| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Clovis were Amerindians! (not Solutreans)
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Clovis were Amerindians! (not Solutreans)

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Clovis were Amerindians! (not Solutreans)
    Posted: 17 Mar 2014 at 02:11
The idea that Clovis were Europeans has finally been destroyed. New studies have shown they were Amerindians related to Siberians, which makes sense. The racist Solutrean nonsense is dying, for good.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-12/dna-shows-clovis-people-as-ancestors-to-native-americans.html


Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2014 at 04:12
Can you explain me please, what the Solutreen theory has to do with racism?
It is simply a theory to explain some spearhead traditions and to explain the appearence of R1(M173) in NW America.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2014 at 04:31
Solutrean theory is eurocentric. It tries to justify the presence of the pale man in North American soil in early times, given them natural rights to the lands they invaded and robbed to native people.
What's worst. Every evidence points to the fact American Indians came from Siberia... which is far away from Europe.




Edited by pinguin - 17 Mar 2014 at 04:33
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2014 at 04:43
Calling these theory eurocentristic and racist seems to be more racist. The earliest skulls which were discovered in America are without mongoloid features, as i said before Solutreen spear heads look similar to clovis ones and there is a lot of R1(M173) in the NW of North America. To create a theory that supposes an impact from Europe via the Atlantic is not eurocentristic, as the claim of an asian origin of amerindians is not racist or asiacentric.
That there is evidence against such theory is something completely different. And BTW, your statement insinuates, that these "eurocentrist" theory is only supported by some whites. These whites also support other theories, like those of an migration from Asia.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2014 at 08:36
During centuries White Americans have tried to undermine the fact Native Americans arrived first. For instance, the hoaxes about Vikings in southern latitudes, the mythology of Mormons, falsely attributing the Cahokian mounds to Europeans or Asians (because Indians were too primitive, for them),  the myth of the pale Indians... All of them racist attempts to destroy the history of Native Americans. The Solutrean myth was created by the same kind of racist mentality.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2014 at 17:10
There were a lot of scientists from different subjects and countries who supported the Solutreen or Atlantik-theory. To call them all white racists is untrue and offensive. I would be happy, if you could bring here evidence that the theory is wrong. That wouldn't be too difficult, because the theory is meanwhile rejected by a lot of scientists. That would be much better then to insist in your racist accusations.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2014 at 11:48
This month it was shown in detail the genome of a clovis child. He had no trace of European on him. Solutrean theory is gone, for good! For the link, see the first post.




Edited by pinguin - 18 Mar 2014 at 11:52
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2014 at 17:45
I don´t remember anyone here advocating other ideas than ancient peoples of the Americas came from somewhere in Siberia. To find out how, some underwater research (by unmanned underwater "robots"?) is probably needed. How they may have done it, and what kind of people theyy maay have been seems more interesting than any discussion about those more or less "political" issues of little relevance.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2014 at 10:37
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The idea that Clovis were Europeans has finally been destroyed. New studies have shown they were Amerindians related to Siberians, which makes sense. The racist Solutrean nonsense is dying, for good.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-12/dna-shows-clovis-people-as-ancestors-to-native-americans.html


 
But where did the people come from prior to Siberia?
 
They just didn't pop up there like spring flowers.
 
Early paintings and photographs of American Indians shows a variety of phenotypes, ranging from Mongoloid to Caucasian. How do you explain that?
 
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the Indians living in the north of the USA were more Caucasian, while the Indians in the south were more Mongoloid.
 
 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 02 May 2014 at 22:56
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2014 at 13:15
Well, the last wave of humans abandoned Africa between 40.000 to 35.000 years ago. Now we know they mix with neanderthals in Eurasia, and they spread all over the old world from Spain to Japan, before moving to Beringia around 25.000 years ago and entering the Americas circa 15.000 years ago.

And with respect to early paintings of Amerindians, they don't count much. Art usually represent peoples with varying phenotypes, humans tend to mix, and photography didn't exist in early colonial times. Even more, it seems Indians in the U.S. were a lot more mixed with Europeans (and some Africans) than in other latitudes. The typical Amerindian phenotype can be observed relatively pure among Mayans and Amazonians, and the looks resemble Asians.




Edited by pinguin - 19 Mar 2014 at 13:20
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2014 at 13:22
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

I don´t remember anyone here advocating other ideas than ancient peoples of the Americas came from somewhere in Siberia. To find out how, some underwater research (by unmanned underwater "robots"?) is probably needed. How they may have done it, and what kind of people theyy maay have been seems more interesting than any discussion about those more or less "political" issues of little relevance.


That's a very interesting area of future research. Unfortunately, most of the trail people followed when peopling the Americas is along the Pacific coast, from Alaska to Land of Fire, and it is today underwater, as you say.


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2014 at 16:04
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


And with respect to early paintings of Amerindians, they don't count much. Art usually represent peoples with varying phenotypes, humans tend to mix, and photography didn't exist in early colonial times.
 
But, you forget, photography was around in the latter part of the 19th Century, as were American Indian aplenty. The lens doesn't lie.
 
 
 Even more, it seems Indians in the U.S. were a lot more mixed with Europeans (and some Africans) than in other latitudes.
 
Gimme a break. Are you trying to say that the Indians of the USA, at the time of white settlement, had mixed with Europeans?
 
And there weren't any Africans in the USA at the time of white settlement.
 
The typical Amerindian phenotype can be observed relatively pure among Mayans and Amazonians, and the looks resemble Asians.
 
I don't agree that the Asian phenotype was typical of all Indians. The South Americans, yes. Many in the Southern USA, also. But not in the northern USA.

 

 

Sitting Bull                                            Creek Indian




Edited by toyomotor - 19 Mar 2014 at 16:09
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2014 at 16:18
penguin:
 
Is it possible that your obsession with South America could be clouding your judgement?
 
Some of your comments are so far off base that it would take a bloke two weeks to walk back to centre.
 
Why can't you accept that the world did not/does not revolve around South America?


Edited by toyomotor - 19 Mar 2014 at 16:19
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2014 at 22:46
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Well, the last wave of humans abandoned Africa between 40.000 to 35.000 years ago. Now we know they mix with neanderthals in Eurasia, and they spread all over the old world from Spain to Japan, before moving to Beringia around 25.000 years ago and entering the Americas circa 15.000 years ago.

And with respect to early paintings of Amerindians, they don't count much. Art usually represent peoples with varying phenotypes, humans tend to mix, and photography didn't exist in early colonial times. Even more, it seems Indians in the U.S. were a lot more mixed with Europeans (and some Africans) than in other latitudes. The typical Amerindian phenotype can be observed relatively pure among Mayans and Amazonians, and the looks resemble Asians.

genetic research lets us suppose, that modern humans left Africa before 70ky BP, not in a last wave 40-35ky BP. Neanderthalian DNA makes only a percent. So there was only a very limited gene-flow and as it seems did this happen as well in the near east, maybe 60ky BP ago.
The Amerindian ancestors started there way somewhere in South Asia, via Sibiria till Beringia. The time of 25ky BP may be correct, maybe it was even some ky earlier. I am not sure, whether Amerindians entered America around 15ky BP. The glacial passages were closed at that days and opened first again 9ky BP, when the NaDene people came. The arrival of Amerindians therefore must have happened earlier.

This explains as well, why the first Amerindians look "europide". The mongolisation process happened during the glacial maximum in Sibiria. The early Amerindians seem to have been less effected by these process.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2014 at 11:17
True. The Amerindians descend from a population closely related to Siberians and Turkish populations, and not from the typical Han Chinese, Korean or Japanese populations. And it has been established that the date of crossing is around 15k ybp. At 12k ybp there are remains of Amerindians in Monte Verde in Southern Chile.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2014 at 11:22
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

But, you forget, photography was around in the latter part of the 19th Century, as were American Indian aplenty. The lens doesn't lie.
 
Gimme a break. Are you trying to say that the Indians of the USA, at the time of white settlement, had mixed with Europeans?
 
And there weren't any Africans in the USA at the time of white settlement.


Sir. I have lived in Chile and Canada, and I know the Indian populations of both North and South America. In North America, particularly in the East Coast, no matter there are individuals quite Amerindian looking the typical Indigenous person is mixed. Common. There weren't pre-Columbian Indians with long noses, squared faces, very light skin, blond or blue eyed. By 19th century, most Amerindians in Eastern U.S. were already mixed. And that's an historical fact. Even more, many so called "half breed" (I would prefer to say "twice breed" rather than the pejorative "half") were already passing as whites. Come on, they even got Cherokee newspapers published in "white" towns LOL


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2014 at 11:30
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

penguin:
 
Is it possible that your obsession with South America could be clouding your judgement?
 
Some of your comments are so far off base that it would take a bloke two weeks to walk back to centre.
 
Why can't you accept that the world did not/does not revolve around South America?


Sir. You don't comply with some basic rules of etiquette necessary when arguing something. 

(1) You are attacking me, and not my arguments. That's a fault of rhetoric and also of courtesy.

(2) It is your opinion that I make comments "far off base", simply because, I believe, you don't know enough about the topic I am talking about. Please excuse, but you sir know very little about the history of the Americas, as shown in your commentary on potatoes, tomatoes and rubber

(3) And it is true the world doesn't revolve around South America, the matter of fact is that "THIS SECTION OF THE FORUM" revolves around the history of the Americas; and South America is part of it. Got it?


Edited by pinguin - 20 Mar 2014 at 11:30
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2014 at 11:41
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Well, the last wave of humans abandoned Africa between 40.000 to 35.000 years ago. Now we know they mix with neanderthals in Eurasia, and they spread all over the old world from Spain to Japan, before moving to Beringia around 25.000 years ago and entering the Americas circa 15.000 years ago.

And with respect to early paintings of Amerindians, they don't count much. Art usually represent peoples with varying phenotypes, humans tend to mix, and photography didn't exist in early colonial times. Even more, it seems Indians in the U.S. were a lot more mixed with Europeans (and some Africans) than in other latitudes. The typical Amerindian phenotype can be observed relatively pure among Mayans and Amazonians, and the looks resemble Asians.

genetic research lets us suppose, that modern humans left Africa before 70ky BP, not in a last wave 40-35ky BP. Neanderthalian DNA makes only a percent. So there was only a very limited gene-flow and as it seems did this happen as well in the near east, maybe 60ky BP ago.
The Amerindian ancestors started there way somewhere in South Asia, via Sibiria till Beringia. The time of 25ky BP may be correct, maybe it was even some ky earlier. I am not sure, whether Amerindians entered America around 15ky BP. The glacial passages were closed at that days and opened first again 9ky BP, when the NaDene people came. The arrival of Amerindians therefore must have happened earlier.

This explains as well, why the first Amerindians look "europide". The mongolisation process happened during the glacial maximum in Sibiria. The early Amerindians seem to have been less effected by these process.
 
beorna: 
That makes perfect sense. Thanks.


Edited by toyomotor - 20 Mar 2014 at 12:16
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2014 at 11:46
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

penguin:
 
Is it possible that your obsession with South America could be clouding your judgement?
 
Some of your comments are so far off base that it would take a bloke two weeks to walk back to centre.
 
Why can't you accept that the world did not/does not revolve around South America?


Sir. You don't comply with some basic rules of etiquette necessary when arguing something. 

(1) You are attacking me, and not my arguments. That's a fault of rhetoric and also of courtesy.

(2) It is your opinion that I make comments "far off base", simply because, I believe, you don't know enough about the topic I am talking about. Please excuse, but you sir know very little about the history of the Americas, as shown in your commentary on potatoes, tomatoes and rubber

(3) And it is true the world doesn't revolve around South America, the matter of fact is that "THIS SECTION OF THE FORUM" revolves around the history of the Americas; and South America is part of it. Got it?
If I were the only one to disagree with you, I might think that perhaps you're right. But I'm not.
 
Some of your posts appear to be, as I said before "Amerocentric" and slanted towards a South American point of view, regardless of what others tell you.
 
I don't mean to "attack" you, just to point out that your views on some things ignore what experts have told us.
 
I don't profess to be an expert on anything, but I am capable of reading different points of view, analysing what they say, and then making my own determination on what to believe.
 
Anyway, I'm not getting into a slanging match with you, that's not what the forum is about. If you feel offended by my disagreement with you, I apologise. 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2014 at 12:45
penguin wrote:
"Sir. I have lived in Chile and Canada, and I know the Indian populations of both North and South America. In North America, particularly in the East Coast, no matter there are individuals quite Amerindian looking the typical Indigenous person is mixed. Common. There weren't pre-Columbian Indians with long noses, squared faces, very light skin, blond or blue eyed. By 19th century, most Amerindians in Eastern U.S. were already mixed. And that's an historical fact. Even more, many so called "half breed" (I would prefer to say "twice breed" rather than the pejorative "half") were already passing as whites. Come on, they even got Cherokee newspapers published in "white" towns LOL"
 
WOW!!
That's a pretty racist comment to make, especially with no proof at all.
 
You forget, again, that what was happening in South America, pre Columbus, has little relativity to what was happening in North America.
 
You cannot possibly believe that in the 1800's that all North American Indians were of mixed descent. That's absolute horse pucky! And who suggested blue eyes?
 
I've posted two early photographs of North American Indians, the first one you could possibly say displays slightly Asian phenotypes (possibly) but not the Creek Indian. If I had to guess, I'd say he looks more central to eastern European.
 
I'd guess that there would be more than a few North American Indians lining up to punch you on the nose if they read what you wrote.
 
This is the sort of comment that I've referred to before.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2014 at 21:08
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

True. The Amerindians descend from a population closely related to Siberians and Turkish populations, and not from the typical Han Chinese, Korean or Japanese populations. And it has been established that the date of crossing is around 15k ybp. At 12k ybp there are remains of Amerindians in Monte Verde in Southern Chile.

The Buttermilk Creek complex in Texas is up to 15,5 ky BP. Monte Verde in Chile has been dated to 14,8 ky BP, not to mention claimed dates with more than 30 ky BP.
If the first Americans came around 15 ky BP, they must have made a race thru the whole continents, down to Terra del Fuego, without a break. Shouldn't we expect, that they stopped for some generations from time to time?
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2014 at 21:57
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

True. The Amerindians descend from a population closely related to Siberians and Turkish populations, and not from the typical Han Chinese, Korean or Japanese populations. And it has been established that the date of crossing is around 15k ybp. At 12k ybp there are remains of Amerindians in Monte Verde in Southern Chile.

The Buttermilk Creek complex in Texas is up to 15,5 ky BP. Monte Verde in Chile has been dated to 14,8 ky BP, not to mention claimed dates with more than 30 ky BP.
If the first Americans came around 15 ky BP, they must have made a race thru the whole continents, down to Terra del Fuego, without a break. Shouldn't we expect, that they stopped for some generations from time to time?
If they migrated from north to south in 2-3000 years they had plenty of time!That is an average of a few kilometres pr.year (or a small fraction of a degree).
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2014 at 23:27
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

True. The Amerindians descend from a population closely related to Siberians and Turkish populations, and not from the typical Han Chinese, Korean or Japanese populations. And it has been established that the date of crossing is around 15k ybp. At 12k ybp there are remains of Amerindians in Monte Verde in Southern Chile.

The Buttermilk Creek complex in Texas is up to 15,5 ky BP. Monte Verde in Chile has been dated to 14,8 ky BP, not to mention claimed dates with more than 30 ky BP.
If the first Americans came around 15 ky BP, they must have made a race thru the whole continents, down to Terra del Fuego, without a break. Shouldn't we expect, that they stopped for some generations from time to time?
If they migrated from north to south in 2-3000 years they had plenty of time!That is an average of a few kilometres pr.year (or a small fraction of a degree).

Please explain me, why people migrate from the arctic steppes to Tierra del Fuego? Why did they leave the the sunny places in Middle America, why did they leave the pacific coastal region?
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 10:15
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

If they migrated from north to south in 2-3000 years they had plenty of time!That is an average of a few kilometres pr.year (or a small fraction of a degree).


Exactly! People walking along the coast could do the ride in just a few years, or several months. Walking at random perhaps would take a century. Not more. There weren't natural barriers. Also, there weren't other humans to stop them from going wherever in the Americas.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 10:17
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


Please explain me, why people migrate from the arctic steppes to Tierra del Fuego? Why did they leave the the sunny places in Middle America, why did they leave the pacific coastal region?


People didn't migrate following sunny climates, but along the coast. They were fishermen that dive to capture sea food in the cold water of the Humboldt current! By the way, there are penguins in Galapagos (Ecuador), at the center of the world, and it is not because the sea is very hot at all.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 10:20
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

I've posted two early photographs of North American Indians, the first one you could possibly say displays slightly Asian phenotypes (possibly) but not the Creek Indian. If I had to guess, I'd say he looks more central to eastern European.

Fellow, the Creek Indian has an European phenotype.
Unfortunately, since the time of silent movies, too many dark hair Europeans, particularly Italians, have enjoyed playing Indian that the public has no idea how a fully Amerindian looks like.




Edited by pinguin - 21 Mar 2014 at 10:21
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 11:48
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

I've posted two early photographs of North American Indians, the first one you could possibly say displays slightly Asian phenotypes (possibly) but not the Creek Indian. If I had to guess, I'd say he looks more central to eastern European.

Fellow, the Creek Indian has an European phenotype.
Unfortunately, since the time of silent movies, too many dark hair Europeans, particularly Italians, have enjoyed playing Indian that the public has no idea how a fully Amerindian looks like.


 
Fellow, the Creek Indian has an European phenotype.

 My dear chap, that's precisely what I'm suggesting!
 
Not all American Indians have Asian Phenotypes. Some of the tribes of the northern, what is now, USA have distinctly European features.
 
I agree that most, if not all, South American Indians have Asian phenotypes-no argument at all.
 
But you can't just say that all North American Indians were of mixed origins.
 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 21 Mar 2014 at 11:51
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 17:38
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


Please explain me, why people migrate from the arctic steppes to Tierra del Fuego? Why did they leave the the sunny places in Middle America, why did they leave the pacific coastal region?


People didn't migrate following sunny climates, but along the coast. They were fishermen that dive to capture sea food in the cold water of the Humboldt current! By the way, there are penguins in Galapagos (Ecuador), at the center of the world, and it is not because the sea is very hot at all.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

If they migrated from north to south in 2-3000 years they had plenty of time!That is an average of a few kilometres pr.year (or a small fraction of a degree).


Exactly! People walking along the coast could do the ride in just a few years, or several months. Walking at random perhaps would take a century. Not more. There weren't natural barriers. Also, there weren't other humans to stop them from going wherever in the Americas.

So a small founding group has nothing else to do than to rush from the north of North America to the south of South America? They leave the rich fishing and hunting areas to look for others? These fisher-men had nothing else to do than to leave the rich fishing and hunting regions along the pacific coast to hunt horses, camels and bisons in the prairies or rabbits in the deserts?
The oldest human findings in Australia are only 40,000 years old, allthough the last(!) human wave out of Africa left already 70,000 years before. Modern human finding out of Africa exist already 120,000 years BP. So humans needed 30-80,000 years or if we take 60,000 as oldest date for a possible modern human migration into Australia at least 10-60,000 years to move from the Sinai to Australia, but North America was populated from the North Pole to Cape Horn within 1-2,000 years?
Who shall believe this?
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 17:50
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

True. The Amerindians descend from a population closely related to Siberians and Turkish populations, and not from the typical Han Chinese, Korean or Japanese populations. And it has been established that the date of crossing is around 15k ybp. At 12k ybp there are remains of Amerindians in Monte Verde in Southern Chile.

The Buttermilk Creek complex in Texas is up to 15,5 ky BP. Monte Verde in Chile has been dated to 14,8 ky BP, not to mention claimed dates with more than 30 ky BP.
If the first Americans came around 15 ky BP, they must have made a race thru the whole continents, down to Terra del Fuego, without a break. Shouldn't we expect, that they stopped for some generations from time to time?
If they migrated from north to south in 2-3000 years they had plenty of time!That is an average of a few kilometres pr.year (or a small fraction of a degree).

Please explain me, why people migrate from the arctic steppes to Tierra del Fuego? Why did they leave the the sunny places in Middle America, why did they leave the pacific coastal region?
Most likely a lot stayed in the tropical regions.
That said, when the best places for hunting or getting food in other ways were occupied, "surplus" populations could be motivated to leave. And idf some regions may seem rather harsh and unhospitable that does not mean they always was.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 19:33
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

....... And idf some regions may seem rather harsh and unhospitable that does not mean they always was.

Yes, the habitates in America changed during the eras. The Plains and Praries weren't allways a dry place e.g.

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


Most likely a lot stayed in the tropical regions.
That said, when the best places for hunting or getting food in other ways were occupied, "surplus" populations could be motivated to leave. And idf some regions may seem rather harsh and unhospitable that does not mean they always was.

Yes, a surplus population is supposed to move on. But for such a scenario a region must have had the maximum population. But the scenario above by pinguin has a few kilometers per year. Unlikely, that the maximum population for a region was reached within a few month or maybe a few years.

The scenario I support is, that Amerindians already arrived in America around 25ky BP and remained there and populated the continent till the glaciers opened 9000 y BP. maybe there was already before some contact with Asia via the coastal zone.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.