It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sanak Island: redating the Pacific Coast Migration

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Those artifacts were, at most, 15.5k years old. The oldest S. American settlements were from that same age, correct?


Some are and some arn't and there are some sites in NA which are older but the dates are contested.

Like bluefish caves in Canada.

Here, at a site known as the Bluefish Caves, Cinq-Mars's team discovered something that would turn archeology on its ear and has fuelled debate ever since - a chipped mammoth bone that appeared to have been fashioned into a small harpoon point. Radiocarbon dating showed the bone to be 28,000 years old.

The find stunned archeologists who had long presumed the first people to enter the Americas did so 13,000 years ago via a land bridge from Siberia after the end of the last Ice Age.

www.canada.com...
Bluefish caves is one of those contested early sites.




posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks10

Here, at a site known as the Bluefish Caves, Cinq-Mars's team discovered something that would turn archeology on its ear and has fuelled debate ever since - a chipped mammoth bone that appeared to have been fashioned into a small harpoon point. Radiocarbon dating showed the bone to be 28,000 years old.

The find stunned archeologists who had long presumed the first people to enter the Americas did so 13,000 years ago via a land bridge from Siberia after the end of the last Ice Age.


Bluefish caves is one of those contested early sites.


I noticed the use of the word 'stunned' ....I wouldn't quite agree with the use of that word, anyway I've put up images of the point in question

Here is a 2001 review of the find.

Bluefish cave mammoth harpoon point?

drawing and b/w picture of the artifact


Another view, picture in colour in the next post
edit on 26/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


To much info in the message above second picture here




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hanslune
 


That wasn't much help, Hans. Primarily, you are not challenging the whole "meteor impact event in the younger dryas" that I know is a pet peeve of yours.


Regardless, to ignore the logic of the first settlements being in South America and therefore originates in South America seems very illogical. I would like to know why, to the layperson, this seems to illogical and yet is valid within the parameters of the scientific method.


Really not sure where you are going with this. Is it possible NA was populated first, and within several hundred years SA was also populated? If so is it possible the first settlements did not leave behind any evidence (or none that has been found yet), while the first SA settlements have been found/left evidence. In this case if we are talking about such a short timespan (relatively speaking), you could not rule out NA as being the entry point even with SA yielding older artifacts.

They did not, as you suggest, go against logic and shut their minds to the evidence. If that was the case we would not see archaeologists doing this work. No one piece of evidence can be taken by itself, the entirety of evidence must be considered together in the proper context.

How is it your "logic" does not come to this conclusion, when it is so clear in the "parameters of the scientific method"?
edit on 28-6-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Yes, exactly. Tiny amounts of data..... sometimes you get oddities because of random error or random luck, when the points of evidence are of a relatively small amount the greater the chance this will skew the results. Since the DNA points in the direction of an Asiatic base plus additional evidence of an "Ainu type predecessor' you're looking at Beringia as the entry point by land or sea.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
I personally believe in south to north migration, FROM Africa first. I will admit allot is based on what archeology as a whole still doesn't agree on. The Olmec civilization and the Fuente Magna bowl come to mind.

It is clear that since the oldest sites are found in south America, that they had more time to develop civilization. More so if you consider that maybe they came with an idea of civilization already formed in their collective minds and simply repeated what they knew.

If it is a fact that people from Asia came from north west to south, then why did the northern people stay nomads and only form rudimentary societies? I say so based only on level of building and archeology. Their cultural practices are not compatible for comparison since the society with ritual places marked out by actual structures and the formation required to make and maintain them is inherently more complex from a developmental stand point.

I think what I most get from this information is that like an act of habit, Modern archeology is once again, pushing back dates to events they forced into public knowledge.

I think Archeology as a whole has suffered from trying to PROVE our idea of civilization rather than trying to expand it and learn its true story. Not surprising if some well respected archeologist sticks to his guns and calls foul over some dumb little discrepancy with the finding.

I don't know what to believe anymore when it comes to societies origins. I do think that they have been to reserved with their timeline.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
I personally believe in south to north migration, FROM Africa first. I will admit allot is based on what archeology as a whole still doesn't agree on. The Olmec civilization and the Fuente Magna bowl come to mind.


Olmec was in central America not the south. How do you explain the DNA evidence showing a North West Asia background to our brethen in SA?



If it is a fact that people from Asia came from north west to south, then why did the northern people stay nomads and only form rudimentary societies? I say so based only on level of building and archeology. Their cultural practices are not compatible for comparison since the society with ritual places marked out by actual structures and the formation required to make and maintain them is inherently more complex from a developmental stand point.


There were rudimentary cultures in the south too. cultures developed in the North, central and south.


I think what I most get from this information is that like an act of habit, Modern archeology is once again, pushing back dates to events they forced into public knowledge.


...and your point? How did they 'force' this? They published??


I think Archeology as a whole has suffered from trying to PROVE our idea of civilization rather than trying to expand it and learn its true story. Not surprising if some well respected archeologist sticks to his guns and calls foul over some dumb little discrepancy with the finding.


Impossible to prove, so I'm sure they aren't doing that, of course they are doing research - do you expect them not to?


I don't know what to believe anymore when it comes to societies origins. I do think that they have been to reserved with their timeline.


Unlike fringe writers who can make stuff up with abandon, most all scientists are constrained to basing their opinions on what evidence there actually is, but they certainly do speculate on possible areas of future exploration



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 





Olmec was in central America not the south. How do you explain the DNA evidence showing a North West Asia background to our brethren in SA?


Olmecs are thought to be the mother civilization for ALL Americas as far as originating society with all its tenants, religion, architecture, written language, ect. They may have had a starting point, but all cultures revered them for their accomplishments. The term to be "Olmec" meant to be civilized, or good in teaching" ( It varies with language and culture).

The DNA evidence only shows there is a link. Not how it spread. You can prove the migration, not the direction. Who is to say that there was not a western and eastern migration at different points of history.




There were rudimentary cultures in the south too. cultures developed in the North, central and south.


Yes, but the more developed cultures only developed in south and central America. If it was an off shoot of Asian peoples then they would have brought with them some of the foundations to complex society. Why then did the north never build cities and temples like was done in Asia at similar times, or south /central America? They had a head start, what could have stopped them?
It could be that they never needed to form them, or lacked the resources to develop that far. Who knows.




...and your point? How did they 'force' this? They published??


My point is that with every finding they push dates farther back. That to me is indicative of fallacy being held as fact as far as possible starting dates. I say they force this point of view because there is elitism when it comes to disproving a credited archeologist by a new or "fringe" archeologist as you say.

Here is one example out of many


In 1993, NBC in the USA aired The Mysteries of the Sphinx, which presented geological evidence
showing that the Sphinx was at least twice as old (9,000 years) as Egyptologists claimed. It has become
well known as the "water erosion controversy". An examination of the politicking that Egyptologists
deployed to combat this undermining of their turf is instructive.

Self-taught Egyptologist John Anthony West brought the water erosion issue to the attention of geologist
Dr Robert Schoch. They went to Egypt and launched an intensive on-site investigation. After thoroughly
studying the Sphinx first hand, the geologist came to share West's preliminary conclusion and they
announced their findings.

Dr Zahi Hawass, the Giza Monuments chief, wasted no time in firing a barrage of public criticism at the
pair. Renowned Egyptologist Dr Mark Lehner, who is regarded as the world's foremost expert on the
Sphinx, joined his attack. He charged West and Schoch with being "ignorant and insensitive". That was a
curious accusation which took the matter off the professional level and put the whole affair on a personal
plane. It did not address the facts or issues at all and it was highly unscientific.
www.unitedearth.com.au...

I don't know what you think of this, but if you are archeologically savvy you will already know the issues people raise when questioning the status quo. If you feign ignorance I can only assume a vested interest. I don't know.

It is not a secret that everything taught is always defended tooth and nail by those that teach it, regardless of evidence sometimes, and others with malice and intent to hide the truth. Look at the history of modern science. The church was TPTW and they played no small part in retarding our development so as to not upset our accepted forms of thought.

That has only changed, it has not been eradicated by separating the church from the equation. TPTB have just changed along with the "accepted" facts.



edit on 28-6-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hanslune
 


That wasn't much help, Hans. Primarily, you are not challenging the whole "meteor impact event in the younger dryas" that I know is a pet peeve of yours.


Regardless, to ignore the logic of the first settlements being in South America and therefore originates in South America seems very illogical. I would like to know why, to the layperson, this seems to illogical and yet is valid within the parameters of the scientific method.


Really not sure where you are going with this. Is it possible NA was populated first, and within several hundred years SA was also populated? If so is it possible the first settlements did not leave behind any evidence (or none that has been found yet), while the first SA settlements have been found/left evidence. In this case if we are talking about such a short timespan (relatively speaking), you could not rule out NA as being the entry point even with SA yielding older artifacts.


You do realize that when you say "is it possible that...." without any evidence to support it, it is just supposition? Supposition is wholly unscientific. You can find remains over here, then say "oh yea, these remains originated over there" without having something that actually makes you think it.

Otherwise, we could sit around and make up hypothetical "is it possible" scenarios all day.




They did not, as you suggest, go against logic and shut their minds to the evidence. If that was the case we would not see archaeologists doing this work. No one piece of evidence can be taken by itself, the entirety of evidence must be considered together in the proper context.


And that is why i asked Hanslune. When he responded, i didn't respond with a bait and switch. I asked a question in earnest and got a reply (a few replies later from your post).

HOWEVER, as i mentioned before.....if there is no evidence of NA culture before SA culture, then stating that the culture was in NA first is just making stuff up. You have to have evidence to support your claims or it isn't science.




How is it your "logic" does not come to this conclusion, when it is so clear in the "parameters of the scientific method"?
edit on 28-6-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)


Because in my logic, i look for common sense and evidence based declarations. Even with Hanslunes explanation, it seems as if paleontology in the America's is almost all about dogma.

Based on what I have heard (which i know is incomplete information, but i am doing this as an example), it seems that the first Amerinds were Ainu. If this is so, then it is also possible that the Ainu (for whatever reason) ended up in South America first and started culture there, spreading out afterwards.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by BIHOTZ


The DNA evidence only shows there is a link. Not how it spread. You can prove the migration, not the direction. Who is to say that there was not a western and eastern migration at different points of history.




Yes, but the more developed cultures only developed in south and central America. If it was an off shoot of Asian peoples then they would have brought with them some of the foundations to complex society. Why then did the north never build cities and temples like was done in Asia at similar times, or south /central America? They had a head start, what could have stopped them?


When they crossed over there were no cities in Asia. In Central America and the south they did develop more advanced cultures than the cultures in North America - and you believe this proves they came from the south? By that logic their should have been civilizations in central Africa first, then the Middle East then Asia; but it didn't work out that way, they started in the Middle East, then northern Africa and then later Asia proper



My point is that with every finding they push dates farther back. That to me is indicative of fallacy being held as fact as far as possible starting dates.


The dates keep going back because they find more evidence to support that



I say they force this point of view because there is elitism when it comes to disproving a credited archeologist by a new or "fringe" archeologist as you say


Again how is it 'forced'? Archaeologist, and all scientist find success by making new discoveries, those who discover get more grants, private donations, writing deals, documentaries etc



In 1993, NBC in the USA aired The Mysteries of the Sphinx, which presented geological evidence
showing that the Sphinx was at least twice as old (9,000 years) as Egyptologists claimed. It has become
well known as the "water erosion controversy". An examination of the politicking that Egyptologists
deployed to combat this undermining of their turf is instructive.


Self-taught Egyptologist John Anthony West brought the water erosion issue to the attention of geologist
Dr Robert Schoch. They went to Egypt and launched an intensive on-site investigation. After thoroughly
studying the Sphinx first hand, the geologist came to share West's preliminary conclusion and they
announced their findings.

Dr Zahi Hawass, the Giza Monuments chief, wasted no time in firing a barrage of public criticism at the
pair. Renowned Egyptologist Dr Mark Lehner, who is regarded as the world's foremost expert on the
Sphinx, joined his attack. He charged West and Schoch with being "ignorant and insensitive". That was a
curious accusation which took the matter off the professional level and put the whole affair on a personal
plane. It did not address the facts or issues at all and it was highly unscientific.

I don't know what you think of this, but if you are archeologically savvy you will already know the issues people raise when questioning the status quo. If you feign ignorance I can only assume a vested interest. I don't know.


This is very normally I once say a fist fight at a conference on Bronze age pottery designations in cypriote pottery, debate can get pretty intense. Shoch later downgraded his estimated age and the contraversy continues to this day, again, perfectly normal. The consensus as this moment is that Sphinx as we see it was constructed during the removal of limestone for a mortuary temple and the causative agent of the 'erosion' is not been determined


It is not a secret that everything taught is always defended tooth and nail by those that teach it, regardless of evidence sometimes, and others with malice and intent to hide the truth.


Nope sometimes the data is so strong it is almost immediately accepted by consensus, note the acceptance of the 'Hobbit' and Denisovians




Look at the history of modern science. The church was TPTW and they played no small part in retarding our development so as to not upset our accepted forms of thought.


Yes and in the end (the battle continues) science won


That has only changed, it has not been eradicated by separating the church from the equation. TPTB have just changed along with the "accepted" facts.


...and the consensus on what the facts means keep changing on a daily basis, which is as it should be. I don't quite understand what you are trying to get at. It seem to contradict itself. Yes, scientists fight over stuff, they always had, and in the future they will continue to do so, they should based it all on scientific methodology, but egos get involved but over time (the famous fifteen years) new ideas are accepted - sometimes even much faster.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
They did not, as you suggest, go against logic and shut their minds to the evidence. If that was the case we would not see archaeologists doing this work. No one piece of evidence can be taken by itself, the entirety of evidence must be considered together in the proper context.

Because in my logic, i look for common sense and evidence based declarations. Even with Hanslunes explanation, it seems as if paleontology in the America's is almost all about dogma.

Which constantly changes based on new evidence, ie it ain’t 'dogma', dogma never supports new research and a constant inflow of new info


Based on what I have heard (which i know is incomplete information, but i am doing this as an example), it seems that the first Amerinds were Ainu. If this is so, then it is also possible that the Ainu (for whatever reason) ended up in South America first and started culture there, spreading out afterwards.


More correctly they were people who ancestors later would be called Ainu


You do realize that when you say "is it possible that...." without any evidence to support it, it is just supposition? Supposition is wholly unscientific. You can find remains over here, then say "oh yea, these remains originated over there" without having something that actually makes you think it.


Point A culture in Northwest Asia which is identified with the culture in point B by DNA

Point B culture in South America which is associated with the culture in point A by DNA

How did they get there? Due to a lack of evidence for their going thru the Pacific you are left with down the coast of NA or thru NA, for which there is evidence. The question is that available sites show the SA to be a bit older, meaning....

....The points I touched on before, it’s also possible that the guys going down the coast did so quickly. We don’t know at this moment



Otherwise, we could sit around and make up hypothetical "is it possible" scenarios all day.


Sure why not? Then you can try to find something to support that info – which is exactly why this research was done



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Well, it may have been the Ainu's ancestors. But my point is that without evidence pointing to a north-south migration, that is as much suppositional as the ocean voyager hypothesis.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Well, it may have been the Ainu's ancestors. But my point is that without evidence pointing to a north-south migration, that is as much suppositional as the ocean voyager hypothesis.


Yes except for a complete lack of evidence for it, nor any sign of a deep water sailing technology, nor any sign of intermediate stops of their culture - except in NA

The best bet seems to be the coastal migration route supplmented by over land



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Well, it may have been the Ainu's ancestors. But my point is that without evidence pointing to a north-south migration, that is as much suppositional as the ocean voyager hypothesis.


Yes except for a complete lack of evidence for it, nor any sign of a deep water sailing technology, nor any sign of intermediate stops of their culture - except in NA

The best bet seems to be the coastal migration route supplmented by over land



Sigh. How many sailing vessels from the 1400's can be found on the beaches or in the ocean? Columbus' ship should be there somewhere, if not then he didnt exist. You are asking for evidence of a boat over 5000 years old? Seriously? lol

There were millions of cars made before the 40's. Where are they, they should all be laying around? Right? No? Why not? They must of not existed by your fuzzy logic.

You my friend have a very narrow, dim, perspective on things. I dont think ancient history is for you. The ancients sailed the oceans. Get over it. Or atleast wait till Natgeo says so then you can eat more of your words.
edit on 29-6-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Sigh. How many sailing vessels from the 1400's can be found on the beaches or in the ocean? Columbus' ship should be there somewhere, if not then he didnt exist. lol



Sigh, the Navidad was wrecked off Hispanola and they built a fort of its remains, I guess too that you forgot about the records kept? They exist as did thousands of other vessels of that era some of which have been found on the seabed and for which numerous anchors have been found. ie evidence in the archaeological records show a full blown, wide-spread naval technology at that time and place...




You are asking for evidence of a boat over 5000 years old? Seriously?


Yes evidence, not made up stuff, ship building requires wood working tools, ship building tools are often specialized, rope making technology too, anchors, usually rocks with holes in them. No sign of this anywhere in the context of what we speak. No sign of them stopping anywhere, no sign of long term food and water storage technology -something you need to cross the Pacific...you're complete and utter lack of knowledge on the subject is displayed - once again



There were millions of cars made before the 40's. Where are they, they should all be laying around? Right? No? Why not? They must of not existed by your fuzzy logic.


Hundreds if not housands of cars from that date exist so I'm not quite sure what you are whining about, lol

By the way have you ever heard of Pesse's canoe? Well of course not, you herd shadows not knowledge, it by the way it's a 10,000 year old canoe......



10,000 year old canoe

Here's another one, 8,000 years old --- is 'Shadow herder' an Estonian phrase meaning, "I cannot do research'?

8.000 year old canoe

ETC

To repost Shadow Herders comment


You are asking for evidence of a boat over 5000 years old? Seriously?


Yeah seriously


You my friend have a very narrow, dim, perspective on things. I dont think ancient history is for you.


Really you mean one based on evidence and reality and not yours? Which is based on denial, more denial and generously boistered by a complete lack of knowledge on the subject......?



The ancients sailed the oceans. Get over it.


They sailed the coastal seas and made short journeys there is no evidence they had deep ocean capacity with the ability to travel 12,000 kilometers by sea - as you seem to think or more correctly what you believe after being told to believe that.



Or atleast wait till Natgeo says so then you can eat more of your words


You keep saying that over and over again, yet you cannot show where that happens and you seem to forget one key aspect of it. If evidence is found that my present position, or any position is wrong, I will GLADLY change my position - unlike you who will, when faced by such evidence that you are mistaken will deny, deny, and lie about it....

wink
edit on 29/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Well, it may have been the Ainu's ancestors. But my point is that without evidence pointing to a north-south migration, that is as much suppositional as the ocean voyager hypothesis.


I am not sure how you are still on this point and didn't get past it with my previous post. They look at the evidence. The evidence is not conclusive. They use "supposition" as you call it to come up with the likeliest scenarios that fit the actual evidence. They then look for more evidence that fits these different scenarios.

So let's say the evidence is unclear, and you have supposition A and supposition B.

Supposition A can not be conclusively proven or disproven, but has supporting evidence.

Supposition B can not be conclusively proven or disproven, and has zero supporting evidence.

Where do YOU go from here? Where I go is continue to look for evidence of B, but follow the EVIDENCE and say A is most likely and divert more resources to it. Much of science is based on supposition. They then have to find evidence to support it. Again, how do you not grasp this, you seem to want to belittle people and scientists with zero understanding. Do you think in my above scenario Supposition B should gain greater acceptance and more funding than Supposition A?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I don't think you stated that right, and if you did it is a stark contrast between science and archaeology.

So, are you saying that archaeologists find some artifacts. They then use what they think they know (we will get back tot his in a second) to piece together a story. They will then go and look for evidence that supports this story?

And, once this story has enough evidence to be called "fact", it becomes the framework for future supposition, so that more hypothesis can be formulated against it?

See, if this is the way it works it seems as though there is a lot of ridicule that goes on in this field that is based on only supposition.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Well, it may have been the Ainu's ancestors. But my point is that without evidence pointing to a north-south migration, that is as much suppositional as the ocean voyager hypothesis.


I am not sure how you are still on this point and didn't get past it with my previous post. They look at the evidence. The evidence is not conclusive. They use "supposition" as you call it to come up with the likeliest scenarios that fit the actual evidence. They then look for more evidence that fits these different scenarios.

So let's say the evidence is unclear, and you have supposition A and supposition B.

Supposition A can not be conclusively proven or disproven, but has supporting evidence.

Supposition B can not be conclusively proven or disproven, and has zero supporting evidence.

Where do YOU go from here? Where I go is continue to look for evidence of B, but follow the EVIDENCE and say A is most likely and divert more resources to it. Much of science is based on supposition. They then have to find evidence to support it. Again, how do you not grasp this, you seem to want to belittle people and scientists with zero understanding. Do you think in my above scenario Supposition B should gain greater acceptance and more funding than Supposition A?


We haven't been talking about funding, we've been talking about facts on the ground. Funding comes from various sources which have their own parameters and criteria. Feel free to fund supposition B if you wish. There is no central authority for archaeology so its pretty much up to where researcher want to go and that they can get funding for. However researchers tend to go where they think - or evidence suggests they will be successful, one or more failed expeditions, limited or routine papers may lead to restriction on your funding. Of course there are some sources that deliberate fund things with the idea that no return may occur

Funding follows success



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join