New evidence suggests Stone Age hunters from Europe discovered America

Awesome find! I have been a believer of europeans coming to america before the bearing strait for awhile. The Solutream hypothesis has been around for a little while and now it's getting media attention thankfully:

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.

What i find interesting, is the dates start around 26,000, which is the average age of the Venus Statues from all across europe and eastern Russia. Is this a coincidence? There are many Venus Statue sites in western europen, specifically around france and spain. Is it possible, that these europeans who built the Venus Statues, migrated to America?!?!

ALSO, even stranger, the Mayan Calendar starts around 26,000 years ago. This must be a coincidence.

The ancient Maya understood this 26,000 year cycle to be specifically composed of 5 lesser cycles, each 5,125 years each.

I have heard this theory before and though the evidence is thin, it does have some credibility. Before I go there, think of this...

We have long held and widely accepted the theory that the first inhabitants of North America came across the Bering straits on an Ice bridge and slowly migrated south...across the continent toward the east and down through central and south America. There is a time problem here though. They have dated this to approx 10,000 BCE but yet there have been some discoveries in Bolivia and Peru that draws this date into question...most notably some textiles found in a cave tomb that actually dates to around 10,000 BCE...so...does this mean a band of early migrants crossed over and beat a direct path straight through to Bolivia and Peru?...Methinks not and so do many experts...some think perhaps Polynesians hit South America long before the migration south out of Alaska and the Bering sea area. They actually have some evidence to make this a pretty solid idea as well.

Now...about the Europeans...when they speak of this, they are generally saying it was western Europeans...and here is their case.

The discovery of what has been called "Clovis" points on the east coast of America can be accurately dated by stratification to around 10,000 BCE and these points are very similar to points found in France and western Europe. Their theory is that seal hunters followed the edge of the ice around in small skin covered boats. They had food, could land on the ice at any time and...considering how far south the edge of the ice sheet "might" have been...they would have eventually came to north America.

It is a theory and though it has some rational thinking and a bit of evidence, there is just not enough to say affirmatively that this is where the east coast "clovis" people came from...but it sounds cool.

I was just thinking, doesn't this perfectly explain Haplogroup X?!?!

en.wikipedia.org...

Haplogroup X is also one of the five haplogroups found in the indigenous peoples of the Americas.[6] Although it occurs only at a frequency of about 3% for the total current indigenous population of the Americas, it is a bigger haplogroup in northern North America, where among the Algonquian peoples it comprises up to 25% of mtDNA types.[7][8] It is also present in lesser percentages to the west and south of this area—among the Sioux (15%), the Nuu-Chah-Nulth (11%–13%), the Navajo (7%), and the Yakama (5%).[9]

This could be a big deal..

reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread813799/pg1#pid13564496]post by illuminatislave[I/url]


A herp derp, I didn't read the story derp herp. Next time, read the actual article BEFORE you comment. As it clearly says that they got there 10,000 years before anyone else.

To the OP's story: Cool find. I guess we can now remove Indians from their lands because, um... It's Europe's land. (Just kidding!)

Originally posted by Auricom
I guess we can now remove Indians from their lands because, um... It's Europe's land. (Just kidding!)

You jest...but my first thought upon reading this piece was that those issues would arise sooner or later. Just look at the stir caused by the discovery of Kennewick Man. On the other hand, Anishnaabe oral history cites their presence here before the last glaciation.

Let's allow science to do what science does, and leave the politics out of it. (yah...I wish)

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


As an archeologist yourself, you know how hard it is going to be to change the established theory that the Bering Straight migration is the sole route. Oral history be damned, what do they know. That dismissive attitude smacks of pure academic elitism. What in God's name would have existed as science in this world prior to Age of Enlightenment and the advent of the printing press?

Words and letters are still only symbols... mnemonics and are only a more detailed, precise form of the same system used in the Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibwa

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


In general the last holder of the land is considered the 'owner', you don't see movements (well intelligent ones) to dispossess the non-kelts of their lands, etc. If 'Europeans' got to the Americas first they later died out, or were defeated/absorbed into the later people movements from Asia. ie the native Americans were here ..... and still are

There has been far to much movement of peoples to define who 'owns' what, especially if you consider a Homo Erectus might have wandered around before HSS.

As an archeologist yourself, you know how hard it is going to be to change the established theory that the Bering Straight migration is the sole route.

Probably not if the evidence holds the new paradigm would be in place in about 5-10 years, probably a lot earlier. Note how fast the two new lines of Human-types were accepted, Hobbits and Denisovans

Originally posted by masqua
As an archeologist yourself, you know how hard it is going to be to change the established theory that the Bering Straight migration is the sole route.

I thought that was now a gimme...but then we're still trying to convince some that the Norse got here before Columbus.

What's important to me is that faith in the system is re-established...that it becomes recognised that a paradigm shift requires a very high standard of proof, but our understanding of the past remains open to new information.

Imagination and conjecture should fuel the beginning of the process, not constitute the end product.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by masqua
As an archeologist yourself, you know how hard it is going to be to change the established theory that the Bering Straight migration is the sole route.

I thought that was now a gimme...but then we're still trying to convince some that the Norse got here before Columbus.

What's important to me is that faith in the system is re-established...that it becomes recognised that a paradigm shift requires a very high standard of proof, but our understanding of the past remains open to new information.

Imagination and conjecture should fuel the beginning of the process, not constitute the end product.

I remember the shift that occur when L'Anse Aux Meadows was found and authenticated, took about 4-5 years before all the text books were adjusted. A few people wouldn't accept it, one professor thought the Canadian Indians had gone to Greenland/Iceland, picked up Norse stuff then came back.........

Yes a very high standard and it will also be questioned and thoroughly probed and researched before the change occurs....one has seen a number of times when this has occurred, mistakes have been made and their are backdowns

reply to post by Hanslune


This is what i keep trying to say in various threads - archeology is a science. If the evidence supports a new set of conclusions, then those new conclusions will become the accepted norm. It just takes a bit of time and cross checking to eliminate any errors.

Also why i keep saying that ancient aliens didn't build lots of stuff - no evidence.

And to JohnnyCanuck,

Do people still genuinely dispute that Vikings got to the Americas before Columbus?

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Hanslune

 

This is what i keep trying to say in various threads - archeology is a science. If the evidence supports a new set of conclusions, then those new conclusions will become the accepted norm. It just takes a bit of time and cross checking to eliminate any errors.

Also why i keep saying that ancient aliens didn't build lots of stuff - no evidence.

And to JohnnyCanuck,

Do people still genuinely dispute that Vikings got to the Americas before Columbus?

There is a bit of ego involved in this by some of the scientists, they are human, but the evidence does eventually win out.

It just takes a bit of time and cross checking to eliminate any errors.

Absolutely, that B the method. Now some things go into the 'netherland', their is not enough evidence to tip the balance and they lie their for decades, sometimes the idea fads away in others the evidence, incomplete and unaccepted remains;

Examples:

Calico early man site, Valsequillo etc

Originally posted by Hanslune
I remember the shift that occur when L'Anse Aux Meadows was found and authenticated, took about 4-5 years before all the text books were adjusted. A few people wouldn't accept it, one professor thought the Canadian Indians had gone to Greenland/Iceland, picked up Norse stuff then came back.........

The debate continues in just such a fashion on "the Maine penny":

The Maine penny, also referred to as the Goddard coin, is a Norwegian silver penny dating to the reign of Olaf Kyrre (1067–1093 AD). The Maine State Museum describes it as "the only pre-Columbian Norse artifact generally regarded as genuine found within the United States". en.wikipedia.org...

...dispute the fact that it was found in context with a Dorset Inuit burin, which readily explains how it may have been schlepped south in just such a manner.

Still...that butternut at L'anse aux Meadows indicates that the Norse (or somebody on site) had visited a more temperate region.

What’s more, chemical analysis carried out last year on a European-style stone knife found in Virginia back in 1971 revealed that it was made of French-originating flint.

This i would like to know more about.

From what is know about the clovis people they were not adverse to using boat to travel along coasts or on large lakes
You have the kennewick man found near the coast.

The Arlington Springs Woman found on a island off the calif coast. plus the shell middens found on that island that date back around that time.

The Spirit Cave and Lovelock Mummies and the Wizard's Beach man found along the shores of the very large ice age lake in Nevada (Pleistocene Lake Lahontan)
www.cabrillo.edu...

The spread of boat people would have been faster then walkers. and that would cover the fact that people got as far as Monte Verde near the Pacific Coast of Chile around 14,000 years ago.

One problem with a coastal boat people is many of there seashore sites would have been lost as the sea levels increased at the end of the ice ago and flooded the sites.
Only sites from groups of them that left the coast to live inland would still easy to find.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

The debate continues in just such a fashion on "the Maine penny":

Yes that is a good example, that penny was the first item I came across when I started to study the Greenland colonies and the Norse. I had a classmate who spent 40+ years looking along the New England coast for other Norse items - never found a single item

This explains why the Olmec and Basque share that one common myth about the storm god and his wife.

Originally posted by lostinspace
This explains why the Olmec and Basque share that one common myth about the storm god and his wife.

What? There is no surviving record of olmec mythology, just images who's true meaning and context has been lost to time.

Originally posted by clowdstalker
The Solutrean hypothesis theories have been around for a long time, since the early seventies to be precise and stemmed from a single artifact fragment recovered from an excavation in Cactus Hill, Virginia.

that's not true...there is other evidence.
www.allendale-expedition.net...

Originally posted by lordpiney

Originally posted by clowdstalker
The Solutrean hypothesis theories have been around for a long time, since the early seventies to be precise and stemmed from a single artifact fragment recovered from an excavation in Cactus Hill, Virginia.

that's not true...there is other evidence.
www.allendale-expedition.net...

Thanks for providing the link. I will read it with interest. I'll remind the thread that the hypothesis fuels the research which provides the proof (if indeed, it is out there). Make no mistake, though, this latest development is attracting a lot of scrutiny in the archaeological community.

Originally posted by punkinworks10

Originally posted by lostinspace
This explains why the Olmec and Basque share that one common myth about the storm god and his wife.

What? There is no surviving record of olmec mythology, just images who's true meaning and context has been lost to time.

Funny you feel that way. Your predecessor, the original ‘punkinworks’ thought differently about this subject. Unless that’s you with a different view and an old lost password.

A stone-frieze at Chalcatzingo depicts the Basque legend of hail formation when a cave dwelling woman periodically travels with her consort associated with storms and thunder.

The Olmec and the ancient Basque peoples share a common myth

Not quite on topic but still ancient marriners - has anyone seen todays New Scientist on the old inter web? Fascinating article on Neanderthals beating man to ocean going journeys by a long shot, with suggestions they were using boats up to 130'000 years ago (and possibly before that).

The other theory was that they were good swimmers! (since been discounted). Certainly interesting though in that if Neanderthals could do it then why couldn't ancient man? Obviously, the evidence would need to be found but in my mind (admittedly not a font of all knowledge) i would be surprised if neanderthals could use boats but it was beyond ancient man.