/3 of 1%) increase. I would suggest looking at coral reef growth - the reefs were able to survive because the rise was gradual and they could keep up with it.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Since apparently none of the "indigenous" peoples probably evolved there, they pretty much all had to come from somewhere else. Central America was apparently quite the melting pot during and after the last Ice Age when almost everyone headed south to get away from the scrubbing of the rest of North America 12,000 or so years ago. But again, no genetic evidence (so far) of African interbreeding in South America. Is this what the Clovis people looked like?

A friend of mine is an Anishinaabe Elder and Memory Keeper. He tells me that his people recount stories of the coming of the ice, and I have no reason nor scientific evidence to refute him so I take him at his word. That's the best I can do to answer your question.

There are quite a lot of these stories amongst different tribes along with flood stories that scientist are suspecting indicate the fast melting of the glaciers. There is a lot of evidence mounting that the glaciers melted very fast in some areas and caused catastrophic flooding. It's hard for us to imagine the world then, the cost lines were much further out, the Bearing land bridge, heck England wasn't even an island it was part of the European land mass. Then fairly quickly the landscape and climate changed greatly everywhere.

If you mean over a period of a thousand year yes, very fast geologically, in a few day/weeks/month or years no. There is a whole heck of a lot of water in the oceans.

The current average depth (if all the water in the ocean was at one 'height' is 3688.08 meters, I believe it rose 120 meters, after the ice age that is 0.03% (1/3 of 1%) increase. I would suggest looking at coral reef growth - the reefs were able to survive because the rise was gradual and they could keep up with it.

In totality it took a long time but many glacial areas had massive lakes contained in the glacier and when the "plug" for that melted it released massive amounts of water in days and weeks. The evidence of the flooding can be seen all over the north of the US into Canada. Huge ripples in the landscape, boulders the size of a building moved 100 miles and not glacially etc. "Muck" which are large areas of ancient mud with smashed trees and animals bones that could only happen with sudden powerful flooding. Again, this isn't the entire ice sheet but a large water logged section of it. Everything draining off into the ocean obviously took much longer but there were some more immediate effect on land.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Jonjonj
It would make sense that any society to the North would head South during a glacial maximum wouldn't it? Maybe the problem with science is not giving any common sense value to what were, essentially, our ancestors.

Except for those who came from the south.

Or the West across the ocean. Or the East from southern Africa or beyond.

Well the southern-north pattern would come out of the west. As to southern Africa? Never say never.

Just thinking of the South Equatorial currents. I don't think there have been any discoveries in genetic tracking that have shown any shared haplotypes or anything between southern Africa and Brazil, but the currents are there. Also, I suppose the southern Africans really didn't do a lot of long-distance seafaring. Some of those Olmec statue heads sure look African, though.

One fact that speaks against a robust naval expertise is that the island just off the coast - but out of sight of Africa were not colonized by the Africans themselves. They got to Madagascar after the Polynesians did.

Yea, you have to wonder if the Africans just didn't need it. They had this massive continent full of life connected to other massive continents they could explore on foot/canoe then as humans got as far east (like SE Asia East!) they had to up the canoe tech to explore more. I'm sure boat tech continually developed as they explored large river systems and lakes along the way.

Pics from paper



and the paper itself

Ardelean 2020

a reply to: punkinworks10

Thanks for linking the paper. I know what I'll be reading this afternoon.

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Jonjonj
It would make sense that any society to the North would head South during a glacial maximum wouldn't it? Maybe the problem with science is not giving any common sense value to what were, essentially, our ancestors.

Except for those who came from the south.

Or the West across the ocean. Or the East from southern Africa or beyond.

Well the southern-north pattern would come out of the west. As to southern Africa? Never say never.

Just thinking of the South Equatorial currents. I don't think there have been any discoveries in genetic tracking that have shown any shared haplotypes or anything between southern Africa and Brazil, but the currents are there. Also, I suppose the southern Africans really didn't do a lot of long-distance seafaring. Some of those Olmec statue heads sure look African, though.

One fact that speaks against a robust naval expertise is that the island just off the coast - but out of sight of Africa were not colonized by the Africans themselves. They got to Madagascar after the Polynesians did.

Yea, you have to wonder if the Africans just didn't need it. They had this massive continent full of life connected to other massive continents they could explore on foot/canoe then as humans got as far east (like SE Asia East!) they had to up the canoe tech to explore more. I'm sure boat tech continually developed as they explored large river systems and lakes along the way.

Early Holocene human presence in Madagascar


www.abovetopsecret.com...

May wanna take a look here.^^
And while I agree Olmecs weren't Africans, recorded attempts were made by West Africans during the middle ages, a little later, about 200 yrs, during the time of Columbus these same West Africans, were able to defeat Portuguese Caravels on the open seas and rivers, causing them to rethink approaches to trade rather than raids or conquest.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Jonjonj
It would make sense that any society to the North would head South during a glacial maximum wouldn't it? Maybe the problem with science is not giving any common sense value to what were, essentially, our ancestors.

Except for those who came from the south.

Or the West across the ocean. Or the East from southern Africa or beyond.

Well the southern-north pattern would come out of the west. As to southern Africa? Never say never.

Just thinking of the South Equatorial currents. I don't think there have been any discoveries in genetic tracking that have shown any shared haplotypes or anything between southern Africa and Brazil, but the currents are there. Also, I suppose the southern Africans really didn't do a lot of long-distance seafaring. Some of those Olmec statue heads sure look African, though.

One fact that speaks against a robust naval expertise is that the island just off the coast - but out of sight of Africa were not colonized by the Africans themselves. They got to Madagascar after the Polynesians did.

Yea, you have to wonder if the Africans just didn't need it. They had this massive continent full of life connected to other massive continents they could explore on foot/canoe then as humans got as far east (like SE Asia East!) they had to up the canoe tech to explore more. I'm sure boat tech continually developed as they explored large river systems and lakes along the way.

Early Holocene human presence in Madagascar


www.abovetopsecret.com...

May wanna take a look here.^^
And while I agree Olmecs weren't Africans, recorded attempts were made by West Africans during the middle ages, a little later, about 200 yrs, during the time of Columbus these same West Africans, were able to defeat Portuguese Caravels on the open seas and rivers, causing them to rethink approaches to trade rather than raids or conquest.

I know but there is a difference between going to Madagascar and the America’s. Madagascar is a jaunt but there is a chain of island from the coast of Africa across to the north end of Madagascar so it’s a little easier than taking off to South America. I’m definitely not saying they weren’t sea fairing and skilled just that the need to traverse vast oceans might not have started until we ran out of land and close islands to explore which happened with the Polynesians. Hope that makes sense.

a reply to: FishBait

I’m definitely not saying they weren’t sea fairing and skilled just that the need to traverse vast oceans might not have started until we ran out of land and close islands to explore which happened with the Polynesians.

Polynesian voyaging canoes were spaceships of the time. Boldly going. But they probably weren't seeking new civilizations. Because that did not often go well. For one party or the other.

But to settle a place requires intent. And technology.

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Jonjonj
It would make sense that any society to the North would head South during a glacial maximum wouldn't it? Maybe the problem with science is not giving any common sense value to what were, essentially, our ancestors.

Except for those who came from the south.

Or the West across the ocean. Or the East from southern Africa or beyond.

Well the southern-north pattern would come out of the west. As to southern Africa? Never say never.

Just thinking of the South Equatorial currents. I don't think there have been any discoveries in genetic tracking that have shown any shared haplotypes or anything between southern Africa and Brazil, but the currents are there. Also, I suppose the southern Africans really didn't do a lot of long-distance seafaring. Some of those Olmec statue heads sure look African, though.

One fact that speaks against a robust naval expertise is that the island just off the coast - but out of sight of Africa were not colonized by the Africans themselves. They got to Madagascar after the Polynesians did.

Yea, you have to wonder if the Africans just didn't need it. They had this massive continent full of life connected to other massive continents they could explore on foot/canoe then as humans got as far east (like SE Asia East!) they had to up the canoe tech to explore more. I'm sure boat tech continually developed as they explored large river systems and lakes along the way.

Early Holocene human presence in Madagascar


www.abovetopsecret.com...

May wanna take a look here.^^
And while I agree Olmecs weren't Africans, recorded attempts were made by West Africans during the middle ages, a little later, about 200 yrs, during the time of Columbus these same West Africans, were able to defeat Portuguese Caravels on the open seas and rivers, causing them to rethink approaches to trade rather than raids or conquest.

I know but there is a difference between going to Madagascar and the America’s. Madagascar is a jaunt but there is a chain of island from the coast of Africa across to the north end of Madagascar so it’s a little easier than taking off to South America. I’m definitely not saying they weren’t sea fairing and skilled just that the need to traverse vast oceans might not have started until we ran out of land and close islands to explore which happened with the Polynesians. Hope that makes sense.

True, but honestly the pay off would not have been that big, like you said plenty of land to explore, and the kind of trade links to use it as a base wasn't that developed until later, but what drove the Austroneasn to sea is worth looking into.

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Jonjonj
It would make sense that any society to the North would head South during a glacial maximum wouldn't it? Maybe the problem with science is not giving any common sense value to what were, essentially, our ancestors.

Except for those who came from the south.

Or the West across the ocean. Or the East from southern Africa or beyond.

Well the southern-north pattern would come out of the west. As to southern Africa? Never say never.

Just thinking of the South Equatorial currents. I don't think there have been any discoveries in genetic tracking that have shown any shared haplotypes or anything between southern Africa and Brazil, but the currents are there. Also, I suppose the southern Africans really didn't do a lot of long-distance seafaring. Some of those Olmec statue heads sure look African, though.

One fact that speaks against a robust naval expertise is that the island just off the coast - but out of sight of Africa were not colonized by the Africans themselves. They got to Madagascar after the Polynesians did.

Yea, you have to wonder if the Africans just didn't need it. They had this massive continent full of life connected to other massive continents they could explore on foot/canoe then as humans got as far east (like SE Asia East!) they had to up the canoe tech to explore more. I'm sure boat tech continually developed as they explored large river systems and lakes along the way.

Early Holocene human presence in Madagascar


www.abovetopsecret.com...

May wanna take a look here.^^
And while I agree Olmecs weren't Africans, recorded attempts were made by West Africans during the middle ages, a little later, about 200 yrs, during the time of Columbus these same West Africans, were able to defeat Portuguese Caravels on the open seas and rivers, causing them to rethink approaches to trade rather than raids or conquest.

I know but there is a difference between going to Madagascar and the America’s. Madagascar is a jaunt but there is a chain of island from the coast of Africa across to the north end of Madagascar so it’s a little easier than taking off to South America. I’m definitely not saying they weren’t sea fairing and skilled just that the need to traverse vast oceans might not have started until we ran out of land and close islands to explore which happened with the Polynesians. Hope that makes sense.

The biggest issue I take with this interpretation is that your focus is solely on HSS. If sailing to islands that were out of sight of land was a last ditch resort for resources, then why did Neanderthal beat HSS to pretty much every island in the Mediterranean and off the coast of North Africa and the Middle East? It ceetainly wasnt for lack of resources based on all kf the evidence ive studied.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Jonjonj
It would make sense that any society to the North would head South during a glacial maximum wouldn't it? Maybe the problem with science is not giving any common sense value to what were, essentially, our ancestors.

Except for those who came from the south.

Or the West across the ocean. Or the East from southern Africa or beyond.

Well the southern-north pattern would come out of the west. As to southern Africa? Never say never.

Just thinking of the South Equatorial currents. I don't think there have been any discoveries in genetic tracking that have shown any shared haplotypes or anything between southern Africa and Brazil, but the currents are there. Also, I suppose the southern Africans really didn't do a lot of long-distance seafaring. Some of those Olmec statue heads sure look African, though.

One fact that speaks against a robust naval expertise is that the island just off the coast - but out of sight of Africa were not colonized by the Africans themselves. They got to Madagascar after the Polynesians did.

Yea, you have to wonder if the Africans just didn't need it. They had this massive continent full of life connected to other massive continents they could explore on foot/canoe then as humans got as far east (like SE Asia East!) they had to up the canoe tech to explore more. I'm sure boat tech continually developed as they explored large river systems and lakes along the way.

Early Holocene human presence in Madagascar


www.abovetopsecret.com...

May wanna take a look here.^^
And while I agree Olmecs weren't Africans, recorded attempts were made by West Africans during the middle ages, a little later, about 200 yrs, during the time of Columbus these same West Africans, were able to defeat Portuguese Caravels on the open seas and rivers, causing them to rethink approaches to trade rather than raids or conquest.

I know but there is a difference between going to Madagascar and the America’s. Madagascar is a jaunt but there is a chain of island from the coast of Africa across to the north end of Madagascar so it’s a little easier than taking off to South America. I’m definitely not saying they weren’t sea fairing and skilled just that the need to traverse vast oceans might not have started until we ran out of land and close islands to explore which happened with the Polynesians. Hope that makes sense.

The biggest issue I take with this interpretation is that your focus is solely on HSS. If sailing to islands that were out of sight of land was a last ditch resort for resources, then why did Neanderthal beat HSS to pretty much every island in the Mediterranean and off the coast of North Africa and the Middle East? It ceetainly wasnt for lack of resources based on all kf the evidence ive studied.

Howdy Peter

Yep for ancient HG's the problem wasn't a depletion of resources (most regrew)* but how to gather them and in particular store them. As long as the human population is low you can wander about and keep alive well enough. Yes, setting sail over the horizon must have been terrifying for people who had no idea what might be out there and who probably couldn't swim either. Yet they did it. Hell somebody ate an oyster for the first time - that's brave.

*now with climate change, locust, fires, flood etc., they would have had to move out of an area. I suspect they kept in touch with extended family as the incest rule seems to have been strongly held early on so they would have known of other places around them as they mated out side their own group.