New evidence suggests Stone Age hunters from Europe discovered America

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Go for it, I love studying ancient stuff myself. I just don't think that some who get formal educations are better than some who learn it on their own. I've been to college years ago and felt it was restricting my knowledge and steering me to think a certain way to keep certain groups of people in control.

There is a problem inherent with Archaeology...it requires gatekeepers. Not because of the power of hidden knowledge, but more simply, because of human ignorance and greed. A site is about more than just 'goodies', it is all about the context in which archaeological resources are detected. Ain't nothing more frustrating than being handed a box full of rocks (or worse, bones) and being told they came from 'over yonder'.

And don't even start me on diggers and looters...National Geographic has just spiked a series on the subject because of outcry from the archaeological community. But the necessity of restricting information about sites, and the high bar set in changing the state of our knowledge base just grits in some folks' craw. A formal education in the subject puts it all into perspective. Hancock and Von Daeniken were fun, but the real deal is a whole lot better.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by pikestaff
Whats known as the 'clovis' people emigrated from the basque area of Europe to North america, as the poster above typed, using large animal skin 'kayak' type boats, this stuff is well know to acheologists.(spell checker on the fritz again)

I'm sorry, I am a licenced archaeologist and this is unknown to me. Please provide resources.

Several TV programs that originated in the USA, you don't watch history programs?

reply to post by pikestaff


Unfortunately, TV programmes aren't evidence in themselves.

What were the tv programmes based on? (by that i mean is there a specific site found to back up these claims).


Hi Johnny,

Von Danicken (?) and Hancock are interesting and therefore useful in drumming up further interest in such a fascinating topic. The problem is though when people take these views as gospel and then refuse to listen to reason and ignore all evidence.

At least archeologists accept they may have been previously wrong if new information comes to light.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I understand what you say about those who would profit from ancient artifacts. I understand the necessity of laws to protect these sites and artifacts from greed. I also understand that truth is being suppressed.

I went to Google, then youtube, then typed in 'Clovis people' guess what?

Originally posted by rickymouse


The earth was round before the Spanish changed it to flat. How would people know this if they had not been to America.

The Greeks figured it out by mathematics. The Spanish didn't think the world was flat, they thought it was a round sphere approximately the size we known it to be. What Chris Columbus was selling was the idea was that the world was round but much smaller and it would be easy to get to China by sailing west - he was wrong

I also understand that truth is being suppressed.

...and how do you know that?

The basic conflict arises from thinking "out of the box".
While Daniken and such were very interesting read, inspiring, and I myself am an artist, I do understand and appreciate scientific approach. People often neglect this and think archeologists are too stiff and dogmatic. Systematization and field practice is what artists normally don't have, and from this point of view I step back and carefully study as much as I can, what are the actual facts.

However, artistic approach is by mainly provocation. Artists can't use dogma as a tool, because it won't allow for thinking outside the box. Artist is aware that hypothesis is not a scientific tool, but it is an important tool nevertheless, because it is operational and allows one to explore huge territories and possibilities. Art will always be a source of inspiration because of this. It simply shows that limits can be pushed further and further.

The thing most spears are broken about is the interpretation, rather than field evidence. The mass of finds by archeology are subjected to interpretation, and this one can be heavily influenced by existing (political or religious) ideologies, and some people just can't accept it because they can clearly see that scientific data has been misused and manipulated.

It takes a lot of time to accept the fact that Phoenician alphabet originated in Vinca culture, 4.500-3.000 BC, near Danube (Belgrade). This culture was widespread, also to Macedonia and Black Sea region. One of the old peoples Pelasti (Greece) colonized what is today called Palestine (after them). They were also called Phoenicians and Philistines. They brought alphabet from the Balkan peninsula, and Greeks either took it from them or from Pelasgi, who were local ethnicity submitted by the Achaean (possibly Hittites in origin). This is well reflected in the Old Greek language. Etruscan also used Vincan alphabet in an unchanged form for duration of 3.000 years! (1.000 BC). All letters of their "elementa" (alphabet) are taken from this Neolithic Vinca proto-alphabet. Cretan linear A seems to be related. We know that Romans ordered destruction of all Etruscan evidence at the time of Second Punic War, so little from Etruscan artifacts actually survived. It has always been done and even today.

There are still many speculations, but it is pretty obvious that most European alphabets originate from this same source. This is, however, in conflict with some (German school) existing theories on Ind-Aryan origins and is difficult to bring it to light despite compelling evidence. Someone wants to keep monopoly on history and origins, because it is the source of political power.

Same problem exists with Clovis or pre-Clovis humans in Americas. Some people get established as authorities in this field and won't allow any new theories despite the new evidence, simply because that might damage their position... But this should not be blamed on archeology as it is.

It is now believed that Chinese, who had better ship technology in XV century than Europeans, actually did reach American West coast before Columbus... Who knows, this could have happened before, maybe even more likely than crossing over by land in glacial times.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by pikestaff

 

Unfortunately, TV programmes aren't evidence in themselves.

What were the tv programmes based on? (by that i mean is there a specific site found to back up these claims).


Hi Johnny,

Von Danicken (?) and Hancock are interesting and therefore useful in drumming up further interest in such a fascinating topic. The problem is though when people take these views as gospel and then refuse to listen to reason and ignore all evidence.

At least archeologists accept they may have been previously wrong if new information comes to light.

I also remember this show, unfortunately not the name of the author. Author showed the evidence that Clovis spears were similar to some European spear tips from 17.000 BC, and also showed that Siberian tools were usually made of serrated edges (small pieces of stone glued into the split wood), not from one piece like Clovis. This is important difference in technology.
He also went to Eskimos and Eskimos showed him their kayaks were much better in extreme cold than modern plastic materials. His conclusion was that it was possible to reach America in kayak during glacial times by following ice and hunting seals or whales during such an excursion.

Here is an Wiki article about this Solutrean hypothesis

en.wikipedia.org...

The Solutrean hypothesis is a controversial proposal that peoples from Europe may have been among the earliest settlers in the Americas, as evidenced by similarities in stone tool technology of the Solutrean culture from prehistoric Europe to that of the later Clovis tool-making culture found in the Americas.[1][2] It was first proposed in 1998. Its key proponents include Dennis Stanford, of the Smithsonian Institution, and Bruce Bradley, of the University of Exeter.[3]

reply to post by DangerDeath


I thought the new evidence pointed to people making this migration pre Clovis? It is interesting though.

We have the migration from the Altai mountains, backed up by DNA and now this migration from Europe. Makes you wonder if any of those that ended up in Polynesia missed and also ended up in North America!

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by DangerDeath

 

I thought the new evidence pointed to people making this migration pre Clovis? It is interesting though.

We have the migration from the Altai mountains, backed up by DNA and now this migration from Europe. Makes you wonder if any of those that ended up in Polynesia missed and also ended up in North America!

Yes. I think it was possible. But the problem is, as I said, very small groups would not make such an impact. In order to make a spread population of distinctive ethnicity they would need more advanced technology, like animal husbandry and agriculture. This is probably why some people stick to the land bridge, because it is the only communication which would allow some massive movement of people. It is still unclear what really happened.